Veronika Bokor : Fails GNG and BASIC with no SIGCOV found.  It only passes SNG barely and only in an single event .  Timothytyy ( talk ) 10:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Women , Tennis ,  and Austria .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or draftify.  I've been able to quickly find [19] [20] and [21] , which, while individually short in length, are significant and entirely about the subject.  Iffy ★ Chat -- 13:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  She is not notable enough - just one WTA Tour level appearance.  JamesAndersoon ( talk ) 12:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete To me, this seems far from being notable, even for a draft WP:TOOSOON kind of thing.  She may have done well nationally (which led her to some support from the Linz tournament), but that didn't really translate to the international pro tour.  The coverage mentioned above is very weak (some of it being the results/tournament recaps, some of it relying on her quotations).  My searches haven't produced something more meaningful, fails WP:GNG and the nominator described well why the SNG doesn't help here.  Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 00:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It fails WP:GNG ...  I know she is not notable enough, but my question is then why so many other players deserved its page when they also barely passed?  Why delete this one and keep others?  Let then delete all of these pages.  Otherwise, this is not fair.  JamesAndersoon ( talk ) 10:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Veronika Bokor passed this criteria [22] .  And in the past it was also the case that other players got page if they passed this criteria.  What is now the problem?  JamesAndersoon ( talk ) 10:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Let then delete all of these pages" and that's the point.  But most editors don't have the time to dig through all the tennis players that might be nor not be notable.  There's a lot of articles after all.  As for the criteria you cite, it says right at the top in the Frequently asked questions section, Q1: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline."  Jovanmilic97 ( talk ) 13:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay.  I didn't know about that.  Thank you for informing me.  JamesAndersoon ( talk ) 13:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: While numerical support for Delete is strong enough here to determine a consensus, no-one has really replied to or debunked Iffy's three sources and claim this meets GNG (despite all !votes) assering that GNG isn't met.  Need an explanation from delete ! voters why these sources don't count before this can be closed as delete.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 16:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought Jovanmilic97 already responded to the sources?  Timothytyy ( talk ) 02:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  The sources mentioned above are two quote-heavy interview-based pieces in Nön and a slightly heftier blurb in MeinBezirk that nevertheless is not enough for SIGCOV.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 03:10, 12 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete