Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 NFL replacement officials - Knowledge

Source 📝

780:, content fork violation. According to our current guidelines, none of these officials were notable prior to this lockout, not notable now, and after all the regular referees comes back from the lockout, they will be heading back to their jobs as high school teachers and so forth and will likely never become notable again. This article simply reads like an attack page showing how unqualified that all these officials are, or the blown calls they associated with so far, which is deservedly mentioned elsewhere without any names being involved. 630:, with caveat that the target page for this merge does not have well-defined rules for inclusion. Given the high percentage of red links, may I assume that the target page has not been well-policed and that many of the red links are non-notable? If so, most of the replacement officials to be merged will also be non-notable and there will be few survivors who actually appear on the target page once the merge is effectuated. Might I suggest to a knowledgeable editor that some standard be stated on the target page for inclusion? 732: 276:? Nevertheless, several sports media and reliable sources are starting to report on the experiences and lives of these replacements -- just the like the regular officials. I do not see a BLP violation in merely repeating what these reliable sources say -- especially if the information can also be found on the NFL's own web site such as the listing of officials in each of their Gamebooks. 218:. This is not a list of notable people (with one exception) and so does not help readers navigate WP, which is supposed to be the purpose of WP lists according to policy. It also has potential negative impact on the people listed, against our BLP policy. The information on the topic of NFL replacements is already well covered in other articles. I don't see a need for this article. 369:), which can just list information --or merely names--, and not necessarily need to be used for navigation purposes. So I'm still unsure how the WP:LIST and WP:BLP fits in if we still keep the names that are currently cited. I have already basically stated that sports figures from professional competitions, including players, owners and referees 991:, this list of several dozen non-notable replacement refs serves no good purpose. List articles ideally should include a group of individuals who are collectively notable and many, if not most, of whom are also individually notable. Clearly, the overwhelming majority of officials on this list are 1054:; however, I am torn with whether it is appropriate to enumerate a list where virtually all the members are not notable. It would be an easier decision for me if most members were notable, and the non-notable were mentioned to complete the list. It seems like an 861:- These men were a part of a historic, albeit short, period in the NFL. History should be recorded, they are no different from a bench player who does not see playing time. They might not be notable, but they were a part of the game which should be recorded. 995:, and to my way of thinking, this list of names of refs who officiated in three NFL games during the lockout is trivia, and not worthy of encyclopedic content. To the extent a handful of these individuals are notable, they may be added to the regular 457:
either in a separate section or interspersed with the appropriate asterisks. The inclusion condition for the main list is (or at least should be) “has officiated an NFL game” without regard to competence, union membership, or pay scale.
179: 272:, etc.) have notability. They are widely reported in the media and other reliable sources. And yes, these articles do suffer from BLP violations from time to time. Is this objection to this one article just because they are 536:. That's basically what they are, as they have all officiated in NFL games. Possibly create a separate section at the bottom of the merge target page to differentiate between these officials and the regular NFL officials 1079:. Dozens of names, only 4 of which have pages. The rest are either unlinked or redlinked. How could this list possibly be considered notable? It's basically just a list of random words. What we need is a 1100:-- per IP 67.248.211.251 or whoever it is -- because figures who have a part in an historic event should have a collective article; past precedent has included the lists of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. 1020:. Lists are suitable places to place items that are not notable standing alone but are notable as a group. This would seem to describe the majority of NFL referees, replacement or not. A merge to 52:. Quite a few editors have recommended deletion of this list because the individual members are not notable, but we are actually allowed to have such lists if the group as a whole is notable, per 583:, and maybe also create redirects for all the referees who are currently redlinked to that page as well. I agree with Frank on this one. I disagree with Roy Smith that this is a a violation of 173: 105: 100: 109: 471: 792:
allows for "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group", whether or not the individual items are notable. Agreed that the article needs to adhere to
92: 943: 844:- the replacements have notability to a degree as officials of the NFL. The list is supported by sources and only serves a positive purpose by gathering this important information. 132: 889:: the comment of the IP user above is the first and only time this user has edited any Knowledge page, article or otherwise, and appears to be a potential sock-puppet. 820: 139: 253: 819:
A list of non-notable people isn't going to meet notability guidelines for lists. These replacement individuals aren't notable. If you look at a page like
261: 194: 161: 674:
for the reasons stated by Zzyzzx11 and Carrite. If this list were to be merged anywhere, the more appropriate target might be to a section of
269: 249: 560:- we do not have "List of Vice-Presidents of General Motors" which list is equally available and equally of actual avail to Knowledge users. 453:
These people are being listed in a separate article only due to the unusual circumstances of their employment. They otherwise would appear in
315: 245: 1131: 1109: 1092: 1071: 1038: 1012: 979: 955: 934: 919: 898: 876: 868: 853: 836: 809: 784: 768: 723: 687: 662: 640: 619: 596: 569: 542: 522: 500: 478: 462: 438: 424: 396: 352: 338: 323: 287: 241: 227: 74: 155: 653:
page (that was just an example, it's on all of them), the template automatically links to the referee's page and it can't be undone. --
257: 60:, but I saw no clear consensus on this particular point. There wasn't any strong appetite for a merge, either. The arguments based on 151: 64:
point towards a "keep" close, but due to the significant opposition to keeping the article I am closing as no consensus instead. —
429:
If we were trying to establish a person's notability it would need to be. But you are right if it's only to put a name on a list.
1115: 711: 650: 475: 459: 96: 384: 827:
replacement player, but the ones who are notable enough for wiki articles. For this list, only the lady ref appears notable. –
17: 201: 88: 80: 370: 308: 987:. I am striking my previous merge vote, and moving to delete. With the creation of a stand-alone article regarding the 915: 167: 1088: 1118:
is a list of which a majority of the entires are blue links. The replacement refs individually are predominantly
493:. The fact that replacement officials are being used is notable. The individual people are (in general) not. -- 1152: 319: 265: 40: 1032: 1000: 988: 967: 740: 700: 675: 57: 872: 911: 658: 592: 329:
If you were to go right now and remove all unsourced material from the article, that would be a good thing.
1080: 797: 1148: 1084: 1021: 1008: 996: 894: 759:(i.e. deserve their own article). Otherwise, that might also be a candidate for a merge target as well.— 752: 636: 607: 580: 533: 454: 237: 67: 36: 864: 716: 377: 366: 357:
I'll concede both points. But also, just because an article currently contains unsourced content, or
1028: 975: 931: 683: 587:
because they have been around since early August and have received widespread coverage since then.
490: 187: 277: 849: 832: 654: 588: 519: 497: 434: 348: 334: 223: 361:, should not be a valid reason to delete the whole thing. Furthermore, this can be considered a 1127: 1105: 1067: 951: 805: 764: 615: 565: 537: 512: 420: 392: 304: 283: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1147:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1004: 890: 632: 584: 1119: 1047: 777: 736: 706: 362: 358: 61: 53: 610:, merging the two list combines parsnips with carrots because they are both vegetables. 971: 928: 793: 744: 679: 606:- Legitimate list, being definable, limited, sourceable, and functional. Discrete from 415:
It doesn't need to be a secondary source, it just needs to be verifiable and accurate.
211: 1051: 845: 828: 789: 748: 516: 494: 430: 344: 330: 312: 273: 219: 215: 1123: 1101: 1063: 947: 801: 760: 611: 561: 416: 388: 300: 279: 1055: 126: 1059: 781: 756: 739:, whether it be as a standalone article or merged into another article (e.g. 383:
anyway. Theoretically, someone with the time could comb through sources like
56:. The other main reason advanced for deletion was that the page duplicates 927:- The replacement refs may be bad, but we don't need a list of them. – 1062:
argument at this point, and I have no issue with either in this case.—
556:, in which case this could be revisited, I suppose, right now it is a 236:. The current consensus has been that all major league officials (see 910:
The replacement refs have caused enough controversy to be notable.
649:
Note: The reason that there are so many red links is that on the
387:
from USA Today that also list the officials in their box scores.
1141:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
755:
is meant to be a complete list or limited to entries that meet
999:; to the extent any of them are meaningfully relevant to the 678:, but I wouldn't particularly favor that merger either.-- 311:) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this 695:- Per reasons stated by Carrite and Zzyzzx11, though a 210:
In my opinion this article violates the spirit of both
122: 118: 114: 1122:
and most will likely never have a standalone article.—
472:
list of American football-related deletion discussions
186: 944:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
821:List of Major League Baseball replacement players 258:Category:National Basketball Association referees 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1155:). No further edits should be made to this page. 254:List of National Basketball Association referees 552:Unless at least a significant number achieve 343:The NFL itself not being a secondary source. 200: 8: 942:Note: This debate has been included in the 470:Note: This debate has been included in the 970:to cover this; this list is not notable.-- 941: 823:, you should note that it's not a list of 469: 262:Category:National Hockey League officials 735:that a list of them would qualify under 733:news hits on "nfl replacement officials" 558:compendium of employees of a corporation 373:. The article is still also tagged with 1027:as a subsection might be reasonable. - 270:Category:Association football referees 250:Category:Major League Baseball umpires 89:List of 2012 NFL replacement officials 81:List of 2012 NFL replacement officials 246:List of Major League Baseball umpires 7: 242:Category:American football officials 747:). This should not be deleted. Per 1050:and all entries are allowable per 24: 1116:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees 1003:, they may be mentioned there. 651:2012 Jacksonville Jaguars season 743:, unless the article is deemed 703:could also be a consideration. 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 956:03:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 935:19:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 920:18:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 877:05:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 854:03:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 837:01:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 810:22:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 800:and not grounds for deletion.— 785:21:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 769:21:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 724:21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 688:21:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 663:20:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 641:20:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 620:18:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 597:16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 570:16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 543:16:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 523:17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 501:13:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 479:10:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 463:09:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 439:21:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 425:18:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 397:07:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 359:is tagged with lacking sources 353:07:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 339:07:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 324:02:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC) 288:07:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 228:06:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 1: 887:Note to closing administrator 1132:21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 1110:18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 1093:21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 1072:00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 1039:00:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 1013:12:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 980:11:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC) 899:13:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 75:01:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC) 1172: 266:List of football referees 1144:Please do not modify it. 1114:One distinction is that 1001:2012 NFL referee lockout 993:not notable individually 989:2012 NFL referee lockout 968:2012 NFL referee lockout 741:2012 NFL referee lockout 701:2012 NFL referee lockout 676:2012 NFL referee lockout 489:. Egregious example of 58:2012 NFL referee lockout 32:Please do not modify it. 966:There is an article at 507:I have no objection to 1022:List of NFL officials 997:List of NFL officials 753:List of NFL officials 608:List of NFL officials 581:List of NFL officials 534:List of NFL officials 455:List of NFL officials 297:Note to closing admin 238:List of NFL officials 1081:List of Random Words 1083:to merge it to. -- 757:notability criteria 491:Knowledge:Recentism 751:, it's unclear if 48:The result was 958: 867:comment added by 731:There are enough 513:User:Frank Anchor 481: 326: 1163: 1146: 1085:Captain Infinity 1035: 879: 721: 719: 714: 709: 540: 382: 376: 365:(specifically a 294: 205: 204: 190: 142: 130: 112: 70: 69:Mr. Stradivarius 34: 1171: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1153:deletion review 1142: 1046:The list meets 1037: 1033: 862: 798:WP:SURMOUNTABLE 717: 712: 707: 705: 538: 380: 374: 363:stand only list 316:204.106.251.214 147: 138: 103: 87: 84: 68: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1169: 1167: 1158: 1157: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1095: 1074: 1056:m:inclusionism 1041: 1031: 1029:The Bushranger 1015: 982: 960: 959: 938: 937: 922: 904: 903: 902: 901: 881: 880: 869:67.248.211.251 856: 839: 814: 813: 812: 796:, but that is 771: 726: 690: 668: 667: 666: 665: 644: 643: 623: 622: 600: 599: 573: 572: 546: 545: 526: 525: 504: 503: 483: 482: 466: 465: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 367:list of people 291: 290: 274:strikebreakers 208: 207: 144: 83: 78: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1168: 1156: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1139: 1138: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1096: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1075: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1060:m:deletionism 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1040: 1036: 1034:One ping only 1030: 1026: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 983: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 962: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 940: 939: 936: 933: 930: 926: 923: 921: 918: 917: 913: 909: 906: 905: 900: 896: 892: 888: 885: 884: 883: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 860: 857: 855: 851: 847: 843: 840: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 788: 787: 786: 783: 779: 776:as a massive 775: 772: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 727: 725: 722: 720: 715: 710: 702: 698: 694: 691: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 670: 669: 664: 660: 656: 655:Go Phightins! 652: 648: 647: 646: 645: 642: 638: 634: 631: 629: 625: 624: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 602: 601: 598: 594: 590: 589:Go Phightins! 586: 582: 578: 575: 574: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 548: 547: 544: 541: 535: 531: 528: 527: 524: 521: 518: 514: 510: 506: 505: 502: 499: 496: 492: 488: 485: 484: 480: 477: 473: 468: 467: 464: 461: 456: 452: 451: 440: 436: 432: 428: 427: 426: 422: 418: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 398: 394: 390: 386: 379: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 355: 354: 350: 346: 342: 341: 340: 336: 332: 328: 327: 325: 321: 317: 314: 310: 306: 302: 298: 293: 292: 289: 285: 281: 278: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 232: 231: 230: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 203: 199: 196: 193: 189: 185: 181: 178: 175: 172: 169: 166: 163: 160: 157: 153: 150: 149:Find sources: 145: 141: 137: 134: 128: 124: 120: 116: 111: 107: 102: 98: 94: 90: 86: 85: 82: 79: 77: 76: 73: 72: 71: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 1143: 1140: 1097: 1076: 1043: 1024: 1017: 992: 984: 963: 924: 914: 907: 886: 863:— Preceding 858: 841: 825:every single 824: 816: 773: 728: 704: 696: 692: 671: 627: 626: 603: 576: 557: 553: 549: 539:Frank Anchor 529: 508: 486: 296: 233: 209: 197: 191: 183: 176: 170: 164: 158: 148: 135: 66: 65: 50:no consensus 49: 47: 31: 28: 1005:Dirtlawyer1 891:Dirtlawyer1 633:Dirtlawyer1 378:Expand list 371:are notable 174:free images 1025:as a whole 554:notability 476:cobaltcigs 460:cobaltcigs 1149:talk page 972:GrapedApe 948:• Gene93k 916:Strikeout 912:Automatic 745:too large 680:Arxiloxos 585:WP:RECENT 37:talk page 1151:or in a 1120:WP:BLP1E 1048:WP:LISTN 865:unsigned 846:Ducknish 829:Muboshgu 778:WP:BLP1E 737:WP:LISTN 517:RoySmith 495:RoySmith 431:Kitfoxxe 385:this one 345:Kitfoxxe 331:Kitfoxxe 309:contribs 220:Kitfoxxe 133:View log 62:WP:LISTN 54:WP:LISTN 39:or in a 1124:Bagumba 1102:Bearian 1064:Bagumba 1044:Comment 802:Bagumba 794:WP:NPOV 761:Bagumba 729:Comment 612:Carrite 562:Collect 417:Carrite 389:Zzyzx11 301:Zzyzx11 280:Zzyzx11 212:WP:List 180:WP refs 168:scholar 106:protect 101:history 1077:Delete 1052:WP:CSC 985:Delete 964:Delete 925:Delete 817:Delete 790:WP:CSC 782:Secret 774:Delete 749:WP:CSC 550:Delete 520:(talk) 498:(talk) 487:Delete 216:WP:BLP 152:Google 110:delete 708:Zappa 699:into 697:merge 628:Merge 579:with 577:Merge 532:with 530:Merge 509:Merge 195:JSTOR 156:books 140:Stats 127:views 119:watch 115:links 16:< 1128:talk 1106:talk 1098:Keep 1089:talk 1068:talk 1018:Keep 1009:talk 976:talk 952:talk 908:Keep 895:talk 873:talk 859:Keep 850:talk 842:Keep 833:talk 806:talk 765:talk 718:Mati 693:Keep 684:talk 672:Keep 659:talk 637:talk 616:talk 604:Keep 593:talk 566:talk 511:per 435:talk 421:talk 393:talk 349:talk 335:talk 320:talk 305:talk 284:talk 234:Keep 224:talk 214:and 188:FENS 162:news 123:logs 97:talk 93:edit 1058:vs 932:Jay 929:Pee 515:-- 474:. ― 313:XfD 202:TWL 131:– ( 1130:) 1108:) 1091:) 1070:) 1011:) 978:) 954:) 946:. 897:) 875:) 852:) 835:) 808:) 767:) 686:) 661:) 639:) 618:) 595:) 568:) 437:) 423:) 395:) 381:}} 375:{{ 351:) 337:) 322:) 307:• 299:: 295:— 286:) 268:, 264:, 260:, 256:, 252:, 248:, 244:, 240:, 226:) 182:) 125:| 121:| 117:| 113:| 108:| 104:| 99:| 95:| 1126:( 1104:( 1087:( 1066:( 1007:( 974:( 950:( 893:( 871:( 848:( 831:( 804:( 763:( 713:O 682:( 657:( 635:( 614:( 591:( 564:( 458:― 433:( 419:( 391:( 347:( 333:( 318:( 303:( 282:( 222:( 206:) 198:· 192:· 184:· 177:· 171:· 165:· 159:· 154:( 146:( 143:) 136:· 129:) 91:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
WP:LISTN
2012 NFL referee lockout
WP:LISTN
Mr. Stradivarius
01:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
List of 2012 NFL replacement officials
List of 2012 NFL replacement officials
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Stats
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.