Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010
I feel the argument I made in my WP:!vote|!vote above has not quite been understood (probably my fault), so allow me to reiterate and address in particular the remarks relating to the |Other Stuff Exists essay.The point I am trying to make is that there are some "People X in year Y" articles that should be deleted (perhaps the one about Vonn was one, I can't see it as it was deleted), and there are some (Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 etc.) that should not.  Simply being about a sportsperson over the course of a year is not sufficient to warrant deletion.  I have proposed a standard to differentiate between these two: the old faithful |general notability guideline.  These articles definitely meet the GNG, and so should not be deleted.  That is my argument, and it ''is not'' simply that other articles of this nature exist, and so these should too.Regarding the indiscriminate nature of the statistics tables: this is not a matter for AfD.  If editors do not like the large tables at the bottoms of these articles, or they feel that the prose sections are too formulaic ''they should |be bold and remove the tables or improve the prose''.&nbsp
— User:Lear, 11:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:GNG||WP:BOLD (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)