Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of apologies to clubs from PGMOL


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

List of apologies to clubs from PGMOL

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is a short list of information that is inherently unverifiable because it is all based on reports of supposed apologies issued by a referee association. More importantly, this list violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list has no place on Wikipedia, as we don't just stockpile information for the sake of it. At best, this could be a subsection on PGMOL's article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR. There's no source which covers all of these as a topic. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep - The relevant guideline here is WP:NLIST which requires that the items listed have been discussed as a group/set by multiple independent reliable sources. I have found the following -, , - which I think just about meet that requirement. The Mirror/Irish Mirror are not ideal sources but neither are they unreliable (see WP:DAILYMIRROR) - and I am not certain as to whether we should treat them as one source or two (they seem to be using the same source material, but the copy is different, with two different writers). Nevertheless, I think we just about have significant coverage in two or three reliable sources. This is also a potential source, although it does not focus directly on PGMOL apologies. No issues with the Squawka article as far as I can tell. This is not inherently unverifiable - all the incidents listed can be verified by reliable sources, such as news reports. Neither does this violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the list here does not compare with the examples given on that policy page. WJ94 (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex / Rational  15:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to parent article, not necessarily because the topic is or isn’t notable but because this isn’t the sort of thing that needs a list. Dronebogus (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - ridiculous title/topic. At best it should be merged to Video assistant referee (with no redirect). GiantSnowman 18:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Professional Game Match Officials Limited. Good ATD, preserves the history, could eventually be removed without a future AFD if needed, or split back out if it becomes necesary, and the current list is short. &mdash;siro&chi;o 11:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete a merge to Professional Game Match Officials Limited would be undue, as just listing complaints there violates WP:NPOV and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The section Video assistant referee already violates WP:Controversy sections, so we shouldn't be adding more problems to that article either. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial for wikipedia. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete They've made four apologies? I can't see the need for this list. I'm not ever sure what PGMOL is. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Referees and other sports officials make mistakes all the time, and these are only the apologies that have been publicly announced (I presume by the offended club). What makes these particular apologies notable? This seems to be WP:LISTCRUFT and is a prime example of WP:NOT. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not encyclopedic at all. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2023 (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.