Talk:Andrew Madley

West Ham VAR Controversy
I understand that not everyone agrees with the recent edit that I made to the career section, hence why it was reverted. As I stated in my edit summary, if reverted, I’d be open to discuss this on the talk page.

There is no problems with reliable sources covering this, with a simple search on Google providing us with a fair few sources. If the ‘controversy’ (probably a better word to describe it) is deemed notable, then the career section in my opinion would be the best place for it.

In regards to the controversy sections in bios are not a great idea statement, I’d politely disagree with this. It just has to be done carefully and correctly. I don’t want to necessarily compare this to any other pages, but other pages on Wikipedia have controversy sections that are carefully worded.

In any case, I think the main problem is a case of WP:TOOSOON, at least this is the indication I got from the edit summary. Pinging @Aircorn to elaborate further. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I would go more UNDUE than TOOSOON, but that does apply here as well. It is undue to focus on one decision in one game (with obligatory quote from disgruntled coach) in a referees bio who has refereeed professional football for 14 years. It is pretty routine for a losing coach to blame the loss on the referee and if we include minor incidents like this then the article will just consist of so called controversies (it is not even clear that they made a wrong call - and even if they did it wouldn't matter much as we don't include every little mistake made by a player in their bio). If it has a long term effect (rule changes, impact on their career etc) then there might be a case for including it. Failing that, articles on the game or season are much better fits for this than the referee BLP. Aircorn (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)