Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Barry (tennis)

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. — Cirt (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Barry (tennis)[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely doesn't pass WP:NTENNIS, but a look through google news archive leaves me to think that he does pass WP:GNG. For example, this in the Evening Herald, this in the Irish Independent, this in the Irish Independent, this in the Irish Independent, this in the Irish Independent, this in the Irish Independent, this in the Evening Herald, this in The Irish Times, this in The Irish Times, this in The Irish Times, this in The Guardian, this from RTÉ Sport, this in the Irish Independent, this in The Irish Times, this in the Limerick Leader, this from RTÉ Sport, this in the Irish Independent, this in the Irish Independent, this from RTÉ Sport, this from The Irish Times, this in The Irish Times. From this it seems pretty clear to me that Barry passes GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 17 June 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) 00:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Failing a subject guideline like WP:NTENNIS does not mean that the article must be deleted, it simply means that the subject often does not satisfy the WP:GNG. There are always exceptions, and the sources dug up by Jenks24 indicate that this is the case here. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:04, 22 June 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.