Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 NFL replacement officials

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. 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 WP:LISTN. The other main reason advanced for deletion was that the page duplicates 2012 NFL referee lockout, but I saw no clear consensus on this particular point. There wasn't any strong appetite for a merge, either. The arguments based on WP:LISTN point towards a "keep" close, but due to the significant opposition to keeping the article I am closing as no consensus instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2012 NFL replacement officials

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

In my opinion this article violates the spirit of both WP:List and WP:BLP. 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. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current consensus has been that all major league officials (see List of NFL officials, Category:American football officials, List of Major League Baseball umpires, Category:Major League Baseball umpires, List of National Basketball Association referees, Category:National Basketball Association referees, Category:National Hockey League officials, List of football referees, Category:Association football referees, 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 strikebreakers? 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.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Zzyzx11 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD 204.106.251.214 (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

If you were to go right now and remove all unsourced material from the article, that would be a good thing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL itself not being a secondary source. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede both points. But also, just because an article currently contains unsourced content, or is tagged with lacking sources, should not be a valid reason to delete the whole thing. Furthermore, this can be considered a stand only list (specifically a list of people), 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 are notable. The article is still also tagged with {{Expand list}} anyway. Theoretically, someone with the time could comb through sources like this one from USA Today that also list the officials in their box scores. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be a secondary source, it just needs to be verifiable and accurate. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These people are being listed in a separate article only due to the unusual circumstances of their employment. They otherwise would appear in List of NFL officials 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. ―cobaltcigs 09:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ―cobaltcigs 10:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Egregious example of Wikipedia:Recentism. The fact that replacement officials are being used is notable. The individual people are (in general) not. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to Merge per User:Frank Anchor -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of NFL officials. 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 Frank Anchor^Talk 16:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless at least a significant number achieve notability, in which case this could be revisited, I suppose, right now it is a compendium of employees of a corporation - we do not have "List of Vice-Presidents of General Motors" which list is equally available and equally of actual avail to Wikipedia users. Collect (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of NFL officials, 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 WP:RECENT because they have been around since early August and have received widespread coverage since then. Go Phightins! (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Legitimate list, being definable, limited, sourceable, and functional. Discrete from List of NFL officials, merging the two list combines parsnips with carrots because they are both vegetables. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, 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? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The reason that there are so many red links is that on the 2012 Jacksonville Jaguars season 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. --Go Phightins! (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 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 2012 NFL referee lockout, but I wouldn't particularly favor that merger either.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reasons stated by Carrite and Zzyzzx11, though a merge into 2012 NFL referee lockout could also be a consideration. Zappa O Mati 21:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are enough news hits on "nfl replacement officials" that a list of them would qualify under WP:LISTN, whether it be as a standalone article or merged into another article (e.g. 2012 NFL referee lockout, unless the article is deemed too large). This should not be deleted. Per WP:CSC, it's unclear if List of NFL officials is meant to be a complete list or limited to entries that meet notability criteria (i.e. deserve their own article). Otherwise, that might also be a candidate for a merge target as well.—Bagumba (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a massive WP:BLP1E, 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. Secret ^account 21:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSC 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 WP:NPOV, but that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE and not grounds for deletion.—Bagumba (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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 List of Major League Baseball replacement players, you should note that it's not a list of every single replacement player, but the ones who are notable enough for wiki articles. For this list, only the lady ref appears notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- 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. Ducknish (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.211.251 (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: the comment of the IP user above is the first and only time this user has edited any Wikipedia page, article or otherwise, and appears to be a potential sock-puppet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The replacement refs have caused enough controversy to be notable. AutomaticStrikeout 18:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The replacement refs may be bad, but we don't need a list of them. – Pee Jay 19:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an article at 2012 NFL referee lockout to cover this; this list is not notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am striking my previous merge vote, and moving to delete. With the creation of a stand-alone article regarding the 2012 NFL referee lockout, 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 not notable individually, 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 List of NFL officials; to the extent any of them are meaningfully relevant to the 2012 NFL referee lockout, they may be mentioned there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 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 List of NFL officials as a whole as a subsection might be reasonable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list meets WP:LISTN and all entries are allowable per WP:CSC; 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 m:inclusionism vs m:deletionism argument at this point, and I have no issue with either in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 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 List of Random Words to merge it to. --Captain Infinity (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- 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. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One distinction is that List of Guantanamo Bay detainees is a list of which a majority of the entires are blue links. The replacement refs individually are predominantly WP:BLP1E and most will likely never have a standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2012 (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.