Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maylani Ah Hoy

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 delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maylani Ah Hoy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources exist such as [1] but they aren't 'significant'. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has played for the women's biggest international team tennis event, Fed Cup (now Billie Jean King Cup). Most times that would be enough since players at that level usually play much more pro tennis. She did not so that's a strike against her. But she has also won 3 golds (2003 and 2007), and 1 bronze medal (2007) at the Pacific Games. Those are huge accomplishments for the South Pacific region. I don't speak Samoan so I can't search those newspapers for coverage, but they are often quoting her for her opinion because of her importance to women in Samoan sports. I'd keep this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of this meets WP:GNG, and therefore an invalid reason to keep. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not invalid in the least. Consensus quite often trumps any "guidelines" especially when other languages are involved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus cannot override policy, such as WP:BLP, WP:V // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even close to a policy issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is policy. // Timothy :: talk 08:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not a BLP issue... the sources are great. Whether their are enough of them is a guideline issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources are routine sports news, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BIO showed more of the same. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed by Timothy. CastJared (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2023 (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.