Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Crawford


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. Satisfied with sources identified under "Danny Crawford", which is different from current title.—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Dan Crawford

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. WP:NBASKETBALL does not presume notability of NBA referees. Coverage is predominantly WP:ROUTINE with brief mentions that he was referring a game. Dan Crawford (missionary) should be moved here. At best, place a hatnote to List of National Basketball Association referees. —Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Dan Crawford is a particularly prominent referee and has been for a long time. A quick check brought up several stories primarily about Crawford, e.g.,    . Rlendog (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The first three sources are for Joey Crawford, not Dan Crawford.—Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. Striking my keep.  Still not convinced a 30 year prominent ref is non-notable though. Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is something wrong with WP:NBASKETBALL if a one game player is presumed notable, but a referee with over 1700 games under his belt is not. AIR corn (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not in NBASKETBALL because referees generally don't receive significant coverage. Per WP:WHYN: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic."  Please identify that significant coverage exists. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet we give one game players a pass because a wikiproject made up some guidelines that that says they are presumed notable. He has been refereeing at the top level for 33 years. This includes taking charge of 1786 NBA games, with nearly 300 of them being play off games and 24 final games. These are significant numbers. A little common sense needs to be applied here. AIR corn (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Common sense" = no sources beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage, right?—Bagumba (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No commonsense as in there are probably sources around for a referee that has officiated at this level for this long if you look. These are from a quick google search:           Sure some may be routine, but he is also the main subject of many of them. Many draw attention to the fact that he currently has the longest consecutive NBA finals streak (including players) at 23. AIR corn  (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I also just want to emphasise that this is not an exhaustive list, I mearly picked a few from a google search. There are plenty of others. There are even some academic papers that mention him. Highbeam has at least 47 articles. Again some is routine, but not all. The routine stuff is no more routine than what you would find for a player anyway and it all adds up to more than satisfy the WP:GNG in my opinion. AIR corn (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . It seems like his WP:COMMONNAME is "Danny Crawford" so I missed most of these by searching "dan crawford" (with quotes).—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2017 (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.