Talk:Mike Dean (referee)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group. | ||
 |
The article on Mike Dean (referee) is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Mike Dean will referee the 2007 FA Cup FinalStatto74 11:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Would be nice if you had posted a hyperlink showing where you got that nugget of information. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- No response from you on this. Well, I've done a search on the internet (not just Google), and this "fact" doesn't appear anywhere, like you'd think it would. I call this speculation, and a pretty safe bet too (seeing as how he was taken off of last year's). I'd love to know how you know this to be true. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Gee, you were wrong - Steve Bennett got the appointment in actual fact. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] POV
where shall I start. 'harshly sent off' = npov, whether it's cited or not! numerous selective citations and references supporting Chelsea's view against a single card, selective reference to only a Chelsea appeal. 'being scored marginally after the declared added time had been played at the end of the first half' = weasel words. further, a single game in an article on the whole referee's career - and a not especially important one at the time, played in september - does not warrant a paragraph nearly as long as the ref's background.
wikipedia is a neutral source of facts. it is not for selective citation based bashing of a particular referee for fans of one team for a single match. this is an article on the refereee Mike Dean, not an opinion piece on his performance in any game.
i am very much aware that this game was contentious, and 'could' have changed the outcome of the league, but it is clearly opinion masked through selective citations in a game that for all other clubs in the football league was meaningless. if every ref had a paragraph like this in their article, each of their pages would be never ending gripes on games long past. this article should be a neutral, factual background piece about the ref, summing his whole - many game - career.
if you are able to point out exactly why this should be a special case, exactly why it is notable, and make a neutral, well balanced, short piece, and include all other similar incidents in the entire career of mike, and keep the page within wikipedia's length guidance, then by all means go for it!
(i've also added this to the talk page of the article, you are welcome to respond there)81.96.251.179 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
agree, this is not suitable here. Refed2003 (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
