Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NSW Junior Tennis Rankings

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NSW Junior Tennis Rankings[edit]

Not an encyclopedic topic, but a mere listing of (junior) rankings with no evidence of accuracy other than the assurance of the creating editor. One of the cited sources is "NSW Selectors Lists". Wikipedia is not a free web host and data of this nature is best hosted elsewhere. A disputed PROD, reasons for disputing are given on the article talk page Mattinbgn\^talk 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the players listed have not competed at either "fully professional level of a sport" or the "highest amateur level of a sport" and therefore article fails WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links both to and from this article have been updated.

There are other pages on Wikipedia which list Australian tennis players/results at a junior level, but these pages are not considered for deletion. Not all of these players have continued to become world famious stars. Examples of pages include Junior Wimbledon Winners and Runners-Up (eg Debbie Freeman); Junior Australian Championship results, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegum Bill (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Bluegum Bill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I think that the article should stay. It contains links to other Australian tennis players listed on Wikipedia and puts their career as a whole into context. It provides an opportunity for people to see how they performed at a junior level. Regarding the earlier delete message (Most of the players listed have not competed at the "highest amateur level of a sport), I would argue that ALL of these players have competed at the highest amateur level. Remember that 'Juniors' also includes 18 year olds. Many of these players (eg Debbie Freeman, Amanda Tobin, Craig Miller, etc) were playing at Wimbledon the year after they left the junior ranks! If this is not the highest amateur than what is!! Also, regarding the earlier message (Most of the players listed have not competed at a "fully professional level of a sport) with a reference given of "WP:ATHLETE", this page doesn't state word 'Most", but simply 'People who have competed....". The page in question certainly meets this criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.237.196 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 203.54.237.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You may be misinterpreting the intent of WP:ATHLETE. Highest amateur level refers to adults, not juniors and refers to national level (or interstate), not state. Else we'd be potentially having hundreds of such lists—think of every sport/age group/regional combination. Djanga 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am sorry that the author has put a lot of work into this but it fails notability criteria per WP:ATHLETE and Lists of people. Junior international winners are listed in List of Wimbledon champions and List of Grand Slam Boys' Singles champions (etc) which is reasonable as these are representative national players. Djanga 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the reasoning of Djanga. State-based listing of largely unnotable athletes, at least by the standard prescribed under WP:ATHLETE Murtoa (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I disagree with calling junior athletes non-notable merely by their age (nothing specifies age as a criterion to determine what highest amateur level is), this list has obvious issues. It's not referenced; it merely names publications, it doesn't cite them. And lists generally should contain members that articles can be written about (most juniors simply lack sources for an article altogether) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (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.