Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriella Taylor

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 redirect to 2016 Wimbledon. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Taylor

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

Perhaps this person make it to GNG, because of the poisoning incident. I don't think so but I'm not in the UK to determine the amount of uproar. She is not notable for anything tennis related per WP:NSPORT or WikiProject Tennis Guidelines. Maybe she will someday be notable for tennis, since she has tried to qualify for Wimbledon, so it could be userfied. But right this second she's a no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to a comment on the talk page "Miss Taylor made the second round of ladies singles qualifiers for Wimbledon in both 2014 and 2016, and the quarter finals of the girls singles at Wimbledon in 2016". So did she actually represent GB at Wimbledon? The posting is unclear on that. Assuming she did, surely that would make her a notable tennis player. Assuming she didn't then she doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Turning to the alleged poisoning for a moment, it received some media coverage yesterday, but nothing significant (see here). These are allegations, and a police investigation is ongoing. This is Paul (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She did not represent GB at Wimbledon, she didn't make the field. This is sort of how tennis works for the ladies for non-tennis editors. You have the WTA tour... these are the events that are on tv and it includes the 4 grand slam events and 53 lesser tournaments. If you make the main draw field in any of the WTA tournaments you are notable. Just be included in the 32, 64, or 128 player draw. You can attempt to qualify for one of those main draws by playing your way through a bunch of qualifying matches. She won one qualifying match as shown in her activity at the ITF website, but lost in round two. There is also the minor league ITF tour. $50,000-$100,000 events that are not televised so you won't see these even on Tennis Channel. To be notable for that minor league tour you must win the tournament, singles or doubles. She has not done that. She entered one $50,000 event and was crushed in the second round.

$10,000-$25,000 events on the ITF tour are considered below minor league and are not notable even if you win. She won one doubles $10,000 and one singles $10,000. For the children in jr's, if you are ranked top 3 in the world in jr's or win either Wimbledon jrs, French Open jrs, Australian Open jrs or US Open jrs. you are notable. Singles or doubles, it doesn't matter. So Tennis Project is pretty open about automatic notability. It's uncommon, but some players simply get overwhelming press... mostly from tiny nations, because they are the best player in their country. That would satisfy GNG rather than tennis notability. I'm not convinced that an "alleged" poisoning (unless later confirmed), makes this person notable. Sort of 15 minutes of fame for something that likely didn't happen. But I'm not in the UK to be the best judge of that so I opened it up here to be convinced otherwise. I hope that helps for editors that don't do a lot of tennis editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2016 Wimbledon. She did get a fair bit of coverage over this incident: [1] but at the moment it's BIO1E. I say save the edit history and avoid a redlink. Montanabw^(talk) 07:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If tennis experts can't agree she merits an article merging looks better than losing the material in the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do agree that she does not merit an article for anything tennis related. But just like if John Doe at a shopping mall was found to have been poisoned by a spy, if that gets enough coverage, GNG may be activated. It's as simple as that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2016 (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.