Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Allison (referee)


 * 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) &mdash; Caknuck 00:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

David Allison (referee)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not sure if referees are notable or not, but I have my doubts here. Claims such as "In his seventeen years as a referee he controlled 463 matches in the Football and Premier Leagues, one of the highest ever figures." are weasel-worded and unsourced, and the article is totally devoid of wikilinks. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, this was also a disputed prod. Forgot to mention that. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe WP:BIO's athletes section extends to officials at the top level as well. With that said, I'm not certain I'm right about that. For the record, I'm the person who disputed the prod precisely because I think the uncertainty means there should be a discussion about it before a decision is reached. Edit to add: The article does claim some offline sources, but I agree it certainly could use improvement. Erechtheus 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Needs references. Callelinea 04:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for this specific article; undecided about the policy idea. In competitive team play an umpire or referee is likely notable, since much of the discussion about the match will be about him and his acts specifically (see Kerry Fraser, for instance and ad nauseam). I think someone who spent 17 years as a Premier League referee must have some name recognition and have been written about, and is likely far more notable than a guy who played one game (and therefore passes WP:BIO). My only qualm about saying that all referees are notable is that even the busiest referees in individual sports such as swimming and tennis are not written about and don't get the kind of third-party attention that someone like Allison or Fraser does. -- Charlene 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Referees are about as prominent on the football pitch as the players. Since this is Premier League level, this person is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done some tidying up, including introducing a source for some of the claims in the article..... ChrisTheDude 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I think refereeing at the highest level makes him notable. I don't think the quality of the article comes into it. Dave101 →talk  08:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - refereed at the top level, notable GiantSnowman 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - of course referees are notable, and ex-Premier League status is almost an automatic vouchsafe. I would kindly suggest being more sure of WP:NOTABLE before nominating for AfD. The article can of course be developed and sourced further to give it a sense of quality. Ref (chew) (do) 19:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Perfectly notable, and rather than just being nominated for deletion, sources could have been found just as ChrisTheDude did and the article improved. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦ · Talk 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - indeed, some work has now been done on the article. Ref (chew) (do) 08:52, 30 June 2007 (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.