Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final referees

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final referees

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG- lacks in-depth coverage outside of WP:ROUTINE stories relating to individual matches. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Sports. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator states that the coverage is routine, and "relating to individual matches". This is not the case. There is very little about the game but lots about the referee and the game, either before the game has occurred, e.g. here (in a national newspaper) or many decades afterwards, e.g. this obituary in a separate national newspaper from last year, which mentions straight away that he refereed the 1962 and 1963 finals and doesn't give the same attention to any of the other games he refereed. This suggests that if the referee is remembered at all (and is receiving an obituary in a national newspaper many decades later) it is for this game and so game and referee are linked. This source also states in the headline that refereeing the game can make a person part of an "elite group", which is far from routine. --Gaois (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are lengthy articles in The Irish Times, e.g. here and here, which link various referees to various finals and are about the referees and those particular games. WP:NLIST states: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". --Gaois (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I really don't understand what this article/list is "for". The relevant list/section in the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Finals articles already includes a "list of All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final referees". What, therefore, is this article "for"? The only other (non-duplicating) information we find is at the top (where we have somewhat discursive editorial about what an honour it is and how important the role of the referee is - not especially ground-breaking information). And at the bottom (where we find the same stats represented in a different format - grouped by person rather than by year). How is the article not WP:REDUNDANT or, at least, WP:OVERLAPing with existing article(s)? Guliolopez (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That list/section was (mostly) added after this discussion began... so clearly this existed first. The first entry to that section was added two days after this article appeared. The list/section that was added later also looks as if it is completely uncited. And less complete. I have only just seen it. It looks as if the person who added it (who hasn't a very long edit history and previously only seems to have shown an interest in rugby, soccer and American football) arrived after an absence of several months and copy/pasted the details across. The timing is very strange. I don't mean to suggest that one or the other is the right/wrong way but that was the order of events. --Gaois (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.