Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Janney


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Janney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NRU - hasn't played in the World Rugby Sevens Series and WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Georgia is now considered by the World Rugby as being a High Performance Union (HPU) and all players of a HPU are presumed notable as per WP:NRU but it gives an outdated definition of HPU. There is a discussion going on here as to the best way of modifying WP:NRU to reflect this change in definition of HPU. --Domdeparis (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Having played sevens rugby for Georgia isn't enough of a threshold for me to presume him notable, and I've been unable to locate reliable secondary sources in which he is the subject. Happy to change my opinion if anyone can find some appropriate sources (and I assume some sources may be in the Georgian language). -- Shudde  talk 20:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I would agree with you if we presumed that Georgia is not a High Performance Union but according to World Rugby it is now. Any player from a HPU who has represented his country is presumed notable according to WP:NRU the problem is that the definition of HPU in wikipedia is different from the definition of HPU by the governing body. Do we stay with the outdated criteria in Wikipedia or are we going to go with the Governing Body of rugby? Domdeparis (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the inclusion of HPU countries for the NRU was because those were believed to be countries where one would expect an international player to achieve coverage in multiple sources (Australia, England, NZ etc). That World Rugby has expanded their definition of HPU doesn't mean that suddenly we can expect more coverage of Georgian rugby players than there was five years ago. Regardless, NRU is only really intended as a quick way to determine whether a subject would probably meet GNG. In the case of this article, I don't think it does. -- Shudde  talk 19:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment HPUs are dynamic and as they change, so do the guidelines. In my mind, the idea is if the sport reaches HPU standards, then the competition is of a high standard and in turn it will receive coverage.  I dont at all agree that we only consider sources in the three countries you listed - they are all English.  I think this is why we have the presumption.  I highly doubt many editors speak both English and Georgian.  Its not reasonable to expect someone to easily find sources in non-English, and certainly non-Latin, languages.  The community of editors has established this standard and we should respect it.  They included the HPU term fully knowing it could and does change.  If this were a subject from Scotland or Wales, I could see a show cause request where sources need to be found.  However, due to the foreign nature of the subject and the unlikelihood of being able to find online sources, I think a presumption should be respected. RonSigPi (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that the criteria were written with the belief that the definition of an HPU would change; nor that if it did change that would prompt an increase in sources on new those countries and their players. The traditional HPU countries (England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, New Zealand, South Africa, France, Australia, Argentina, Italy, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa etc) have shown us here that an international player will get almost always get reliable independent coverage. That hasn't been established with Georgia, especially with Sevens players who havn't even played in the World Rugby Sevens Series. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that NRU criterion 1 applies only to men's 15-a-side players, not sevens players. -- Shudde  talk 14:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I know I just commented above defending the presumption and I stand by that.  However, I don't think this subject meets the presumption, so it is moot.  I don't read it to include Rugby 7s, only the 15 player version.  Therefore, no presumption and sources need to be shown.  They are not here so delete. RonSigPi (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * comment The criteria are for Rugby Union whether it's a full 15 a side or sevens. Domdeparis (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If so, then I am more than willing to change my suggestion. However, the only mention of sevens is criterion 3.  For criterion 2, every competition listed is a 15-a-side competition.  For criterion 1, when classifying High performance unions, there is a distinction between HPUs and other nations that have competed in the Rugby World Cup - that is a 15-a-side competition and no mention is made of sevens.  To put another way, since a 15-a-side competition is used as a definer I think it only applies to that version.  So in my reading, criterion 1 and 2 apply to the men's 15-side game, criterion 3 applies to sevens (both genders), and criterion 4 applies to the women's 15-a-side. RonSigPi (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Janney's relationship with Emma Watson has been well reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.84.111 (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.