Deletion of Phillip King (tennis)

Comment: Passes  easily. And, as noted above, he passes  as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTENNIS||WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and .  As said above,  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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:BIAS||WP:DEADLINE||WP:NTENNIS||WP:NSPORT)

Comment: passes both  and  IMO due to the sources that are available.  The author needs to add them but they exist
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTENNIS||WP:GNG)