Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathalie Piquion

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Piquion[edit]

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

I see no $35,000 ITF wins. I see no main draws in WTA events either. No Fed Cup either... per reason this player fails NTENNIS and Tennis project guidelines for notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:48, 5 March 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 March 5. Snotbot t • c » 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It froze after the last step...it looked ok but a link looked funny and I wasn't sure how to fix it. Thanks to snotbot.:-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WikiProject guidelines do not override the general notability guidelines. They are instead intended to function as an (easier to verify) proxy for the GNG. Often times, they work well, but in this particular case they do not. A quick news search shows that Piquion has been the primary subject of several dozen news stories and thus she passes the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sometimes a person is very notable without making the cut at Tennis project guidelines or WP:NTennis... nothing is perfect. But I don't think this person really qualifies as being notable. We have to take tennis out because she has done nothing at all tennis related to make her notable. So then we have to see if she's notable for having a bunch of magazine or newspaper articles written about her nonetheless. Big articles in newspapers or magazines that would have to do with mostly her... not an interview after a match especially in super low ranked tournaments. Looking at your source, the first Google hit is from 2010 La Provence and it is nothing... saying no French ladies made the tourney bracket, Nathalie Piquion being the last to lose. The next hit is from "Paris/Nomandie" city talk and forum... one sentence from 2011 that says her year stunk and she joined something called ACE Rouen CPU. The next hit is for La Parisien... a short paragraph that said Piquion cryed after being crushed in a tiny tournament 6-3,6-1. The rest of the first hit bunch looked about the same. My point is these are tiny little blurbs that usually mention a bunch of players of whom Nathalie Piquion is one. These are not magazine expose's or multiple major newspaper articles talking only about this person. They are tiny tidbits that all the low ranked pro players and jr's get at some time or another. If you make it to a final and any websports person is there covering it (no matter how tiny an event it is) you will get asked how you feel about the loss or win... that does not make a person notable. From what I saw nothing made this person notable. Maybe she will be in the future but not now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clearly fails NTENNIS. To pass via GNG we would need to find in depth coverage about her in several reliable media. I don't see it. The few gnews results that come up are just routine sports coverage, nothing in depth. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I created this article in 2010, notability criteria were Top 200 player in singles or one title won in a $25,000 tournament, and both criteria were met. Since the criteria were changed, the player may not be notable anymore. I just want to add that there are also a lot of sources with the "Natalie Piquion" spelling, if the "subject of news stories" is a criterion for keeping/deleting the article Vinz57 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this must have been a consensus discussion? When I look back when this was created in July 2010, WP:NSports/Tennis notability guideline said

Tennis figures are presumed notable if they:

Are a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category.

Have competed in at least one Grand slam tournament (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, or the US Open), an ATP World Tour Finals, an ATP World Tour Masters 1000 event or a WTA Premier Tournament.

Have won a match in a second level event, such as one of the ATP International Series Gold events, or the ATP World Tour 500 series or WTA Tour.

This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Junior players are not presumed notable.

Now we've gotten far more detailed since then, so it really doesn't matter, but at the time of creating it looks like it didn't meet specs either? Maybe there were other guides? Or was this more the tennis consensus talk (which is perfectly legit) like scoring format and sourcing... which were talked about, polled and understood but not actually written down in the guide yet? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD has been running for 10 days. Shouldn't it get closed or relisted? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^chatter 16:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found. Does not appear to meet WP:NTENNIS either.Ravendrop 08:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, article contains no references of significant third party coverage. Sandstein 19:58, 24 March 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.