- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Nigel Nutt
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nigel Nutt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fencer, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 00:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 03:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete appears to fail GNG and SPORTCRIT Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. I've significantly edited the page and added numerous WP:RS. Contributors please note that unsupported comments such as "fails WP:SPORTCRIT", without any supporting reasoning are not helpful to the decision making process here. Relevantly, SPORTCRIT is effectively WP:GNG; and WP:SPORTSPERSON states: A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG. Even before my additions, it was obvious that the page had the potential to pass GNG simply on the fact that Nutt was a national and international champion in his sport; and has received Australia's national honour, the OAM for fencing. Absence of citations is not a reason to delete: it's a reason to improve the page. Please be mindful of WP:ATD. Cabrils ( talk) 23:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep meets gng,
[1],
[2] along with several others in the article do it for me.
Jacona (
talk)
17:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- The coverage in the SMH source just repeats statements from Nutt, so isn't independent in regards to him, and the ABC source has the same issue. At the moment, I am leaning delete; do you have other sources that you believe are significant and independent?
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- With respect, your assertions regarding the SMH article and the ABC source are not correct. Neither "just repeats statements from Nutt": they both include substantial commentary (ie commentary of substance) from the authors. However, in any event, such an assertion is mischievous and misrepresents WP:RS and WP:GNG. Even if an article "just repeats statements from Nutt" it is still a RS and appropriate for an entry IF "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see WP:SIGCOV). Further, simply because and article "just repeats statements from Nutt" is irrelevant and bears no logical or rational connection to your suggestion that that some how makes the article "not independent": please see WP:GNG: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." There is nothing in the definition that suggests the author's independence is compromised if he "just repeats statements from Nutt".
- Additionally, as I noted above, please see WP:SPORTSPERSON: "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor...ETC".
- Notwithstanding these critical points, there are multiple RS here now, including but not limited to: 2x SMH; 1x ABC; 3x The Canberra Times.
- Finally, as a matter of common sense, Nutt is not a nobody, he's a world class sportsman (fencer). This is not a page on a mediocre sportsman who, for example, only competed at provincial level and is trying to shoehorn themselves into Wikipedia and prop up their reputation. I hope common sense prevails here. Cabrils ( talk) 01:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Interviews are works produced by both the subject and the author. For example, "It’s a mix of physical activity, the love of the sport and the people you get the mix with. I just love it, it’s great fun ... I’ve got plenty of silvers." is not independent of Nutt. Because of this, for the work to count towards WP:GNG, the parts that are not written in collaboration with the subject need to be WP:SIGCOV, and I am not seeing that in the sources above. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- The coverage in the SMH source just repeats statements from Nutt, so isn't independent in regards to him, and the ABC source has the same issue. At the moment, I am leaning delete; do you have other sources that you believe are significant and independent?
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Could you please identify where exactly in
WP:SIGCOV what you've suggested here is defined? Thanks
Cabrils (
talk)
01:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG, not
WP:SIGCOV. It isn't enough for the coverage to be significant, it also needs to be reliable, secondary, and independent.
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK. So then I understand that that is the definition of
WP:GNG, but I still do not see how you can assert that the SMH, ABC and Canberra Times articles fail that? Given the basis of your vote is "leaning to delete", could you please clarify how each of those articles does not meet GNG in your view? Because surely each article is in fact significant, reliable, secondary, and independent. With respect, I can't find any support in the guidelines for your assertion that "for the work to count towards
WP:GNG, the parts that are not written in collaboration with the subject need to be
WP:SIGCOV".
Cabrils (
talk)
21:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- (ec) Going over SMH; the article contains five sentences on Nutt. Two of those are direct quotes from Nutt, and must be ignored as direct quotes are not independent. That leaves us three sentences; which tell us that he has competed for thirty years winning several medals, came second in his last competition, and is going to compete in a match on Sunday. This isn't enough to count as significant coverage. The others have the same issue.
BilledMammal (
talk)
21:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK thanks for clarifying that. However, both points you make are absolutely unsustainable arguments: please see
WP:CONTEXTWP:CONTEXTMATTERS. That article, along with multiple others, as a whole is undoubtedly SIGCOV in a reliable source. The totality of multiple RS carries weight here. Cabrils ( talk) 22:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)- Did you mean to link
WP:CONTEXT (which discusses wikilinks) or something else?
BilledMammal (
talk)
22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry--amended post: I meant
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
Cabrils (
talk)
12:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, I don't believe that is relevant here; that discusses whether a source is reliable, not whether it is independent.
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is my point. That article is authoritative and yet it doesn't discuss the "independent" issue that you have raised-- I refer to it as evidence against your argument. With respect, what you have proposed is a straw man.
Cabrils (
talk)
01:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- GNG requires that a source has
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS only discusses whether a source is reliable, and not whether it is significant or independent. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- GNG requires that a source has
- That is my point. That article is authoritative and yet it doesn't discuss the "independent" issue that you have raised-- I refer to it as evidence against your argument. With respect, what you have proposed is a straw man.
Cabrils (
talk)
01:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, I don't believe that is relevant here; that discusses whether a source is reliable, not whether it is independent.
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry--amended post: I meant
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
Cabrils (
talk)
12:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Did you mean to link
WP:CONTEXT (which discusses wikilinks) or something else?
BilledMammal (
talk)
22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK thanks for clarifying that. However, both points you make are absolutely unsustainable arguments: please see
- (ec) Going over SMH; the article contains five sentences on Nutt. Two of those are direct quotes from Nutt, and must be ignored as direct quotes are not independent. That leaves us three sentences; which tell us that he has competed for thirty years winning several medals, came second in his last competition, and is going to compete in a match on Sunday. This isn't enough to count as significant coverage. The others have the same issue.
BilledMammal (
talk)
21:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK. So then I understand that that is the definition of
WP:GNG, but I still do not see how you can assert that the SMH, ABC and Canberra Times articles fail that? Given the basis of your vote is "leaning to delete", could you please clarify how each of those articles does not meet GNG in your view? Because surely each article is in fact significant, reliable, secondary, and independent. With respect, I can't find any support in the guidelines for your assertion that "for the work to count towards
WP:GNG, the parts that are not written in collaboration with the subject need to be
WP:SIGCOV".
Cabrils (
talk)
21:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG, not
WP:SIGCOV. It isn't enough for the coverage to be significant, it also needs to be reliable, secondary, and independent.
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Could you please identify where exactly in
WP:SIGCOV what you've suggested here is defined? Thanks
Cabrils (
talk)
01:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete we do not sourcing here that actually constitutes a pass of GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input to see what agreement the existing views have.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Cabrils. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ John Pack Lambert: Could you kindly provide some reasoning as to how the current sources do not "actually constitute a pass of GNG"? Thanks. Cabrils ( talk) 22:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Based on the sources available in the article alone, I feel that this satisfies the relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines. Canadian Paul 01:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The claim that a source is not significant because it includes quotes from the subject seems silly. Meets GNG. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 06:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Cabrils. Blakesmith11 ( talk) 10:23, 30 March 2022 (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.
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 12:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Nigel Nutt
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nigel Nutt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fencer, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T· C 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 00:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- Vaco98 ( talk) 03:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete appears to fail GNG and SPORTCRIT Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 05:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. I've significantly edited the page and added numerous WP:RS. Contributors please note that unsupported comments such as "fails WP:SPORTCRIT", without any supporting reasoning are not helpful to the decision making process here. Relevantly, SPORTCRIT is effectively WP:GNG; and WP:SPORTSPERSON states: A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG. Even before my additions, it was obvious that the page had the potential to pass GNG simply on the fact that Nutt was a national and international champion in his sport; and has received Australia's national honour, the OAM for fencing. Absence of citations is not a reason to delete: it's a reason to improve the page. Please be mindful of WP:ATD. Cabrils ( talk) 23:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep meets gng,
[1],
[2] along with several others in the article do it for me.
Jacona (
talk)
17:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- The coverage in the SMH source just repeats statements from Nutt, so isn't independent in regards to him, and the ABC source has the same issue. At the moment, I am leaning delete; do you have other sources that you believe are significant and independent?
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- With respect, your assertions regarding the SMH article and the ABC source are not correct. Neither "just repeats statements from Nutt": they both include substantial commentary (ie commentary of substance) from the authors. However, in any event, such an assertion is mischievous and misrepresents WP:RS and WP:GNG. Even if an article "just repeats statements from Nutt" it is still a RS and appropriate for an entry IF "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see WP:SIGCOV). Further, simply because and article "just repeats statements from Nutt" is irrelevant and bears no logical or rational connection to your suggestion that that some how makes the article "not independent": please see WP:GNG: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." There is nothing in the definition that suggests the author's independence is compromised if he "just repeats statements from Nutt".
- Additionally, as I noted above, please see WP:SPORTSPERSON: "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor...ETC".
- Notwithstanding these critical points, there are multiple RS here now, including but not limited to: 2x SMH; 1x ABC; 3x The Canberra Times.
- Finally, as a matter of common sense, Nutt is not a nobody, he's a world class sportsman (fencer). This is not a page on a mediocre sportsman who, for example, only competed at provincial level and is trying to shoehorn themselves into Wikipedia and prop up their reputation. I hope common sense prevails here. Cabrils ( talk) 01:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Interviews are works produced by both the subject and the author. For example, "It’s a mix of physical activity, the love of the sport and the people you get the mix with. I just love it, it’s great fun ... I’ve got plenty of silvers." is not independent of Nutt. Because of this, for the work to count towards WP:GNG, the parts that are not written in collaboration with the subject need to be WP:SIGCOV, and I am not seeing that in the sources above. BilledMammal ( talk) 02:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- The coverage in the SMH source just repeats statements from Nutt, so isn't independent in regards to him, and the ABC source has the same issue. At the moment, I am leaning delete; do you have other sources that you believe are significant and independent?
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Could you please identify where exactly in
WP:SIGCOV what you've suggested here is defined? Thanks
Cabrils (
talk)
01:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG, not
WP:SIGCOV. It isn't enough for the coverage to be significant, it also needs to be reliable, secondary, and independent.
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK. So then I understand that that is the definition of
WP:GNG, but I still do not see how you can assert that the SMH, ABC and Canberra Times articles fail that? Given the basis of your vote is "leaning to delete", could you please clarify how each of those articles does not meet GNG in your view? Because surely each article is in fact significant, reliable, secondary, and independent. With respect, I can't find any support in the guidelines for your assertion that "for the work to count towards
WP:GNG, the parts that are not written in collaboration with the subject need to be
WP:SIGCOV".
Cabrils (
talk)
21:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- (ec) Going over SMH; the article contains five sentences on Nutt. Two of those are direct quotes from Nutt, and must be ignored as direct quotes are not independent. That leaves us three sentences; which tell us that he has competed for thirty years winning several medals, came second in his last competition, and is going to compete in a match on Sunday. This isn't enough to count as significant coverage. The others have the same issue.
BilledMammal (
talk)
21:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK thanks for clarifying that. However, both points you make are absolutely unsustainable arguments: please see
WP:CONTEXTWP:CONTEXTMATTERS. That article, along with multiple others, as a whole is undoubtedly SIGCOV in a reliable source. The totality of multiple RS carries weight here. Cabrils ( talk) 22:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)- Did you mean to link
WP:CONTEXT (which discusses wikilinks) or something else?
BilledMammal (
talk)
22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry--amended post: I meant
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
Cabrils (
talk)
12:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, I don't believe that is relevant here; that discusses whether a source is reliable, not whether it is independent.
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is my point. That article is authoritative and yet it doesn't discuss the "independent" issue that you have raised-- I refer to it as evidence against your argument. With respect, what you have proposed is a straw man.
Cabrils (
talk)
01:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- GNG requires that a source has
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS only discusses whether a source is reliable, and not whether it is significant or independent. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- GNG requires that a source has
- That is my point. That article is authoritative and yet it doesn't discuss the "independent" issue that you have raised-- I refer to it as evidence against your argument. With respect, what you have proposed is a straw man.
Cabrils (
talk)
01:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. However, I don't believe that is relevant here; that discusses whether a source is reliable, not whether it is independent.
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry--amended post: I meant
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
Cabrils (
talk)
12:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Did you mean to link
WP:CONTEXT (which discusses wikilinks) or something else?
BilledMammal (
talk)
22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK thanks for clarifying that. However, both points you make are absolutely unsustainable arguments: please see
- (ec) Going over SMH; the article contains five sentences on Nutt. Two of those are direct quotes from Nutt, and must be ignored as direct quotes are not independent. That leaves us three sentences; which tell us that he has competed for thirty years winning several medals, came second in his last competition, and is going to compete in a match on Sunday. This isn't enough to count as significant coverage. The others have the same issue.
BilledMammal (
talk)
21:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK. So then I understand that that is the definition of
WP:GNG, but I still do not see how you can assert that the SMH, ABC and Canberra Times articles fail that? Given the basis of your vote is "leaning to delete", could you please clarify how each of those articles does not meet GNG in your view? Because surely each article is in fact significant, reliable, secondary, and independent. With respect, I can't find any support in the guidelines for your assertion that "for the work to count towards
WP:GNG, the parts that are not written in collaboration with the subject need to be
WP:SIGCOV".
Cabrils (
talk)
21:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
-
WP:GNG, not
WP:SIGCOV. It isn't enough for the coverage to be significant, it also needs to be reliable, secondary, and independent.
BilledMammal (
talk)
02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Could you please identify where exactly in
WP:SIGCOV what you've suggested here is defined? Thanks
Cabrils (
talk)
01:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete we do not sourcing here that actually constitutes a pass of GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input to see what agreement the existing views have.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Cabrils. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ John Pack Lambert: Could you kindly provide some reasoning as to how the current sources do not "actually constitute a pass of GNG"? Thanks. Cabrils ( talk) 22:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Based on the sources available in the article alone, I feel that this satisfies the relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines. Canadian Paul 01:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The claim that a source is not significant because it includes quotes from the subject seems silly. Meets GNG. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 06:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Cabrils. Blakesmith11 ( talk) 10:23, 30 March 2022 (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.