Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip King (tennis)

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 keep. So Why 14:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip King (tennis)[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable tennis player. Has not achieved anything worthy of note. Fails both WP:GNG and ~~WP:NTENNIS~~. T v x1 11:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Contrary to the AfD statement, this player 100% passes Tennis Project Guidelines and WP:NTENNIS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - There're plenty of sources on "金久義" search term. STSC (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And they all fall under WP:ROUTINE.T v x1 10:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the sources are routine sports reports. STSC (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, "Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they have completed in the main draw in... ATP World Tour tournaments" per WP:NTENNIS. He has played in round 32 in some of these tournaments before. STSC (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the guideline WP:NTENNIS is superseded by the policy WP:GNG and this person does not satisfy that policy.T v x1 21:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Notability (sports), it clearly states, "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline OR the sport specific criteria." STSC (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes Tennis Project notability. Has played and won matches on the main ATP tour such as the 2006 Washington Open. Also was in the main draw of the 2000 US Open. I see no issues with his notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with notability? That this person does not have any. Notability:being worthy of note. This person has not achieved anything worthy of note in tennis. He played a couple of professional tennis matches. That's it. He won just one World Tour match ever in singles and none in doubles. WP:NTENNIS is a guideline which is superseded by WP:GNG and this person does not satisfy that policy.T v x1 17:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even in WP:GNG, it states, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." STSC (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, usually this works the other way. A player does not meet Tennis Project Guidelines so we reject him. But someone points out with proper sourcing that he does meet GNG, so he gets an article but no Tennis Project tag on the talk page because the player has done nothing tennis related to be notable for. You can certainly bring up at the project that we need to be more strict, but this guy played in the US Open! I don't think anyone at the project would want to throw out his eligibility if he's played in one of the 4 Majors. And as I looked he actually played in two US Opens. But besides all that, there's a reason we have included players who have made the main draw in any ATP world tour event... they usually wind up being GNG notable.

In the old days we'd argue a player didn't do enough to merit including in our tennis guidelines. One editor would argue that they meet GNG and they'd pull out 5 newspaper articles about the guy. Bang, he's in every time. After this happens over and over, to make things go smoother and to put our time to better use, we simply included any ATP world tour main draw as assuming notability. This guy played in 10 ATP main draws including two US Opens. He played against Pete Sampras. He has articles in the Los Angeles Times here and here. ESPN did a story on him also. He won the US Nationals as a Jr twice and was the No. 1 ranking jr in the US. When that happens you get writeups. We saw this over and over and realized we were wasting our time contesting these players. Almost all met GNG by the time they played in a main draw of the ATP or WTA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he was allowed into his home grand slam twice with a Wild Card and lost in straight sets in the first round on both occasions. Home players routinely get Wild Cards to play at their domestic Grand Slam tournaments. It happens at all four of them. So do go blowing up the importance and notability of his US Open appearances. He didn't get any more wildcards after that and there is a reason for that. I really can't understand why you are so desperate to keep an unencyclopedic article on a tennis player who hasn't achieved anything of importance.T v x1 13:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably quite a few players that, in my own mind, do not belong... GNG or not. I didn't make all the rules but I do tend to follow them when we reach consensus. Heck, I was against all players that win a Major getting a seasonal article. But I was crushed in that consensus and I now follow that decision with no reservations at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tennis guidelines exist to keep out people squeking by with low quality coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: However, the creator of this AfD made a mistake. This player easily passes Tennis Project Guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not. WP:TENNIS is a guideline, not a hard rule, and it does not supersede the general wikipedia policies on notability.T v x1 13:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you made a mistake in bringing this here. That's your prerogative. But you said it fails WP:NTENNIS and it does not. It passes WP:NTENNIS by him playing in the main draw of an ATP tournament which includes the US Open. And GNG is also a guideline. Certainly, editors could rule here that he is not notable enough to warrant an article, but it won't be because of NTENNIS since he passes it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - player passes WP:NTENNIS and played at the highest level of professional tennis (Grand Slam tournament).--Wolbo (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He played at the level but didn't achieve anything worthy of note. As explained above WP:TENNIS is not a trump card to an article and it cannot be invoked to override WIkipedia's policies.T v x1 13:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

""A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." There you have it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NTENNIS easily. And, as noted above, he passes WP:GNG as well. Smartyllama (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the very least, this page should be redirected to Vania King, as with many other non-notable sportspeople related to notable sports people, including Tate Matheny, Tyler Nevin, Ryan Ripken, Mariano Rivera III, Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), and Joseph LaMotta, the last two of which were explicitly closed as redirect at AfD. As I said above, I think he's notable, but if consensus is that he's not, the article should at the very least be redirected as an alternative to deletion. Pinging Johnpacklambert and Tvx1, the only two delete !votes at this point, to see if they would support a redirect instead given this context. Smartyllama (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.T v x1 18:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIAS and WP:DEADLINE. As said above, WP:NTENNIS is just a guideline and not an iron rule. I give the guideline more weight in two cases - non-English-based subject and older subject. Here, the subjects prime was about 15-20 years ago. Not much online out there, my cut off point is about 5 years. Most sources are probably in physical newspapers and magazines and I don't see volunteer editors doing a lot to check those out and as the FAQs state in WP:NSPORT, there is no time limit to force sources to be found. Plus, this subject well exceeds the guidelines - not just one appearance in an ATP 250 event, but two appearances in Grand Slams. Surely those appearances would have gained coverage, such as in local newspapers. Also, this is singles and not doubles and singles is well covered. Many articles exist for 2013-2017 recent Grand Slam competitors and they are typically well sources. No reason to believe there would not be equivalent sources for this subject if people took the time to look at hard copies. In view of all this, keep. RonSigPi (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really claiming that there was not much internet 15 years ago?? That's nonsense. The internet was already omnipresent in by the turn of the millennium. All the grand slam tournaments had their websites already back then. And why would these grand slam appearances have gotten special coverages. They were two Wild Card entries for a home grand slam and both of them ended with a straight set loss in the first round. There are 128 players in the first round of each grand slam and there are four of them per year. Do you genuinely believe that every single one of them gets some special coverage?T v x1 18:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far as the Internet comment, of course there was "much internet" 15 years ago. I just don't think much of it is accessible today and what is accessible by way of something like Internet Archive is hard to search - plus not everything is archived. So in other words, we presume sources were available, but has since been taken down. And yes, I do believe every one of them gets special coverage. Its not like its 128x4 - a lot of the players repeat. RonSigPi (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, King was the captain for Hong Kong in Davis Cup. I've added this source from SCMP: Phillip King turns attention to Davis Cup after Fed Cup success. This would be a significant coverage on King. STSC (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a source from LA Times, an article about King when he's 17 years old in 1999.[1] - STSC (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Another one from ESPN: Tennis isn't waiting' for former junior champ - STSC (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes both WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG IMO due to the sources that are available. The author needs to add them but they exist. DrStrauss talk 09:09, 1 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.