Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Clough

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. Courcelles 21:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Clough[edit]

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

Non notable person. Previously PRODed, but an editor objected, stating that he was a notable person. Nominating for deletion to get a better consensus on the issue Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 18:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources that establish notability for this person. As a football referee from the 1950's, I acknowledge that sources may not be online. However, I am unable to even find a hint that this person is of note in unreliable sources such as blogs, discussion forums, and the like. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top-class referee, in charge of numerous notable cup finals, looks to be notable to me; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rsssf source in the article confirms that Clough refereed a French Cup final, and this that he refereed an FA Cup final. Either one of these would be a pretty strong claim of notability, as referees at this level attract loads of press coverage, and to have done both would seem to indicate incontrovertible notabilty. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just being a top flight referee would establish notability, but he also refereed two different national Cup finals. Adam4267 (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A top level referee. Officiating an FA Cup final is quite an honour, and being the only foreigner to referee a Coupe de France final – according to the relevant article – makes him unique. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI feel that one event, even if he is the only person to have refereed both games, doesn't establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 23:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I marked a link as dead. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've expanded it with what I could find and added a number of references. As well as officiating two major cup finals, he refereed senior internationals – World Cup qualifiers, British Home Championship matches and friendlies – so he was recognised as a top official by FIFA, and European Cup ties, a UEFA competition. Such an official would receive substantial coverage if he achieved all of this in the 21st century and not the 1950s. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has officiated a lot of notable major finals. Lack of sources due to WP:RECENTISM, but sufficient evidence for an official from the 50s. --Jimbo^[online] 18:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes notability guidelines per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin this user tends to recycle identical statements in other AfDs. [1] , [2], [3]. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2011 (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.