Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hoskin


 * 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   delete. NW ( Talk ) 11:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Hoskin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete No evidence of notability. Sources cited confirm that he exists and is an umpire as stated, but give no indication of significance above or beyond any of the thousands of other referees and umpires in various sports. A few minor mentions in news reporting do not constitute significant coverage. Every indication is that this is a self-promotional autobiography. (Created by user Danhosk.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weakest, most reluctant keep. Sadly, as with pro athletes, the consensus is that even the slightest whiff of notability (officiating in a top league) is enough to keep them. See Category:Australian rules football umpires or even Category:Vanuatuan football referees! Delete per Quantpole and The-Pope's greater knowledge of the sport. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep . If there are sources verifying that he umpired AFL matches, that's good enough for me. While WP:ATH doesn't explicitly extend to umpires or referees, I think it sensible to apply WP:ATH analagously. For all its faults, WP:ATH is at least a clear objective criterion. The alternative is ugly case-by-case arguments about whether an umpire has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Nonetheless, because of the lack of a clear and easy answer to me, I'm happy to run with the consensus of the ping pong experts. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ATH and the other notability guidelines are not guarantees that a person is notable, rather they are guidance as to when it would be expected that someone or something would meet the general notability guidelines. It is understandable (but debatable) that it is expected for a professional athlete to have been discussed in reliable sources, but the same expectation is not true of referees. Rather than extending a much discussed (not in a good way....) guideline to referees, lets actually look at the sources. All of them are trivial mentions or unreliable sources. If this was being assessed under the general notability guidelines there is no way it would be kept. Quantpole (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above I cannot find any information to even verify the numbers of games he has been involved with. I cannot find any reference to him on the AFLUA or SANFLUA. In aussie rules there are also numerous umpires - I believe there are about ten at a game - so it's not the same profile as for example a football (soccer) referee. Quantpole (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I can confirm from offline sources that he is an goal umpire in the AFL, but goal umpires are not the main umpires, closest comparison would be like a linesman in other sports. I would argue that field umpires in the AFL are notable, but only the longest serving goal umpires would be notable, which he is not. (and for the record, in the AFL there are 3 field umpires, 4 boundary umpires (only since a year or so ago, used to be only 2) and 2 goal umpires.)The-Pope (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2010 (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.