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. Overall consensus is the coverage is not quite sufficient to meet the "significant" criterion, though I expect this article may well be back before very long if Thiel continues to play. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that two articles about player (and several others) constitutes a general notability. You are correct about one thing, however; I do not consistently go around nominating articles for deletion as I do not feel it is productive to the overall benefit of Wikipedia as a universal source of information.--Gri3720 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple search here has brought about clear WP:GNG passing coverage, which is unsurprising for a fully international player in 15s and 7s who participated in the Olympics. Afd is not clean up. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first source only has a 42-word paragraph devoted to him, which fails Wikipedia:One hundred words (and even the more lenient 50 word threshold mentioned in the essay). The second source literally boils down to "Thiel was injured", so that fails even worse. The third source is borderline SIGCOV (74 words) but seems to be a blog. The fourth one is also borderline merely mentioning him and giving a few quotes by him) but even if we count that that is only one source. The other sources on the page are not convincing either (the Canadian Olympic Committee is not independent of a Canadian Olympian, and the CBC link only mentions Thiel in a list). 2 borderline SIGCOV sources with one questionable reliability is not enough for GNG. 12.148.188.220 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per your 100 words link, ". Fifty such words would likely be significant.", in article one the word count is higher than 50. Not sure how you came to 42. The third source is not a blog. Its the official website of Rugby Americas North, the international governing body of the sport in the continent. That with the fourth source is enough to justify WP:GNG, yet alone the first two among others. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT. Sources do not address the subject "directly and detail" as required by these guidelines. All of the sources linked above are trivial mentions, with the primary focus being on the wider issues not Thiel himself. The Abbynews source has only four sentences directly about Thiel in the entire article, with the majority of the article devoted to coverage of the wider Canadian Rugby team heading to the Tokyo Olympics. This Americas Rugby News has only two sentences. TSN has one sentence. The Times Colonist piece is an interview, which therefore lacks independence from the subject and cannot be used to prove WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to satisfy GNG. Essays are neither policy nor guideline and just because one person comes up with an arbitrary number and writes an essay about it doesn't make it anything more than someone's opinion. And in any case it's irrelevant as Sportsfan mentioned because the sources have more words than that. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Local boy makes it big"-type coverage doesn't count for much, especially when it's just a few sentences. Two sentences organized in a "paragraph" doesn't make them SIGCOV. And no matter how much content there is, if it's contained within quotes from the subject or an associate it is not independent coverage and does not count toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...how? When is two sentences ever SIGCOV? Captain Phil Berna and vice-captain Jake Thiel return from injury to bolster Canada's squad for the HSBC Spain Sevens in Malaga, but coach Henry Paul still has a lengthy list of absent players... Thiel was injured in Dubai, where the Canadian men finished 11th and 12th. Passing mentions like this don't count toward GNG for other bios, why should they for sportspeople? JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is about the article and another subject, meets GNG. The second source is a toss up. The third source is about the subject (the title) and lastly the fourth source is an entire bio on him by the largest newspaper on Vancouver Island. The combination of these sources clearly demonstrates coverage has been met. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter at all if the subject appears in the title of an article, or if the article is ostensibly "about" the subject, or even the prestige of the source; if there isn't significant coverage of the subject within the article it cannot contribute to GNG. And quoted/"he said this" content from an interview also never contributes to GNG. The point of SIGCOV isn't just to show that other people have given a subject attention (e.g. appearing in headlines, being interviewed, being mentioned in a major publication) -- it's to show they've received attention and substantial, in-depth, independent commentary. GNG isn't supposed to be an indicator of notability, it's supposed to actually establish it. The first source has a two-sentence blurb on him -- if this was sufficient to count towards GNG any high school state champ from somewhere with two newspapers would get a pass. The second is clearly routine injury coverage that does not count towards GNG. The third is another two transactional sentences in what seems to be a group WordPress blog. The fourth has half a sentence "introducing" him, with the rest being straight quotes. Does not count towards GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source analyses above. The fourth source is mostly his own quotes, and the third and second obviously do not have in-depth coverage. The first is the closest there is to SIGCOV, but without multiple sources meeting that requirement, notability isn't established. Avilich (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article also passes WP:NRU. A team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, World Rugby Sevens Series, Commonwealth Games, or. Thiel has competed at the Rugby Sevens Series and is scheduled to compete at the 2022 Commonwealth Games. All four sources listed above are more than trivial mentions of the subject imo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well it doesn't matter if he passes NRU. And again, interviews like that do not count toward GNG, and routine transactional coverage is excluded from meeting NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With a quick google search I easily found a few more articles about this player (one from 2011, when he and his twin brother were still schoolkids). This article is another example. Maybe someone should make an effort to find more sources to expand the article? Ruggalicious (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first article is hyperlocal coverage of his middle school performance, which fails WP:YOUNGATH. The second is an interview with very limited independent secondary commentary. Quotations from the subject/affiliates and primary descriptions never contribute to notability, so that leaves us with ~4 sentences that have the author's own thoughts or background. Not enough for GNG yet. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These two articles were only examples of articles found by a quick google search. My point is that on top of the articles already cited, there are probably more valid sources to be found if someone takes some time to do the research, also because this player has represented his country in the World Rugby Sevens Series for 5 years now and in the 15-men game at Under 20 level. Ruggalicious (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2022 (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.
