Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanna Mergies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is agreement that BLP1E reasoning is inapplicable here. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angélique Vialard features an identical argument. Dcoetzee 06:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Mergies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article is only notable for one event. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 13:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source cited in the article covers much more than just one event. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: BLP1E isn't applicable. Professional achievements are not "news events" in that sub-guideline's sense (even if they happen to be reported in the news). BLP1E exists to prevent articles from being written about, say, someone who was briefly in the news for having been in a drunk driving accident that killed an entire family, or being one of the many victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It's not an excuse to nuke articles on professional athletes early in their careers. :-) What is applicable is WP:ATHLETE, as well as WP:N generally. Since multiple, independent reliable sources reported on the IBSF World Snooker Championship and its progress, including hers, the GNG would seem to be satisfied, albeit marginally. I'd be surprised if at least one major snooker site doesn't have an interview, profile or other content on her more specifically, and there may be Polish sources on her that we're not seeing because of the whole systemic bias effect, but it's 1 a.m. and I don't have the wakefulness to go looking. We're a bit indeterminate on WP:N, then, but with presumption in favor of the subject, clearly, because of non-trivial coverage of the event and its players. WP:ATHLETE's only applicable requirement is "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", which is clearly satisfied, since the IBSF World event is the top event in amateur snooker. Personally I have long thought that "participation" should not be enough to qualify for athletic notability (some world championships, in quite number of sports, can have many hundreds of one-timer participants); more like at least making it into the quarter-finals. But she did. So even my overly-strict wishes are satisfied. I don't see any way around the clear wording of WP:ATHLETE; we do have highest-level event participation. That said, it's a miserable little stub and needs some attention. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned above, competition in global sporting events isn't covered by the one event provision, and can confer notability. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.