Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Garnett
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
— User:Jayron32, 01:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BIO (Wikipedia:Notability)