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. The head count favors delete, but not by the kind of margin I normally like to see to declare a clean consensus. However, the arguments for keep don't strike me as well founded in policy, and come from an IP editor with no other edits, a WP:SPA, and a user with a limited editing history, all focused on this topic. That tipped the scale for me. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Villarreal[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement (also note that referees have no inherent notability from their profession, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability - they need to meet GNG). This was deprodded by an anon after a little expansion, which does not change my view of this article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per consensus, the position of referee is not inherently notable, thus WP:GNG must be met, which it is not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Unkel for precedent that officiating the final of the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup does not confer notability. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of CONCACAF's top referees. He has been covered by numerous notable sites for his officiating and therefore doesn't fail WP:GNG.2601:18B:0:212C:A029:CC8F:3CE8:8914 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And could you share those "numerous notable sites" with us? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Expand - WP:GNG could be met if sources like these (which deal with some of Villarreal's notable matches) were added to the article:<ref>http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1659167-mls-system-for-officials-answering-press-questions-is-a-joke</ref><ref>http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2014/05/12/la-galaxy-left-fuming-refs-no-call-portland-really-had-no-business-getting-anything</ref><ref>http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2015/11/10/crew-gets-two-week-break-before-next-round.html</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedinboston (talk • contribs) 04:55, November 22, 2015‎ (UTC)
- All I see are mentions in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This idea that MLS referees shouldn't have pages in absurd. Every BPL referee has a page that is acceptable in terms of WP:GNG. The MLS and BPL are both full professional leagues, so why the double standard?USA Refereeing (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely fair. Villarreal seems to have nothing more than trivial mentions and therefore the article fails WP:GNG. The BPL referees that you are probably referring to must have enough coverage from reliable sources to pass. If not, then I guess they ought to be put up for deletion too. Spiderone 21:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One must also point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. For the position of referee, WP:GNG must be met. In the United States, the low interest in association football just doesn't provide the sort of coverage for referees as it does in England unless the referee does something either quite controversial or quite remarkable. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reliable sources are the main (not only) requirement. This person does not yet meet that. If you want to keep this, instead of just being a sports fan you should use Wikipedia-based reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Refereeing in a fully pro league does not make you automatically notable. This clearly fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 21:34, 27 November 2015 (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.