Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Griffeth


 * 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. Other than, there aren't any articles with significant coverage of her. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Valerie Griffeth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails notability test for Rugby Union (see: WP:NRU - Point 4). Has not played in semi-final or above at Women's Rugby World Cup Grousehouse (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Griffeth meets rugby notability test point one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines since she participated in two high performance unions: the US Women's National 15s and the Hong Kong Women's Sevens international tournament. (Note: What is unsettling, and a sign of possible discrimination against women in the Wikipedia rules, is that an addendum to the note indicates that men rugby players qualify if they simply play for one of the teams on the list of high performance union countries, including the United States. There is no IRB list for women; why not? Women compete internationally at the highest levels each year and not just every four years at the World Cup. Why is there no parallel to rule one for women athletes? This appears discriminatory.) Griffeth represented the United States in competitions against Italy and France and was voted most valuable player competing in the USA Rugby Division I Club championships when her team won in 2010. Clearly Griffeth is notable, supported by many reliable references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with above.Ima hima (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Ima hima (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. Clearly meets notability test point one.  The inconsistencies between gender criteria are in and of themselves notable and concerning.  While revenue and participation may be greater from males, both genders have international 7s and 15s competitions, and premier national club structures.  Notability criteria for one should be notability criteria for all.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviva1964 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)  — Aviva1964 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * COMMENT. Would like to point out that as it stands the subject clearly does not meet WP:NRU Point 1, as that notability criteria is only for male athletes (see Note 1 of Point 1). As men's rugby union has a significantly higher profile than women's rugby it stands to reason that they would have different criteria for notability on Wikipedia. That criteria, for women, comes under Point 4 of WP:NRU - a criteria that this athlete does not meet. Having therefore met none of the 4 points of WP:NRU the athlete is, by the definitions set out by Wikipedia, not notable. I think it is also relevant to note that it appears that this athlete has also heavily edited her own Wikipedia page. Grousehouse (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If there is one set of notability guidelines for male athletes, and a second set for female athletes, then this is an example of sexual discrimination. It does not seem fair that male and female athletes are treated differently. Look at Wikipedia's rules for association football (soccer); notice how there are no distinctions made between male and female athletes; those rules are fair. So this whole "note 1 of point 1" business needs reconsideration. That Point 4 of NRU only allows specific years which seems absurd; what happens if a female athlete competes in a different year? That is unfair. Seems like the deletion is based on a very narrow reading of sexually disciminatory rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I would contend that rather than being a very narrow reading of the guidelines (as you suggest) it is the only possible reading of the guidelines as they stand; being as they are in plain English with no room for misinterpretation. Accusations of sexual discrimination are all very well but unfortunately these are the guidelines we have been presented with. Therefore it would be more pertinent to hear from you how, outside of the guidelines in question the subject is notable. I suspect you have a personal relationship with the subject, which is fine, but I suggest that you don't allow that to colour your interpretation of wikipedia's clear guidelines as to notability of rugby union players. Grousehouse (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of which guideline you choose, whether sexist or non-sexist, Griffeth is notable. Clearly she exceeds the general notability guideline: Atlantis Rugby, International Rugby Board, an entire article written about her here, here, as well as sources here, here, here, and here. According to GNG, three independent sources are needed; she is loaded with sources, clearly she is a top player from a substantial (in terms of rugby) nation, who represented her nation in matches against Italy and France. How do you explain the photo to the right, with Jamie Burke? Or do you believe all women rugby players are not notable because they are women?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making unfounded accusations concerning your fellow users. I would ask that you take a moment of pause before submitting allegations such as sexism in the future. I, like many other wiki users are just trying to work within the guidelines that we have to maintain this site's integrity.
 * I did not say you were sexist; rather, in my view, the notability rules are sexist. There are different standards for men (point 1) and for women (point 4) which are preferential towards male rugby athletes. This is not fair. Clearly Griffeth meets the general notability guideline in my view, so when these are ignored, and a decision to delete an article is only based on the limiting sex-biased notability rules (men to the front of the bus, women to the back), it seems unfair in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Staying on topic, in answer to your rhetorical question, of course women rugby players can be notable, and luckily we have a clear guideline to differentiate those that are or from those that aren't. The articles that you kindly listed are on the self promotional end of the spectrum, being either internal team-generated reports, or from promotional material. A simple search of the subject in Google reveals the wiki article, the subject's linkedin and very little else by way of information. The results do not have the hallmark of what an independent observer may consider a notable athlete.


 * To make my argument clearer I will summarise my main points for this subject's lack of notability, and therefore deletion of the article:
 * (a) The subject fails to meet the clear criteria for notability of rugby union players in WP:NRU. This is not disputed.
 * I continue to dispute it; see above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (b) A Google search of the subject does not return the type of results that one may consider to be normal for a notable athlete.
 * Irrelevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (c) The articles kindly provided by Tomwsulcer (see above) are substantially team-generated material, or from niche, unverifiable locations. If the subject was indeed notable I would assume there would be some sort of impression in mainstream media.
 * Care to be specific? Rugby magazine is team-generated? The International Rugby Board? Vassar College? I don't see how these are team-generated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Is ESPN Scrum team generated?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (d) The article itself has very few views.
 * In most sources, Griffeth's contributions were discussed particularly, such as how she played, what she did, how she helped the team, so I have no idea what you're getting at here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (e) The vast majority of the editing of the article has been performed by Tomsulcer (who I suspect has a personal relationship with the subject) and the subject herself. This is not in-line with what would normally be expected of a notable athlete.Grousehouse (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now who is making accusations? Stick to the rules, please; argue about facts and sources, don't make inferences about other contributors when you know nothing about them, and strive for objective impartiality.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I notice Tomwsulcer that you are now adding photos of the subject to the Women's rugby union and Women's international rugby union pages. Is there a reason for this? It seems odd to single out a particular player who appears to be an intermittent player for a minor rugby nation at best, in this way.Grousehouse (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you object to photos of women athletes in Wikipedia?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but I object to someone cynically attempting to inflate the notability of the subject of an article that is currently in dispute.Grousehouse (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal smears such as "cynically attempting". You argue Griffeth is not notable. I argue she is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologise of course if that was not your intention but I thought your actions (putting individual headshots of a not particularly prominent player on the wider articles concerning the sport i.e Women's rugby union and Women's international rugby union) were notable considering that they occurred after the proposal to delete her page. Is it that you believe she is one of the greatest players in the history of the sport (as that is usually the standard for individual, named photographs on such articles for other sports)? If so, I would be interested to hear how that is the case. If not, especially with reference to the timing of the additions to these articles, the only conclusion would be that you were adding the photographs for other purposes.Grousehouse (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. You and I are battling about an article. This happens. It is what makes Wikipedia great (my POV). I respect your view; I hope you respect mine. I have handyman work so I am bidding adieu at present.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: I've just gone over each and every reference in the article, and contrary to Tomwsulcer's assertion, they do not satisfy the GNG. The GNG, as I'm sure folks know, require that sources be independent, reliable, published, third-party sources with an acknowledged reputation for fact-checking.  Collegiate publications such as Vassar College's website are not generally held to qualify.  While I expect that neither would websites like rugbyrugby.com and erugbynews.com, we don't even need to go that far -- all the rugby publications, web or otherwise, cited in the article are match reports or routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:N.  In almost every case they mention the subject only in passing, instead of in the "significant detail" the GNG requires.  Perhaps a section devoted to her on the national team website would count towards notability, but the subject no longer seems to be on the national team; the link in the article is broken, and having just looked at the national team roster, she's not there. As far as discrimination goes, the purpose of notability standards on Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights laws, but to reflect what the world finds notable or not.  In particular, the underpinning of the NSPORTS subordinate notability criteria is that those who meet it should be able to pass the General Notability Guideline ... and theoretically must do if challenged, even if the SNG is met.  That different sports have differing notability criteria is plain common sense; collegiate-level play is highly notable in some sports and not in others, minor league play is highly notable in some sports and not in others, and women's competition is highly notable in some sports and not in others.  We cannot and must not decide notability criteria on the grounds of social engineering; we must decide it based on what the world chooses to take note.  In this particular case, however much Griffeth and some SPAs wish to save the article, she doesn't pass the GNG, not remotely close.  I just did a Google News search, and there is only one news hit for Griffeth -- this Wikipedia article.  That's just not notable, period.  (I admit I'm also concerned with the SPAs coming out of nowhere to vote 'Keep,' and I hope and trust the closing admin properly discounts them.)   Ravenswing   16:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Rugby Mag, erugbynews, International Rugby Board are all reliable sources, independent, third-party; Vassar College's magazine has fact-checkers and was proud enough of Griffeth's accomplishments to devote an entire article to her. There are sixteen (16) sources in total. Rugby is a male-dominated sport, the same way that Wikipedia is a male-dominated medium, and the notability rules for rugby players are highly skewed to favor male rugby players. In essence, what you and the rugby-rule-writers are saying, in effect, is that women rugby players are not notable. This seems unfair. Now, check out the following American male rugby players who have only 1 reference (a primary source usually, just a few lines each for each article, but who, BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN and happened to play in the "right" (according to Wikipedia) competitions, have Wikipedia pages which are unchallenged: Mike Mangan, Owen Lentz, Mark Aylor, Hayden Mexted, Chad Erskine, Jonathan Vitale, Blake Burdette, Dan Payne (rugby union), Henry Bloomfield, Junior Sifa, Patrick Danahy, Bill Hayward (rugby union), Tom Billups, Richard Tardits (no references), Dan Lyle (2 refs), Alec Parker, etc etc. Is this fair? It is not fair. The rules need rethinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, what is your basis for your assertion that those sources meet the standards of WP:IRS, and what is your basis for your assertion that Vassar College's magazine has a reputation for fact-checking? For a second thing, your continued attempt to turn this into a sexism issue is uncivil, and forms no part of Wikipedia policy or guidelines.  The issue here is whether the subject meets the standards of the GNG.  She doesn't.  Whether the sporting world is sexist for not caring much about women's rugby is another matter altogether, but one outside of Wikipedia's scope to remedy; Wikipedia is not a vehicle for changing the things about the world you don't like. Beyond that, I observe from your contributions list that you've been involved in several AfDs over the years, so of course you know that we can only rule on whether an article meets Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. As far as your laundry list of articles of male rugby players which don't pass muster, by all means file prods or AfDs on those for which you can't find references after a reasonable search.  You won't hear any objections from me.   Ravenswing   05:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Another thing: possibly the reason your supposedly extremely thorough well-researched google search came up with only one hit: you spelled her name "Valerie Griffeth". Try "Val Griffeth". Click on this. FYI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I expect the reason why my Google News search turned up only the Wikipedia article was that I did a Google News search, instead of the promiscuous Google hit search you attempted, which turns up not a single mainstream media item -- nothing but rugby websites, rugby blogs and the occasional Linkedin page. (You would've figured that out if you'd clicked my link, which I gather you didn't.) But sure, why not, here's a Google News search for "Val Griffeth"  ... the same solitary hit, of the same Wikipedia article.   Ravenswing   06:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The article does fail point 4 of NRU and the rest of NRU are aimed at mens rugby. I think we have to take this a written for the moment, as was pointed above it is not Wikipedia's role to enforce gender equality. Regarding GNG, The majority of sources are primary or mostly rugby related and not the independent 3rd party sources we would come to expect for it to fulfil GNG.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. People have been going back and forth about things, and perhaps at this time we could step back a bit, take a look at things, and see what we agree about. First, I'll accept that Griffeth fails to meet the Wikipedia notability guideline for rugby sports point 4 because she didn't play in those tournaments for the specified years. Further, I'll accept that discussion about sex-bias and so forth is irrelevant and off topic (and perhaps this was somewhat my doing, my apologies), that is, let's stick to the rules. Second, the Wikipedia notability guideline for sports says:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."

- Wikipedia notability (sports) see top of page; "or" bolded by tws.


 * Accordingly, a player can qualify by meeting point 4 or by the general notability guideline. (I bolded the word "or" both times for emphasis, btw.) I think we agree about this. Third, the question is then, does Valerie Griffeth meet the general notability guideline? It says:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

- general notability guideline


 * Clearly there are multiple sources; clearly they are verifiable since we can click on the links; these issues are not disputed (I assume). I think we agree the sources are independent of the subject, that is, Griffeth does not own them, they are not public relations vehicles or subservient to Griffeth in any way. The question before us, then, is are the sources reliable? I argue that they are valid since they are accepted extensively throughout Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Consider Erugbynews. Griffeth's playing was discussed prominently here and here and here and here. Is this a reliable source? Consider that Erugbynews is used as a reliable source for the following rugby-related articles: Curtis Cunz, Kevn Dalzell, Dave Hodges, Nik Witkowski, Dan Power. It is used to reference [Princeton Rugby as well as Division 1-A Rugby, and references the United States national rugby union team, as well as BYU men's rugby. It is accepted for all of these articles; it should be accepted as a reference for [[Valerie Griffeth]] as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Consider Rugby Magazine. Griffeth's playing is discussed prominently here and here and here. Is it a reliable source? I argue it is, because it is used as a reference for numerous rugby players, including Daryl Howland, Phil Thiel, Todd Clever, Alexander Magleby, Maka Unufe, Peter Tiberio, Zack Test, Al Caravelli, Zachary Pangelinan, the Utah Warriors,as well as Rugby coach Matt Sherman. It references the Boston Thirteens. It is considered a reliable source for the article Rugby union in the United States. It is the only source for 2013 Collegiate Rugby Championship. It is a main source for Allied Rugby Conference, for Rugby union in New Zealand, for USA Rugby Elite Cup. It is acceptable as a reference for one of my fellow fraternity brothers, a rugby player who died on board the doomed United Airlines flight during 9/11 while fighting to regain control of the cockpit, Jeremy Glick; it crashed in Pennsylvania with Jeremy trying to use his rugby skills to defeat the terrorists.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, there are other references which I continue to argue are valid:Vassar magazine, Vassar athletic news. A prominent college such as Vassar would be highly reluctant to print a story about one of its alumni athletes without checking the facts. Further, the International Rugby Board is an excellent source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In sum, Griffeth meets the general notability guideline by having multiple (13), independent, reliable, verifiable sources. Accordingly, I argue that Griffeth is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're still getting the GNG wrong, and it's not as if it hasn't been pointed out to you: the GNG requires that a source involve ""Significant coverage" [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail" -- it's the very first clause of the rule -- and the accompanying footnote cites a multi-hundred page book as an example of a substantive treatment, and a one-sentence reference as "plainly trivial." Let's look at the cites you claim discuss Griffeth's play "prominently." Her sole mention in the first source (other than a quote from her, something that's explicitly debarred from supporting notability of her) is "Having showed her ability to let loose her backs for the U23s, Griffeth, who will have outside her some exciting attackers like Ashley Farmer, Tasha Mannino, Jen Sinkler, and Lindsay Davidson." Her sole mentions in the second source are "Val Griffeth kicked her first conversion of the day for a 22-7 lead," and "But Griffeth’s penalty goal in the 37th minute sealed the game."  Her sole mention in the third source is in the list of a game-day roster.  Her sole mentions in the fourth source are "The ball was spun out to flyhalf Val Griffeth, and her backs linked up with fullback Christine Herrmann, who was steaming into the backline at full pace," and "Griffeth converted for the 7-0 lead."  Her sole mention in the fifth source is "... Val Griffeth, Katie Lorenz and Amy Naber have cycled through USA 7s coach Ric Suggitt’s team."  Her sole mention in the sixth source is "... a nifty interplay between Anderson, Ashley Kmiecik and Val Griffeth led to Griffeth going over in the corner."  Her sole mention in the seventh source is "The ball then worked out to replacement center Val Griffeth, who dotted down the final try of the game."  These are all trivial mentions that are explicitly disallowed in the GNG, even if they were from the mainstream media, and even if they weren't separately disallowed as routine sports coverage, as per WP:ROUTINE.  That you characterize such sources as meeting the GNG suggests that your judgment as to the GNG is flawed.  Beyond that, you make two key errors.  There is a distinct and explicit difference between a source used to bolster or verify an assertion in an article, and a source which qualifies to establish the notability of the subject.  The second is a significantly higher bar than the former.  Dedicated rugby websites can certainly be used for the former, and there is no reason to challenge their stipulation (for instance) that the subject played for suchandsuch a team on suchandsuch a date.  They just do not satisfy the GNG.  The second key error is in substituting suppositions for fact.  You say that you believe that Vassar College's sports publications would be "highly reluctant" to publish information about their alumni without checking the facts.  What is your proof of this?  (Having been both a sportswriter and a editor for my university newspaper, I can attest that this is nothing anyone can take for granted.)  You claim that the International Rugby Board is an "excellent" source.  What is your proof of this?  What secondary, reliable sources state so?   Ravenswing   08:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Briefly reviewing, we agree the general notability guideline applies; we agree Erugbynews and Rugby Mag are reliable sources, independent of the subject, and secondary. We disagree about whether coverage of Griffeth is trivial or significant, about the reliability of Vassar's newspaper The Miscellany News, and about whether rugby-related news sources or whether mainstream news sources are needed. Is this correct? I am trying to see where our debate is, assuming good faith for all of us.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * First, coverage. Griffeth is a national-caliber rugby athlete, chosen by the United States, to play for its national women's rugby team against other national teams, such as Italy, France, and England. She competed internationally. This alone, in my view, is a substantial accomplishment. Few women rugby players win spots on any national team. These matches were broadcast live on cable television channels worldwide and streamed via the Internet. Further, the coverage is substantial: the seven media sources in Rugby Magazine and ERugbynews do not merely mention Griffeth's name but go into specific detail about which positions she played, how she played, what goals she scored, how she contributed to overall team play. The combined result of these numerous descriptions is a picture of a hard-driving flyhalf which meet the "Significant coverage" [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail" requirement. When is playing for the United States women's rugby team, against Italy or France or England, trivial or routine? As you point out, one source says "Griffeth’s penalty goal in the 37th minute sealed the game"; if we focus on length, yes it is a sentence or two long, but if we focus on meaning, it said that Griffeth's penalty goal won the game. This is an impressive accomplishment. In addition, Griffeth earned substantial coverage, an entire article written about her rugby career, as well as additional coverage here but for this, we need to deal with the issue of whether Vassar's newspaper sources are reliable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I argue that Vassar's Miscellany News is reliable for the following reasons. First, Vassar College is a prominent US college, 13th best private liberal arts (according to US News), with a reputation for academic integrity. It's Miscellany News has been published since 1866. This can be confirmed by looking at the Volume Number CXXXVIII on the masthead, that is, it is in its 138th year of publication. This is a considerable track record for a collegiate publication. Since 1914, it has been published weekly; in 2014, it averages 20 pages in length, with archives, online editions. It won the National Pacemaker Awards twice. Pacemaker Awards are the college-level equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. Further, it is associated with Vassar College; if it published sloppy or unchecked work, it could subject the entire school as well as the paper for scandal. My point is there is considerable pressure to get facts right. Clearly Miscellany News is accepted as a reliable source in numerous Wikipedia articles, including Norris Houghton, Can You Hear Their Voices, Cushing House, Roger Katan, Paper Planes, Need-blind admission, Ernest Psichari, Indiana Jones (note: a Vassar professor was rumored as a prototype for Spielberg's character), Madder Rose, Mike D (a rapper), Carl Blegen, and elsewhere. Past editors have become prominent authors such as Melissa Walker. Accordingly, when Vassar's newspaper publishes an entire 500+ word article on Griffeth complete with photo, it is reasonable we can trust it -- an in-depth portrait -- which clearly meets Wikipedia's requirement for coverage in depth. The headline: Griffeth won a spot on the US women's national rugby team. Was this mistaken? It was right. The Miscellany News and Vassar believed Griffeth was notable enough to devote an entire article to her substantial achievement.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A third (possible) disagreement is whether rugby-related news sources, such as Erugbynews and Rugby Magazine are sufficient, or whether mainstream sources are needed. I see rugby as a niche area; accordingly, it seems reasonable that niche publications, specializing in rugby, would have the most accurate information about a rugby player. If the article was about a poker player, we should expect poker-related journals and magazines; if about a jazz musician, jazz-related papers and journals. This merely seems reasonable to me. This is the pattern for almost all rugby-related articles in Wikipedia. I see no requirement that a rugby player needs to have a full article in a mainstream publication such as USA Today, or a several hundred page book about them, to qualify as notable in Wikipedia. Even then, Griffeth was discussed in a mainstream sports publication, ESPN.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Accordingly, for these reasons, I continue to assert that Griffeth is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, I'll make the closing admin happy: this is the last response I'll make. AfD is a place to state a position and facts succinctly, not to start giant filibusters. Moving on, it's striking me that your rebuttals are aimed at cherry picking things I've said instead of focusing on the simple premise of whether the subject meets the GNG.  The GNG requires that the subject be discussed in significant detail in multiple reliable, independent, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact checking.  It really doesn't matter whether the various rugby websites qualify as reliable sources with respect to supporting notability (which they don't) not a single one of them devotes so much as a paragraph to the subject -- including her fleeting mention in that ESPN blog -- falling well short of the "significant detail" standard.  The Vassar school newspaper does, but even if you consider that to qualify (at AfD, anything much short of the Harvard Crimson has been generally considered NOT to qualify), it's only one such source. As far as belonging to the national team goes, that confers no presumptive notability.  If you scroll down the list of SNGs at WP:NSPORTS, you'll see that "Belongs to the national team" is almost never a criterion.  It is, instead, playing for the senior national team at the top level of international competition, and you'll see that in most cases that's restricted to the Olympics and the world championships.   Ravenswing   23:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly we continue to disagree. We've made our cases. Let's let the closing admin decide. I bid farewell to you Ravenswing and the others here; in my reckoning, you qualify as notable Wikipedians.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Just meets WP:GNG. Don't pay too much attention to WP:NRU -- it's only a guideline to use when trying to assume GNG. Unfortunately with women's rugby coverage is just not as good as for men's, which is why the NRU criteria seem sexist (this just reflects the reality of the respective media coverage). For example I still haven't found Gill Burns' date of birth anywhere, despite the fact she captained a World Cup winning team! That would never be the case in men's rugby -- it's a real problem. -- Shudde  talk 09:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you've found sources which meet the GNG, splendid! Have you added them to the article?   Ravenswing   04:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, these things come down to press coverage, and in this case I don't think it's there for Griffeth. I acknowledge that media coverage of female rugby players is poor, and doubly-so when they're not from a recognised rugby playing country like the USA, but on the other hand we simply can't write a biography of a living person without well researched and reliable sources to base that off of.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:18, 31 May 2014 (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.