Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Gorman

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. It seems that none of the players nominated ever played in a fully professional league nor was called to the national team. Thus, they fail WP:NFOOTY. Nobody argued why any of them (individually) passes WP:GNG. If someone wants to change WP:NFOOTY, AfD is clearly not the best place for this. If someone wants to take one or several articles and work on them demonstrating they pass WP:GNG please ask me or any other administrator for userfication.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Gorman

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

Has not played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and has not received significant media coverage, so fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Comment - All four articles nominated here have been at AfD previously in 2006 - Eloka Asokuh AfD

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - all appear to fail GNG and NFOOTBALL. Our notability requirements have, thankfully, been tightened up significantly since the last AFD nearly a decade ago. Giant Snowman 18:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has League of Ireland Premier Division ever been "fully professional"? Because Scottish Premiership and Scottish Championship (or their forerunners) have historically comprised part-time teams but seem to get a free pass on here. In terms of GNG you would expect players in a top national league to get more coverage than players in Scotland's second tier where the domestic press isn't 'national' but local, and is completely dominated by coverage of one or two clubs. As a member of the women's football taskforce, which I suppose is loosely associated with WP:FOOTBALL, I find the list of players up for AFD or PROD on the front page perpetually embarrassing. It's alway Irish-sounding or otherwise 'foreign' names on there, pointing to a fairly disgusting programme of ethnic cleansing. Articles about WASP players tend not to crop up there, unless they're a) women, or b) very young boys. This seems to be because a handful of noisy editors, who possess very modest talent in terms of creating content, take it upon themselves to dream up discriminatory inclusion criteria and then police every deletion discussion. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Clavdia chauchat: - I suggest you review our deletion archives. I would also suggest you please stop with the personal attacks (i.e. "noisy editors, who possess very modest talent in terms of creating content") seeing as your civility problems have been raised at ANI in the past. Giant Snowman 17:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Clavdia chauchat: Having read your comment, I can only assume you are trolling. JMHamo (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: I don't know why you'd violate FAITH and assume they are trolling. Simply because it's not written in a politically correct way, doesn't mean that @Clavdia chauchat: isn't correct in noting that many of the deletions on the project seem to show BIAS. Surely a player who has played for years on a leading team in a country, is just as notable as someone who played for 5 minutes in League 2. Nfitz (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Please familiarize yourself with WP:FPL, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as you seem to be confused about these. My nomination has nothing at all to do with nationality as insinuated. JMHamo (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: That has nothing to do with it. Clearly WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG are tinged with WP:BIAS. And I don't see the need to be so utterly rude to imply that someone who points out that you've broken WP:FAITH doesn't understand the guidelines! Please, be civil. Nfitz (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily enough I have faith that the closing Admin will see that you've a track history at AfD based on your wrong interpretation of policy (see user's Talk page and previous AfD !voting) and ignore you, so that's what I will be doing too! JMHamo (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: What has my track record on voting got to do with anything? I have not voted on this, as I see no basis for notability, given we've established that Irish footballers aren't notable. Clavdia chauchat hasn't voted either. I was simply calling you out for your extreme incivility in your reaction to Clavdia chauchat. My track record is fine ... not my fault that no one changed WP:Footy to reference a new notability standard than we'd previously been using ... it's not like you made some huge errors youself! Surely one's civility is far more important than one's voting scoresheet!!! Nfitz (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL and the ridiculous WP:FPL are the problem because they were supposedly created to supplement WP:GNG. WP:FOOTY's self-appointed leaders have hijacked FPL and are now using it abusively, to pervert rather than supplement WP:GNG and to reflect their own biases. Then we have well-meaning but limited young editors coming along and playing WP:WHACAMOLE. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you. But I don't see the solution. Closing admins will follow WP:FPL to the point of ignoring WP:GNG even under the extreme circumstances of hundreds of international articles about an up and coming international superstar weeks before they debut in the starting line-up of one of the best teams in the planet. At the same time, they move the goal post on WP:FPL on long-time foreign players who play at the highest level in their own country, even with articles on small foreign-language wikis, simply because the third-world country they are in, isn't rich enough to stop players moonlighting. Meanwhile WP:COMMONSENSE is thrown out the window and WP:BIAS is blatant. Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please get a grip. There are plenty of articles that have been kept because they meet GNG but fail NFOOTBALL - I have even created many myself - and there are plenty of articles which have been deleted because they fail GNG even though they technically meet NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per WP:NFOOTBALL. In response to the comments above, the fully-professional league requirement (which originally applied to almost every sport) was devised as it was the closest approximation that could be found to notability. Professional status (i.e. full-time professionalism as opposed to semi-professionalism) can usually only be achieved when a team attains a certain level of popularity - i.e. having enough people coming to watch every week to give sufficient financial support to a club to allow to run on a full-time professional basis. In some countries football is a lot more popular than in others, and these countries are thus more likely to have professional leagues. In a small number, football is sufficiently popular to support several levels of professional football.

If we take two countries of roughly equal size - Ireland and Norway - the difference in attendances (and therefore ability to support professional status) mean in the Norwegian Tippeligaen, a player playing every game during a season will be watched by around 110,000 people, whilst a player in the League of Ireland's top division would be seen by only 19,000. Even accounting for the fact that the Tippeligaen has four more clubs, this still leaves a number more than four times the LOI's figure. This has a direct impact on notability of the players playing in those leagues. It is not biased, but rather a reflection of the reality of the notability of domestic football in different countries. Number 5 7 19:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many watch Scottish Division One? You know the semi-pro league you made a series of bizarre and disingenuous excuses for, to keep it on the "FPL" list? There's your bias right there. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this the average attendance so far this season equates to just under 62,000 - which is over 3 times what they get in Ireland. That is 1,720 x 36 games. Giant Snowman 19:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some 'back of fag packet' adding-up going on here. Our 2012 League of Ireland article says 107,000 people watched LOI Premier Division matches that season: 1,683 per match. This season's match average in SPFL Championship is 1,703. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The LOI average attendance of 1,683 (unreferenced, by the way) works out at just over 50,000 for the 30 games - still a good 12,000 short of Scotland Div 1. According to this the LOI average was 1,774 - so 53,000 over 30 games. That is still 9,000 short of Scotland Div 1. Rather than trying to dis-prove the notability of Scotland, why not try and get the LOI added to WP:FPL? I might even support you with that... Giant Snowman 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per above, firstly WP:NFOOTY failures as have not played in a a WP:FPL, secondly, no indication of any other significant coverage to warrant a GNG pass. The rather uncivil accusations thrown around above are completely arse about tit. It is not and never has been a case of WP:FPL overriding GNG. As is the case in this article (and countless other Irish player articles that have gone through AfD in recent months) WP:FPL is the first step, does a player pass? If so they are assumed notable per NFOOTY. If not, have they played in a full senior international match? If so, regardless of what the nature of their league involvement has been they are deemed to have passed NFOOTY. If they fail on both counts, the final step is to look at GNG: have they achieved a significant level of non-routine coverage beyond match reports and transfer speculation? The players in question here are all non-international players whose articles make no claim to notability other than to have played a bit of football. Compare the players above to this Irish player: Noel Bailie. This to me is a prime example of a player who has not played in a FPL, nor played senior international football but has achieved things within the game that have garnered significant non-trivial recognition and coverage. Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: A quick look at the Donegal Democrat found 27 references to Tom Mohan, 8 results for Anthony Gorman with one article title mentioning him by name in the title, and 47 results for Marc Mukendi‬. There are 53 results in the Derry Journal for Marc Mukendi‬ including an article specifically about him biting an opponents ear. There are 50 results for Anthony Gorman in the Derry Journal. There are a number of references to Anthony Gorman in the Irish Independent (at least 20). There are at least two references to Gorman in the Belfast Telegraph. 139 mentions for Tom in the Irish Times. 17 references for Tom in the Irish Examiner. Even if there is only one or two articles exclusively about all these players in the two regional newspapers mentioned, the total volume of coverage (exceeding 50 to 100 articles each) that mentions them leads me to conclude they are notable. It is also worth considering that in the case of Anthony Gorman, Tom Mohan and I think the rest, substantial parts of their careers took place in the mid to late 1990s. From about the 1970s to the mid-2000s, there is a sizeable gap in newspaper digitilization. Thus it appears that if we had regional access to these newspapers from the period when they were more active, we would see even more coverage than what the Donegal Democrat, Irish Independent, Belfast Telegraph and Derry Journal provide us (which is already a fair bit). If the existing sources shown here were all used, you'd be left with a pretty good picture of why these guys are notable: as footballers. --LauraHale (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's usual in AfD discussions to provide actual links to specific articles, not just assertions based on the number of WP:GOOGLEHITS. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added exclusively newspaper and television sources to Tom Mohan, which should give an idea of the availability of sources to prove WP:GNG and I would ask that those who have voted delete look at the article with sources to see if the volume of sources changes their minds on this article, where the work done there can easily be duplicated on the rest of the nominated articles. --LauraHale (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - This is all routine news coverage in local Irish media. Not enough to justify broader notability, so still fail WP:GNG in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is (largely - not exclusively) run-of-the sports journalism, and does not indicate the "significant" coverage as required by GNG. Giant Snowman 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with GS and JMH, the refs you have added are all routine journalism. The ones relating to his playing career are just match reports. These are sources that deal with a game that took place and are in no way significant coverage about any particular player. All sorts of players down to very low levels of football get this sort of coverage in local papers and magazines. Significant coverag means interviews with the players, articles specifically about his career, etc not an article on "Team A v Team B" where he came off the bench to score! Also adding five references about an injury he had once does not help GNG!

Additionally, the articles about his managerial career are about matches the junior teams played, not about him specifically. Whilst it is clear from these that the team gets coverage, there is no indication that the manager has been the subject of significant in depth reporting.

Finally, the searches you presented above are not really helpful as they return results about people simply with the same name. It would be more helpful if you could show links to specific articles or interviews where the focus is on the individual not his team or a match he played in. Fenix down (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a number of sources, but I think when you hit over 100 total references to a player, they go past routine and the sheer volume of references over the full extent of their career indicates notability. These aren't box scores and one tiny little paragraph things in a single newspaper. This is substantial coverage for many years in many newspapers including national and regional newspapers. Why do you dislike the 'Irish Times and the Irish Examiner? The volume of coverage is what makes it significant. I'd be happy to get the total references on the Tom article up over 100. --LauraHale (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and This is not routine. It is an indepth article about the Tom Mohan. --LauraHale (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While at it, London newspaper discusses his departure and names him in the title. Name in title, not routine. If this isn't substantial, provide up a number or an idea of what you're looking for in terms of volume and what you define as routine. --LauraHale (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Under 17 manager looking forward to working with Martin O’Neill and Roy Keane is hardly notable, so what? JMHamo (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura, your first link does indeed look like an interview with the player, though I think you'll need more than one for GNG. Your comments on the number of hits a name has are completely irrelevant. I would expect even a conference player to have more than 100 hits because they have probably played more than 100 games that received routine attention where their name was included in the squad list. Your second link is just routine transfer speculation and after the second sentence doesn't mention him at all (which means your argument of "name in title = notable" doesn't really hold water) and I can't comment on your third one, because it is not freely available to read. I'm also not sure what you are trying to achieve by challenging me to provide a number of hits above which a player is notable. I would suggest that you have a scan of WP:BOMBARD, look for a few more interviews like the first link you provided, remove all of the routine matchreport links in the article you added that do not assert notability and rebuild the article around the substantive interviews / articles like the one you first mentioned. Fenix down (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one was to do a search of any experienced English non-league player at Non-League-Daily.com, you would come up with dozens, if not hundreds, of results. That does not make them notable if every single one of them is run-of-the-mill, routine, basic sports journalism. Giant Snowman 16:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per LauraHale. Typical bad faith nonsense from the WP:FOOTY circle jerk: pretend their "FPL" monstrosity has any meaning, if (when) that fails pretend any and all coverage of unfavoured leagues is "routine". You're not fooling anyone lads. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Clavdia chauchat: is correct. Wikipedia:What is and is not routine coverage is only an essay, but it does say of routine coverage that "box scores are examples of routine coverage. If an article goes into detail about the event, that is not necessarily "routine" coverage." I would ask that those calling the 100+ references found regarding each of the individuals mentioned in this AfD to point out which of them are box scored. Having looked at the sources, I have found few to none that I would qualify as box scores. Assuming "routine coverage" here is being used in a Wikipedia sense, I would ask the people saying delete to show that at least 75% of the referenced sources in RTVE, the Irish Examiner, the Donegal Democrat, the Irish Times, the Irish Independent are routine. I would further ask that any accusation by @Fenix down: and @GiantSnowman: of stuffing the article with the attempt to make Tom Mohan appear more notable by top loading with box scores to be retracted until they examine the sources to show these are box scores, and thus meet that essay's definition of "routine" for the purposes of disqualifying the sources for use in establishing WP:GNG. That accusation patently violates WP:AGF and it should be backed up with diffs. Please back up your accusation of bad faith. --LauraHale (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laura, I have not accused you of anything. Please re-read what I actually wrote and then withdraw your accusation. Giant Snowman 20:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as documented above, there is significant media coverage of at least some of the players, including articles that focus on them. And this shouldn't be surprised given that these players have played for several years at the highest level of football in their country! Nfitz (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all; renominate as needed. Laura has demonstrated a level of coverage significantly exceeding the GNG for Mohan, which throws the rest of the nominations in to doubt. If the other players genuinely don't meet the GNG, renominate them individually. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As Fenix stated above, many of the citations added to the Tom Mohan article have no relevance and do not demonstrate notability. Bombarding the article makes it look impressive but when you check them out you realise they are useless. JMHamo (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's provided at least three articles that discuss Mohan at length. Subject-specific notability guidelines do not supercede the GNG. The amount of coverage she's provided exceeds the GNG and establsihes Mohan's notability. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there is much to be gained from continued discussion here. I acknowledge some steps have been taken to establish GNG through significant sources (though these are masked by a good bit of bombarding) for Mohan and Gorman, but there isn't really anything on the other two. I would suggest, as has been above, a no consensus close and then individual nominations if necessary. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tom Mohan, football player in highest national league plus national youth team manager (all verified) is enough for WP:GNG for me. Given that WP:NFOOTY favors fairly random German 3. Liga players over non-fully-professional leeague players who have played in their country's highest league, I have difficulties taking it very serious as keep or deletion reason anyway. —Kusma (t·c) 19:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So playing in front of a couple of hundred in the Estonian top division lends more notability to a player than playing in front of thousands (or tens of thousands for a few clubs) in the German third tier? I can't see how that works. Number 57 23:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Audience does not make notability, nontrivial coverage in reliable sources does. I am not saying all top tier league players are notable as football players, either (imagine a Vatican football league). The German third tier produces mostly statistics and match report type coverage, not significantly better than the fourth tier. I think the cut-off done by WP:NFOOTY is arbitrary, and not really connected to WP:GNG. —Kusma (t·c) 07:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It does not make notability, but it is a strong indicator of how notable a subject is - the more people turn up, the more well-known the players being watched are. Conversely, if players are not notable, then very few people would show up to watch. Number 5 7 11:09, 2 February 2014 (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.