Deletion of Valerie Griffeth

Comment: Just meets . Don't pay too much attention to  -- 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NRU)

Comment: Would like to point out that as it stands the subject clearly does not meet  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  - a criteria that this athlete does not meet. Having therefore met none of the 4 points of  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRU||WP:NRU||WP:NRU)

Comment: 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 https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_q=rugby&as_epq=valerie%20griffeth&as_occt=any&as_qdr=a&authuser=0, 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)