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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Schumacher[edit]

[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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Does not appear to have garnered any WP:SIGCOV during his career as a referee. Outside of that, he was President of Referees in England for a short while as evidenced by the source in the article. He also appears to be mentioned here [1]. I'm not convinced that this is enough.

PROD contested but no reason provided. The concern was failing WP:GNG. Spiderone 11:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone:There are a secondary source placed, what must be other in there??? must we convince you for create articles???Almgerdeu (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per GNG If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I'll be honest, a very large number of the other articles that you have created don't look to meet GNG either. I have simply tagged them as a GNG concern for now rather than putting a PROD on them. I would strongly recommend you read Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Drafts. It might be good to build some articles in the draft space and gather those reliable secondary sources before putting the article in the mainspace to avoid people questioning their notability. Spiderone 12:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - referees who officiate at a high level are not automatically notable, and there is no significant coverage meaning GNG is not met. Giant Snowman 16:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a relatively simple before search and could not find anything apart from directories, though I'd be happy to change my !vote if other coverage is found. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are more more articles about referees in wikipedia as you said (as this article)...so why only this article must delete??? but i want to create more articles abut referees (i want left more more red links)Almgerdeu (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, referees aren't inherently notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2020 (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.