Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimír Pláteník

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. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimír Pláteník

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

Fails notability for tennis players, see WP:NTENNIS Flat Out let's discuss it 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable Slovak tennis coach, meets WP:GNG, in my opinion: [1], [2] Pravda, [3] (SME), [4] (sport.aktuality.sk) etc. etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Failure of WP:SNG is not a valid reason for deletion, while failure of both WP:GNG and WP:SNG is.Antigng (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coach articles are very rare in tennis... usually they are former notable players when they are notable. Otherwise requirements are any of the following that the player achieved while coached by the person in question:

The player has reached the final of or won one of the professional Grand Slam tournaments.
The player has entered the ATP or WTA rankings top-10 for at least one week.
The player was member of a champion team competing in a Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Hopman Cup (reserve players and team captains do not count).
The player has won an ATP Masters 1000 or WTA Premier event and has reached at least one other final in Masters 1000 or WTA Premier.

I don't see any of those requirements, and that would indicate a non-notable run-of-the mill coach of which there are countless thousands. But if it can be sourced that one of the requirements happened he would be notable per wikipedia tennis project.

Reply Your rationale is not inline with our notability guideline. According to WP:N, a topic is considered notable if meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. Antigng (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is in line with the notability guideline and nsports. It's just that in some cases a person also meets GNG which trumps the specific tennis protocol. Maybe he is a very unique person and he meets the GMG requirement. He does not meet it for anything he has done for tennis. If he has all kinds of articles written specifically about him as opposed to a mention that he was Cibulkova's coach for awhile, that might make him meet GNG. But for his tennis abilities he needs to meet that bare minimum. Otherwise every coach would be in here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Really close call but I'm swayed by the sources presented by Vejvančický that this individual passes GNG even if he doesn't meet the SNG low bar for athletes and even if articles on tennis coaches are "rare." A figure of national importance in his home country, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2015 (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.