Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Walsh (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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Walsh (tennis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This tennis player never played an ATP Tour level, Grand Slam or Davis Cup match, there are no references on this article and when I searched I found only very brief, passing mentions usually in results lists and one story on the University of Bath website about his doubles partner which mentioned they played together but nothing substantial about him. I therefore believe this article fails GNG and SIGCOV guidelines and should be deleted. I would have Prodded it but a check of the edit history reveals it was Prodded in 2015 and deProdded using what I think are now defunct criteria. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Tennis, and United Kingdom. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Challenger doubles title is of a high enough level to meet WP:NTENNIS. My search for sources has found a small bio at [1], but his relatively common name is polluting my search results with entries about other people. Iffy★Chat -- 13:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I may be missing something (and I apologise if I am) but the link goes to a diary style article about an under 14s event that, yes mentions Mr Walsh, but is written by one of his fellow 14 year old teammates. Also having a common name does not give you a pass to say the article should exist. How about adding the word tennis to your search? I did so and, as I stated, discovered routine match results and the aforementioned university story about his doubles partner. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That source I found has a few biographical details in the bottom right which si more than you get from a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage. I haven't !voted yet as you opened this AfD only a few hours ago and I want to spend more time looking for sources. Iffy★Chat -- 15:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've had more time to look for more local sources today, the best one I could find is [2] along with [3] [4] [5]. Still unsure which way this one should go. Iffy★Chat -- 14:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with the nominator that there is a lack of significant coverage to establish notability as most mentions are brief. Note that WP:NTENNIS is saying that people who reach achieve in one of the 5 categories listedare likely to have coverage that meets notability guidelines, not that the achievement itself indicates notability. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And, as a comment, I'm not convinced winning a challenger tournament is a good indicator of whether significant, non-routine coverage would exist for a player.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. If news sources appears, I'll change the vote. Svartner (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks significant coverage including the sources suggested in this discussion which are both sparse and primarily about the subject when he was a child. This bears out the fact that the subject achieved very little of note in his career and no matter of how much jumping through hoops trying to find a technicality to keep this article is done that fact won't change as he retired a number of years ago therefore isn't going to add to his achievements now. In summary non-notable and lacks the required coverage so should be deleted and yes I have searched for content but found nothing more than has already been outlined which is insufficient. Shrug02 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2025 (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.