Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dustin Brown career statistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 13:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Brown career statistics[edit]

Dustin Brown career statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT statistics, fails WP:N. With a highest ranking of 64 (singles) and 43 (doubles), this is a good but not exceptional player, and the attention they have received is related. They are not known for exceptional statistics (like e.g. Nadal or Federer are), and so their statistics can be extracted from sources, but have not been the subject of attention (unlike the real top players). There are probably quite some more similar players in Category:Tennis career statistics, this one was one of the lesser known players there. If the list of statistics is too long for the main Dustin Brown article, then the solution is to remove less important ones (like the Challengers and Futures results), not to move it to a separate page. Fram (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 14:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a brief summary of notabile information can be put on the article on Brown, we do not need this comprehensive and detailed of information.14:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2020 (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.