Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Garnett

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Garnett

[edit]

"New Zealand's Female Umpire of the Year." The last sentence of the article suggests a conflict of interest.

  • Keep - I've added the appropriate stub templates. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even close to notable unless there was some huge upswing in the popularity of field hockey yesterday. Recury 16:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that (field) hockey is one of the two most popular sports in India (along with cricket), as well as being a major sport is quite a large number of other countries (including New Zealand, which is what this article is about), there are probably quite a few hundred million people interested in this sport - which would be quite a few times more than are interested in baseball, say. Define "popularity"... Grutness...wha? 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I don't define it as having 798 ghits with none on the first page even relevant. Recury 01:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not even the sixth one? Not that that really addresses your comment about the popularity of hockey. And - despite the lack of google hits (which isn't always highly relevant), I would say that being the main match referee for the world cup final of a sport played (according to the latest world rankings) in 64 countries is pretty notable. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess we'll have to disagree then, since I don't think that's much of a claim to notability at all. I'm sure it'll be a great article though. GOOD JOB SARAH, CONGRATS! Recury 02:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's true that field hockey isn't terribly popular in the United States, but there's no suggestion that the wikipedia hard disks are running short of sectors. - Richardcavell 23:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Deletion of this article is not an indictment of field hockey vis a vis its popularity with other sports. WP:V is a clear policy that REQUIRES non-trivial third party references that clearly establish a subject's notability. This article has NO REFERENCES. I will not deny that this subject may be the most highly regarded umpire in the entire world with regard to field hockey. If there is not a reputable, third party source that notes that, it can't be verified and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. WP:V is clear: Truth that is unverified does not belong on wikipedia, even if it is true. If you want to keep the article, fix it by providing reputable, third party sources that establish notability. --Jayron32 04:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Blnguyen but get some references in there. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced and at significant risk of being not verifiable. Umpires are particularly hard to find sourcing on, as when they are really successful nobody remembers what they do, not even fans of the sport in question. If reliable sourcing appears, feel free to use my talk page to request a change in this opinion. GRBerry 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've now added a couple of references, which was easy enough to do. Perhaps it would be better in future to find a reference rather than say "delete because there's no reference"? Grutness...wha? 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those look like trivial references to me; they certainly aren't enough to base a biography on. But they are a start, so it might be possible to have an article adhering to our policies. GRBerry 01:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply I apologize in advance. This post turned out much longer than I intended. Still, if interested read on. Checked out the references. Still pretty sketchy. The problem we need to address is twofold. 1) Certain professions are inherantly more notable than others and 2) That issue notwithstanding, the basic test is "How is this XXXXX more notable than the average XXXXX". With problem 1), we have the situation that a field hockey umpire is more in the public eye than say, a housepainter; but certainly less so than say a politician. So if her only notability is as a Field Hockey umpire, than she'd better have done something SPECTACULARLY notable. She might meet point 2)'s requirements, but does she meet point 1)'s? She has been acknowledged as a World Cup referee, which certainly makes her quite notable within her profession, but does her very profession make her notable enough? These references are pretty trivial. They establish 1) She exists and 2) She's a ref and 3) She's a good ref. Going back to the housepainter analogy; perhaps (hypothetically) a housepainter is given a contract to paint, say, the Eiffel Tower. Wow, what an honor. Perhaps even his local paper writes an article about him. Perhaps, even Le Monde makes a passing note: Monsieur Jean DuMont, housepainter, was chosen to paint the Eiffel Tower. SO, we have established 1) Jean DuMont exists, and 2) he's a painter and 3) He's a good painter. The problem is, so what? In order to be a notable profession, it must be the kind of thing that is in the public eye to the point that discourse and debate is common and readily found. Photographers, atheletes, politicians, authors, etc. etc. are all people who's work is part of the public discourse. It is analyzed by thousands of people all the time. There are public evaluations, public criticisms, public reviews of their work. It's debated, it's argued about, it's analyzed... Johnny Unitas was a great quarteback because.... Vincent Van Gogh was a landmark painter because.... Lord North was a terrible Prime Minister because... See, there is an inherant notability to the profession. No one has ever said "Jean Dumont is a great housepainter because..." and had this debate in the public forum. Likewise, no one is going to say "Sarah Garnett is the world's best Umpire because..." Well, some people might say it, but such a discourse will NOT occur within the public forum (academia, journalism, etc.) Thus, even though true, it's still probably not notable. --Jayron32 04:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep - She umpired in the final of a World Cup of an Olympic sport. See Samsung 2006 World Cup Hockey Site. There's also a PDF file for each game which I can't grab the URL from at the moment. If the International Hockey Federation think she's good enough to umpire the World Cup final, that's good enough for me. - fchd 20:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • reply Yes, but is it good enough for WikiPedia. Does she meet the primary notability criteria? That is, does she appear as a non-trivial subject of several reputable third party reference? If no, then she must go. I will concede she is the BEST UMPIRE EVER TO PUT ON A STRIPED SHIRT IN ANY SPORT. She still doesn't meet notability criteria, and so she must go. --Jayron32 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • reply to reply - In other words, she basically needs to pass a notability criterion - we need to be able to say something like "Sarah Garnett is notable because she umpired the world cup final of a major sport". Well, we can say that. It appears to me that she easily meets the criteria of notability for Wikipedia, and it's clearly verifiable that she achieves that mark. To use the things listed on the notability criterion guidelines page (guidelines, mind, not policy): The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Check. Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activites that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States. She has done the equivalent of this as an official, and more, so check. She also passes the Verifiability, expandability and 100 year tests as listed on that page. The fact that she fails one of the tests (as not being been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works) seems to be more than outweighed by th five criteria which she does meet. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply to the reply to the reply An excellent coherant arguement. Let me respond. We need to be able to say more than she umpired the World Cup. We also need to be able to say that Umpiring the World Cup is in itself notable. If it is notable, it is by definition NONTRIVIAL. If it is non-trivial, then non-trivial references exist regarding World Cup umpiring. Are people who are world cup umpires the subject of non-trivial mentions in national press? Do umpiring journals review their work? DOes the umpire critic of the New York Times feature her in a review? Has she been the subject of scholarly journals of how to umpire correctly? Don't dismiss the non-trivial aspect of the notability guideline so off-handed. It is the key part of the entire guideline. Non-triviality ensures that verifiability is not the sole criteria for inclusion. I have a buddy (this is true) lets call John Doe (not his real name). John Doe recieved an award from President Bush as one of the top 50 teachers in the U.S. He went to the White House, stood in a line, and got an award from Bush citing him as one of the best of his profession. I have a picture and everything. The local newspaper did a neat little article on it. Yet, he doesn't merit a Wikipedia article because there is no NONTRIVIAL mention of him. No one reviews his work in the public discourse. We know he won the award. Yet, he does not belong to a profession(High School Teacher), the performance of which is a matter of debate in the public record. If his profession is not notable, then he cannot be notable for having that profession, EVEN if he is regarded as one of the best. Likewise, being a the best umpire is not notable because being an umpire in any fashion is not notable. Using the sportspeople/athlete/competitor analogy is faulty because she wasn't a competitor. She was an umpire. --Jayron32 05:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The behavior of the author of the article (Umpire99) in response to this AfD tempted me to vote neutral, or at least pass altogether, but setting that aside, I'd say she's notable enough in her field, and her field is an olympic sport. I have a hard time with arguments that an olympic sport is non-notable. (It's not the housepainter-and-the-eiffel-tower analogy. There is no olympic housepainting competition. As for conflict of interest, the case made was that the article proclaimed her "New Zealand's Female Umpire of the Year." The article claims that she was named as such, rather than that she is such or self-procliams as such. That is evidence of notability, not vanity. There is a difference.) There's no WP:V problem. There is at least ehough verifiable info for a stub, mabye more. There is no clear consensus she's nonnotable, and there is abundant evidnce of notability to a large enough group of people. Given that, I must say keep. AubreyEllenShomo 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply There's also not an Olympic umpiring competition. There's an Olympic field hockey competition. She wasn't a competitor; she was an umpire. MANY people are involved in olympic competitions; what about the guy who mowed the lawn on the field... The one who painted the lines on the field... The issue is not that she was involved in the Olympics. The issue is that the thing the article claims her to be notable for (an umpire). Simply winning an award, or having a newspaper article noting the award, does not embody NON-TRIVIAL coverage. Unless we can find abundant evidence in the press of her performance as an umpire, there is not enough to build an article on. One of the key issues in the Notablity guidelines, says, and I quote "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)". She has, under this standard, one single coverage: She was once named NZ Umpire of the Year. That, in and of itself, is not enough to build an article around. If you had some sources that commented on her technique or her contributions to the field of umpiring, it would make her more notable, since we could put that in the article. A one sentance article doesn't seem very notable to me. --Jayron32 01:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not going to question the notability of the sport; rather, I doubt that there are many umpires in any sport that meet WP:BIO guidelines unless they have high visibility or are embroiled in some sort of controversey. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:05, 20 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Garnett&oldid=1087616919"