Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian Football League umpires


 * 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 Gnangarra 05:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Australian Football League umpires

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There are few things less notable than a list of umpires. At least it isn't a list of songs about umpires. Clarityfiend 05:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Exactly what is unencyclopedic about it? The umpires, referees or whatever the game official is called is an essential part of the game, and just as significant or crucial as the players. This list covers an aspect of the top league of the sport, and is quite valid for coverage of the game. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I've looked in the WP:LIST guidelines, and this seems to meet the key purposes of Lists, being Informative, Navigation (weakly however), and useful for Development purposes. The content documented within the article in question is very informative, but however lacks significant navigation which is particularly important to a list of this size. If such a navigation structure could be devised (such as by year, by surname, etc) for the list, then I would be inclined to switch to a keep vote. Thewinchester (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per User:Thewinchester. Also note that the "complete" list lacks sources and context. The umpires on the recent list however are mostly linked to well cited articles and as such the list should be kept, but stripped down if additional sources cannot be found.--Yeti Hunter 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The umpires in any major sports league are actually notable and worthy of mention in a single article, although I don't advocate individual articles for each personage. Our planet is filled with people who work their regular jobs during the day, then don a striped shirt or a mask to officiate at a sporting event.  I don't know about the A.F.L., but there are baseball umpires (Ron Luciano) and NFL referees (Norm Schachter) who are well-known among sports fans.  They're like the Federal Reserve Board, people whose names aren't well-known, but whose decisions have a big effect... However, I think the name "List of... umpires", like "List of Charmed episodes", has a tin-whistle sound to it.  Maybe it could be part of a different article concerning the officiating in the A.F.L., including personages, controversies, etc.   The umpires are as important to the game as the athletes.   Billions of dollars, euros, and pesos have been won and lost on the pronouncements of these persons.  Mandsford 11:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not Australian, but umpires usually get sufficient notability (including independent coverage of their life and career) and are a substantial part of the game. Malc82 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Umpires collectively are notable. Most of them, individually, are not. Garrie 00:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Keep as useful list although I notice that it only has the 2006 list and hasn't been updated for 2007 which accounts for weak. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This list is notable, esp as individual umpires may not be, however the role is. Orderinchaos 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, this could be better organised, and I think the massive list of nn umpires at the end is overkill, but I guess it's useful to some, and it doesn't seem to break any guidelines. Lankiveil 03:28, 16 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.