Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ian Foote

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. kingboyk (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ian Foote

Tendentiously submitted without much improvement despite multiple Stop signs from different AFC reviews including myself. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The draft should have been semi-protected after the first of the resubmissions by an IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Extended-Confirmed Protect so that a draft or article can be prepared by an experienced neutral editor. The subject may be notable, but no amount of resubmission by IPs will help. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to mainspace article has plenty of citations and it appears the comments of the reviewers which asked for more citations and more evidence of big matches have been satisfied here. Seems to be notable for a referee. Are there any specific objections to moving it right now? If so, what specifically is missing from here? Gumlau (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is lacking news sources external to the association and missing the context of why one non-notable match has gotten so much attention. He only has general passing / routine mention. Gumlau, if you want to serve as the experienced neutral editor to WP:TNT this article, that would be helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be at least 4 notable matches listed there (Under Career section). I'm happy to give it a edit. Is there a guide for notability as pertains to referees? Gumlau (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumlau if you can identify WP:THREE that will meet WP:GNG, then that would be good enough. The obituaries are borderline as they could be written by family members. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited sources are one obituary and multiple databases of statistics. I don't know whether the latter are reliable, but they are WP:ROUTINE coverage, not significant coverage, and do not help establish notability. WP:NFOOTY does not address referees. According to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 19#Referees- criteria for notability, that is intentional, referees must meet WP:GNG.

The IP-hopping submitter plainly lacks either the desire or the ability to find significant coverage in reliable sources, and their editing became tendentious some time ago. Remove the draft as one should remove an attractive nuisance. Salt the draft if recreated without improvement. Any autoconfirmed user can write an article on the topic in mainspace. If they do, and if it fails to establish notability, it will be deleted at AfD. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the article space article has been finished to creation, it's a notable referee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.253.250.200 (talk • contribs)

Note: this is the IP hopping editor who primarily edited the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.