Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura-Ioana Andrei

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. If any of the early "keep" !voters would like the text moved to userspace, drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura-Ioana Andrei[edit]

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

This article was deleted back in 2015 because of no notability. She fails NSPORT and Tennis Project Guidelines. Now it's brought back in 2017 and she has done nothing in the interim. No WTA main draws. No minor league ITF wins. Only a couple victories at the lowest level of minor/minor league. Tennis Project Guidelines are pretty inclusive (most say too inclusive). Get into a main draw of a WTA event, play in Fed Cup, win a Grand Slam tournament as a jr, win a minor league ($50,000+) event. But playing and winning minor-minor league events is nothing. This player has done nothing notable in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see a challenged PROD in the article history, but not an actual deletion discussion or deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in 2015. It was brought back the other day for some unknown reason. I don't see that this person does meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG at all. This aren't even minor league tennis events... they are minor-minor league. The lowest of the low. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google News search results alone indicate WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. Those google results are almost exclusively for lists of appearances or scores. That is not GNG. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in your opinion. Let's hear from other editors. Hmlarson (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Fyunck(click)'s opinion, it's a wikipedia guideline.T v x1 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I had this undeleted recently because the article is listed at WP:WANTED (due to the large number of incoming links). Of course non-administrators such as myself cannot see what's in a deleted article until it is undeleted and this one turned out to be not particularly impressive. But I still lean keep because of the number of redlinks created by deletion does not improve the encylopedia (I know that's not an orthodox keep reason but hey, WP:NORULES). ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's backwards. We are not supposed to create red-links for non-notable entities. Red links are for notable things that need to be created. And as you write this many of those red links have been eliminated by me, with more to come. She is not notable for anything tennis related. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links re-instated to active article, Laura-Ioana Andrei:

Hmlarson (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great more backwards stuff. Article deleted for two years and we don't get to the red links, and now you revert the ones I fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The tennis project is extremely inclusive, so if a subject does not meet that |project's notability guideline nor Wikipedia's GNG, it's crystal that we should not have an article on that subject. Also, doesn't this fall under WP:G4? T v x1 21:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. This was WP:PRODDED, not sent to WP:AFD so there was never a deletion discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Also fails NTENNIS. And what is this "strong delete", "weak keep" etc.? There only should be votes like "Keep" or "Delete" (Gabinho^>:) 20:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Gabinho: Because this is a discussion not a vote. Any additional information participants can provide about their position can help us more readily reach a WP:CONSENSUS. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NTENNIS. All these discussions about whether the subject specific guidelines matter at all is irrelevant, because she doesn't meet them. If evidence were demonstrated that she met them, I would reconsider. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the notability guidelines for tennis players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Citations only show basic coverage of tournament results.--Wolbo (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would be very interested which cites Hmlarson thinks satisfied the GNG, because none in the article do. Any Keep vote here seems more by way of a kneejerk "OMG I see sources it must be notable!!" than any actual examination of them. Ravenswing 17:41, 9 August 2017 (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.