Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Murphy (referee)

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Murphy (referee)

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

Referees are not autonotable (excluded from WP:NSPORT and have to meet WP:BIO. And most of them don't, because they are just doing their usual job, with not more then passing mentions in sport media, which usually focuses on the sportspeople, not referees. This one has an article about herself, but in her local hometown newspaper ([1], Stamford Mercury), and a glowing paragraph, but still, just a paragraph, in a short ITV Sport column ([2]). I don't think that's enough to pass BIO and make it into an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator - I thought she is notable because of her being one of very very few women in the sport. There are other references to her in sports pages but only in that she is a referee. Most give no other details about her except her name and job. But as the creator I thought she was notable enough for an article (even if only a stub) and so I'm not sure if my opinion counts here? ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 20:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, while I fully acknowledge WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, it has no influence on WP:GNG. Being one of the few recognized women in a given profession is laudable, but does not make her encyclopedic, not, IMHO, unless she gets more coverage than was is there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are in fact lots of references, including several YouTube clips, pointing out her notability as a woman snooker referee. Both the Russian and Polish wikis also find her notable as the only the second woman ever to become a professional referee.--Ipigott (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show any referenced better then YouTube clips or other wikis, neither of which is an acceptable WP:RS? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the YouTube clips on their own are not a good basis for justifying the item but the Evening Standard article (now added as a source), together with the other sources quoted in the article should be sufficient. The article is not primarily about Murphy's snooker career but rather her notability as one of the very first women to be selected as an official referee. The sources quoted provide evidence of how the press communicated this achievement.--Ipigott (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A referee that officiates at the top level is just as notable as athletes that play at that level. AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like she's gotten some coverage. Seems notable enough. South Nashua (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep -- groundbreaking person, adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 07:00, 5 November 2016 (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.