Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viktorija Rajicic (3rd nomination)

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 Speedy keep - Non-admin close. John of Reading (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viktorija Rajicic[edit]

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

Delete — As was the case when the article was deleted by AfD last time: the subject fails to meet any of the six tennis notability criteria. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Fly by Night (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: – The above statement is the actual nomination for deletion, and not an !vote, as the formatting may suggest. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a !vote. I wouldn't nominate if I didn't believe it should be deleted. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:DISCUSSAFD, point number 9: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase here is "…refrain from repeating…". Never once have I nominated and then repeated on a "separate bulleted line". I simply choose to bullet my nomination.

~~This afd should be removed and simply put up again under Speedy Delete. This player is still just as non-notable as before when we discussed and deleted her.~~ Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to nominate for speedy deletion. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems this player was in section 4 of the main draw of the Australian Open in 2011. That's an automatic qualification for tennis notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Could you indicate which criteria of WP:NTENNIS that you think she meets, and also provide a reliable source to verify it? If you can then this AfD would be redundant. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I use the Tennis guidelines link since it's more detailed. It says "Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments." And at the bottom it applies equally to singles and doubles. She is notable. And the actual website draw is at Aussie 2011 draw, court 15. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was in the main draw at the Australian Open, as pointed out above.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 9. Snotbot t • c » 02:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Besides Australian Open she was also in the main draw of 2011 Medibank International Sydney – Women's Doubles. So, two main draw appearances that satisfy NTENNIS. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was a not-yet-notable. Now notable. --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As the nominator, I withdrew my nomination and closed the AfD. User talk:Snotbot has reopened the discussion and has replaced the template. The subject of the article is, as Dweller sums it up, now notable. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2012 (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.