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.
Keep -- First, the prior PROD has little bearing, as Doherty has become manager of Shelbourne F.C. since that PROD, which obviously changes his status even if the PROD was valid. Second, there's considerable mention of Doherty in the press, as evidenced [1], in multiple reliable secondary sources. Third, while I fully recognize that the top Irish football league is not considered "fully professional", there is no 'higher' league in Ireland. In effect, the guideline permanently relegates all Irish players who haven't played internationally to a status of never being on Wikipedia. This is senseless. Fourth, six of the other seven teams in the first division have articles on their respective managers. It would seem a severe oversight to not include the remaining two. This isn't a case of othercrapexists, but rather a standard that should be met. Fifth he played for Liverpool F.C., which is a full professional club, for a time. Sixth he played for Shelbourne F.C. when it was fully professional during a time when Shelbourne, and indeed much of the League of Ireland, was fully professional (see this, where they were in the UEFA championship league). With all this in hand, it's obvious he passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This is a blatant keep, with no disrespect intended to the nominator. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG.Keep - work on the article indicates that GNG is met. However, keep comments above are almost entirely wrong:
Becoming the manager of the team does not impact notability. Consensus is that the spirit of WP:NFOOTY is applicable to managers in the same way it is players.
Per WP:GHITS returning a significant number of search results does not indicate notability. Furthermore, 144 results is not significant, particularly when most of these are focussed on the club not the individual.
Comment on the League of Ireland not being fully professional is an agreed consensus. It does not preclude the creation of articles on players within that league, it merely insists that those players who do not have senior international caps demonstrate wider GNG. Far from being senseless long-held consensus is that this is in fact a sensible way of dealing with leagues that globally have a low profile.
He never played for Liverpool's first team. The source in the article clearly shows he was a reserve team member only (something supported by the UEFA link provided above as well), this is insufficient for NFOOTY.
Whether Shelbourne is / was a fully professional team is irrelevant, NFOOTY is clear that it is the league that must be confirmed fully professional, the source provided mentions nothing of the professionalism of the club or the league and there is no inherent link between champions league participation and fully professional status.
Look it up yourself please. Shelbourne was fully professional while he was playing on it. You can lockstep with the guideline, but it's quite wrong in this case and it listing fully professional leagues as of now, not as of in the past. Would you eliminate all football players from the past who played for teams that were fully professional but are not so now? Come on. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please take care to read what other editors have written more carefully. As I quite clearly stated, the nature of the club is irrelevant, it is the league that has to be deemed fully professional by consensus for a player to be judged notable based on NFOOTY. Furthermore, I would recommend you look at WP:FPL a bit more closely. I am not sure where you are getting this "as of now" thing from. Israel and the USA have clear time constraints beyond which players are not notable per NFOOTY and a number of others have clear indications of a point in time after which players are deemed notable per NFOOTY. Although there has not been a discussion for some time, this pretty clearly demonstrated the generally semi-professional nature of the league a few years ago and I have not seen anything to indicate that has changed. Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please take care to read what I've written more carefully. Does that feel comfortable to you? Or, do you already feel antagonistic? I guess playing in UEFA Championship League isn't good enough? It is a Tier 1 competition. That alone, not to mention the large number of other qualifiers, passes this person over NFOOTY. As for the discussion you noted, there does not appear to be any particular consensus. Certainly the BBC felt they were fully professional. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite comfortable asking people to re-read what has been written when they make fundamental misunderstandings about what has been said as it doesn't aid discussion when people get the wrong end of the stick. Re the CL, unfortunately it is not enough, long standing consensus is that playing in the Champions league is insufficient when the player firstly has not played in the competition proper, merely the qualifying rounds, and secondly when that player has not competed in a match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. Again, you might wish to reread the linked discussion to full professionalism in Ireland as later sources such as this also from the BBC written ten days after the original one cited describes Shamrock Rovers as part-time, so not a fully professional league. From this, and other sources linked in the discussion, no consensus could be gained that the single comment in one BBC article was sufficient for FPL status, therefore the league is always considered to have had at least a partly semi-professional element. If you feel you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please take it to WT:FOOTY, it's always good to be able to expand the list. On this player though, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Fenix down (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional info/comment I've significantly expanded the article, including references to support a variety of things including his Tier 1 appearance, proving notability under WP:NFOOTY clause 1. Any claim that he fails WP:NFOOTY is therefore moot. Simply saying he doesn't pass isn't proof; the citations I've provided prove it. Further, the additions of citations across a variety of media sustain passage of WP:GNG; he is covered in multiple, independent secondary sources stretching from 1999 through to this year, as now proven by the multitude of citations on the article. I would also like to point out the presence of Category:Republic of Ireland football managers (101 pages), Category:Shelbourne F.C. managers (27 pages), Category:League of Ireland managers (188 pages)...all three of which cover positions that the opposition here seem to think do not qualify those pages for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what the FIFA rules stipulate. I've actually got an e-mail out to FIFA regarding this very fact, just for confirmation. But, everything I've read to date indicates UEFA Champions League games, qualifying or regular, are Tier 1 matches. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regardless of any failure of WP:NFOOTY claims, it's blatantly obvious this person passes WP:GNG standards, which NFOOTY itself acknowledges as an allowance if passed. There's news coverage about Doherty spanning 17 years from many independent secondary sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:NFOOTY failure (the guidelines are quite clear that it needs to be an international match – i.e. national team, not European competition). As for GNG, the article is clearly well referenced, but such is the level of coverage that football gets, it's easy to write a well referenced article on a player playing at level eight in England (as I did to illustrate this in a recent AfD), so unfortunately I'm not convinced by that argument. Number5719:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should request a special exception to WP:GNG standards for footy players then. Since no such standard has achieved consensus, your argument that it fails WP:GNG is false. Thank you, at least, for acknowledging that it is clearly well referenced. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear WP:NFOOTY pass. Played in League of Ireland, a top level national league, played in UEFA competitions, played for top four club in Ireland. I pick up wiff of anti-LOI prejudice here. DjlnDjln (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Djln: Playing in a top division does not equal passing WP:NFOOTY. It specifically requires playing or managing either international football (for a national team) or in a fully-professional league. The subject has done neither. There is possibly a valid argument to be made around the GNG, but it's very clear that he fails WP:NFOOTY. Number5720:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I have to disagree too; it isn't very clear he fails WP:NFOOTY. As I noted before, and has not been refuted by any sources, UEFA Champions League matches are by FIFA designation Tier 1 matches. Since he's played in such competitions, it's an NFOOTY pass. Quoting the FIFA regulations governing international matches; an international match is
a match between two teams belonging to different Members or a match involving a Scratch Team. For the purpose of authorisation, any match or competition played between two teams belonging to the same Member but in a Third Country shall be recognised as an International Match or competition
You will note it says nothing about it being a national team. It goes on to say:
A tier 1 International Match shall mean any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the 'A' Representative Teams of the Members concerned
is one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world and the most prestigious club competition in European football, played by the national league champion (and, for some nations, one or more runners-up) of each UEFA national association
Note the fact of national league champions, and juxtapose that with the immediately preceding FIFA regs quote. Lastly:
A competition that contains at least one tier 1 International Match shall be classified as a tier 1 competition.
I.e. if even one match in the competition is Tier 1, all matches in the competition are Tier 1. Reading this it becomes painfully obvious that UEFA Champions League is a FIFA Tier 1 competition. It does not require it be only national teams. They most emphatically can be club teams from member organizations...which Shelbourne F.C. was at the time that Doherty was playing for them. Hell, he even started for them in UEFA CL. I think I've proven UEFA CL is Tier 1. Unless someone can prove it's something other than Tier 1, this is a clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very clear. FIFA define a Tier 1 match is "any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the “A” Representative Teams of the Members concerned"; a Tier 2 match is "a tier 2 International Match shall mean any International Match involving one “A” Representative Team, any other Representative Team, a Domestic Team or the first team of a Club Team that participates in the highest division of a Member." Therefore the highest level that a game involving a club team (such as Shelbourne) can be is a Tier 2 match. “A” Representative Team means the national team.
More importantly, the guideline is designed specifically to refer to matches between national teams only. If you did manage to find a technicality to get around the intended meaning, it would only result in the guideline being amended to stop anyone else wikilawyering (i.e. Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express) in the same way. Number5720:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you would drop the accusations of wikilawyering. If you can't refute me without insulting me, then just stop.
You are ignoring the quote I provided where it notes that any competition that involves at least one Tier 1 match defines all matches in that competition as Tier 1. It doesn't matter if Shelbourne is a Tier -100000000 team. They competed in a Tier 1 competition. That makes whatever match they played a Tier 1 match. Since WP:NFOOTY clearly says "Players who have played in ... any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA", Doherty passes WP:NFOOTY. Now, if you can provide an actual citation that shows that the UEFA Champions League is in fact NOT a Tier 1 competition, I will gladly stand down on that point. But so far, I've proven UEFA Champions League competition is Tier 1, and all you've been able to assert is that Shelbourne isn't Tier 1. Whether it is or is not is irrelevant; they competed in a Tier 1 competition as defined by FIFA. That makes it a blatant passage of WP:NFOOTY. I await your proof that UEFA Champions League is Tier 2 or Tier 3 as defined by FIFA. Regardless of what you come up with, stop the wikilawyering accusations. They do nothing but add heat, and as an admin you should know better. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Tier 1 match can only be a match between the "“A” Representative Teams of the Members concerned" – i.e. the national teams. National teams do not compete in the UEFA Champions League, therefore no match in the Champions League can be a Tier 1 match.
I'm sorry you don't like the claims of wikilayering, but it's blatantly what you're doing. We have had this guideline for years, and everyone knows it's designed to refer to international matches, not continental competitions. Number5721:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Shall I begin assaulting your character then in a lame attempt to buttress my argument? You make your argument incredibly weak by attacking me. If you can't refute me without insulting me, you have no argument. As to the point you're trying to make; the FIFA rules make it very clear that a team does not have to be a national team. In fact, the rules do not even contain the phrase "national team". I don't know where people are getting this idea that it has to be the Ireland National Team. It's false, and FIFA agrees with that. I quoted the rules. I'm sorry you disagree with them, but they are the rules. I'm still waiting for you to prove the UEFA Champions League is not a Tier 1 competition. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't insulted your character, I've just pointed out that you are using an inappropriate form of argument. Nor do I feel that my argument is weak – I think it's fairly irrefutable, but we seem to be into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory now, so I'll state it once again and then get on with something productive. The closing admin will make their own judgement.
So, for the last time, the UEFA Champions League is not a Tier 1 competition because it does not include A representative teams; this is FIFA's terminology for full national team, as opposed to U21 teams or club teams. And if you really need proof that an A representative team is not the same thing as a club team, the FIFA regulations specifically defines club team as a separate thing (see, for instance, page 6 – "Members, to which a Representative Team, Club Team or Domestic Team...". The guidance is also very clear that the highest level a "Club Team" can participate is a Tier 2 match (see pages 8–9). Number5721:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously you are in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory too. Since we're looking at the same regulations and I presume you have them in front of you, you will note that it says a "Member" is an association, not a team. League of Ireland (LOI) is an association. Shelbourne won LOI, becoming the representative team. Are we clear now? Read page 4 for yourself. I'm not making this up. Nowhere...NOWHERE...in this document does it assert that a team must be the NATIONAL TEAM. This document governs international competitions. It defines international matches as being those between two teams from FIFA member associations which are from different countries. Nowhere does it assert that these need to be national teams. Now, unless you want to assert that none of the teams that compete at UEFA Champions League are their nation's associations top teams (which is provably false, since winning your association automatically qualifies you for UEFA CL), and that even if only some of them were (again provably false), that none of these teams ever faced each other, then it is clear from FIFA regulations (first paragraph, top of page 9) that UEFA Champions League is tier 1 competition. If you don't like how WP:NFOOTY is worded, then stop accusing people of wikilawyering and go get it changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting argument, however invalid. I grant you almost had me :) Shelbourne was the association's 'A' representative at UEFA Champions League for the games where Doherty appeared. League of Ireland and Football Association of Ireland are not disconnected organizations. Shelbourne was FAI's representative for the 2002-03 UEFA CL. If you dispute that, then perhaps you can show what other team FAI sent from Ireland (there was none). Where I think you might be able to convince me here is making a claim that UEFA CL is not in any way connected to or administered by FIFA. Since UEFA itself is part of FIFA [2], I doubt that is the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't think there's any fact-based argument that will convince you, so I'll give up. The closing admin is welcome to ask for clarification at WP:FOOTY if they have any doubts about the proper interpretation of the guideline. In the meantime, I have asked other football project members to give their views on your interpretation. Number5722:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to head off any argument that the matches Shelbourne F.C. participated in which saw Doherty play were not Tier 1 matches, only the competition was (which FIFA disagrees with anyway, but I digress):
Shelbourne F.C. was the top representative ("A") team from the League of Ireland (LOI) for the season that qualified them for UEFA Champions League (UEFA CL), having won the 2001–02 League of Ireland premier division, that association's top level.
[3] - page 4, definition 6: (so we can establish that Member is not Team) "Member: an association that has been admitted into membership of FIFA by the FIFA Congress". Both associations were members of FIFA for the respective years.
[4] - page 4, definition 4: "International Match: a match between two teams belonging to different Members". Since both teams were from different associations, it was an international match.
[5] - page 4, definition 5: "International 'A' Match: a match for which both Members field their first Representative Team ('A' Representative Team).
[6] - page 8, first paragraph under 7: "For the purpose of these regulations, a tier 1 International Match shall mean any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the 'A' Representative Teams of the Members concerned"
Since both associations fielded their first representative team, the match was by FIFA definitions a Tier 1 match. The claim that this has something to do with national teams is provably false. The FIFA definitions do not contain any requirement that the teams be the "national team" of their respective countries, only that they be the 'A' representative team from the association in question. In fact, the rules even note that two teams can be in the same association but be from different countries. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In FIFA parlance, the term "representative team" refers to national teams. There cannot be a "top representative team" from a domestic league, nor can a club team be a "representative team". The "A" terminology is from the era before youth national teams (like U-23 etc.) becoming commonplace, when national reserve/feeder/development teams were known as "B" teams. I believe some countries continued having "B" teams into the 2000s, but most have been shut down in favor of full youth national team scheduling. --SesameballTalk00:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe Hammersoft has misinterpreted the FIFA regulations. International “A” Match: a match for which both [associations that have been admitted into membership of FIFA by the FIFA Congress.] field their first Representative Team (“A” Representative Team). It implies first choice selection of the national football association. As above, Tier 2 explicitly mentions club teams and applies to FA representative teams (national teams) vs. club teams. This week, New Zealand's national team are playing against Western Pride FC, Redlands United and Brisbane City. Those would be considered Tier 2 according to the regulations. TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the FIFA regulations state nothing about national teams. The phrase is not even mentioned. Anything concluding they are referring only to national teams is pure speculation. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite confident that if FIFA meant to say national team, they had the capability to do so. Yet, they didn't. The absence of "national team" from the FIFA rules is conspicuous. Attempt to modify the rules to conclude "national team" is wrong. If you want to start a discussion to modify NFOOTY to track with you believe it should say, please by all means feel free. But, as is, the FIFA rules are unequivocally absent of any mention of "national team". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course FIFA does not mention the term "national team" because that's what is meant when they say "representative team". --SesameballTalk21:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is what they meant, they would have said so. They don't. As I've said, concluding they mean "national team" when they make no mention of national team is simply wild speculation. There's no evidence to support the conclusion. Sorry. If I'm wrong, perhaps you can point me to where they say "national team"? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, because "national team" is the colloquial, common name for what FIFA calls a "representative team". The fact that FIFA doesn't define "national team" supports my point. There is no reason for FIFA to mention the colloquialism "national team", because that's what they mean by "representative team". That is also why they mention "representative teams" as well as "club teams or domestic teams", because those are different things. --SesameballTalk02:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - I hadn't read through the massive text wall above until now, and above all I'm befuddled by your insistence that a FIFA member association's "representative team" can be a club team from that member association's domestic league (I made a comment on this earlier). Even a quick perusal of FIFA bylaws reveals that many of the FIFA regulations on representative teams cannot be explained if they refer to club teams (especially those on eligibility). I really think it'd be helpful if you just take a good look at the FIFA regs because it seems quite clear what FIFA means by a "member association" and a "representative team", and it's not what you're trying so desperately to assert above. --SesameballTalk03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The argument above misses the point that guidelines are descriptions of established consensus, rather than prescriptive rules. The intended meaning of point 1 of WP:NFOOTY has always been describe the consensus that senior internationals are notable. Here, for example, a fair amount of text was removed from point 1 specifically to avoid making it sound like it applied to club matches. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's absurd now I mean really, we're up to 33 35 references now across a very broad range of news outlets. How absurd does this have to get before it's speedy kept? Regardless of the NFOOTY argument, this is __blatantly a WP:GNG pass__, and there's nothing that failing NFOOTY can do to change that (even if it did fail NFOOTY). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now. Initially there wasn't evidence of enough coverage to make it clear the subject met WP:BIO; now there is. And I'm not counting references, I'm looking at their quality. The three picked out by the IP editor above in particular (well, the two I can see: I haven't got HighBeam any more) are lengthy pieces in national newspapers about Mr Doherty, not his club(s). Which added to the ongoing general coverage over approaching 20 years makes it pretty clear that the subject does meet the general notability requirements. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References, for scale I readily grant and heartily agree that quality of references matter, and quantity does not. Still, I think it worth noting that this article we're considering deleting now has more references than 1982 FIFA World Cup, 1986 FIFA World Cup, 1990 FIFA World Cup, and 1994 FIFA World Cup. When those articles on world tournaments have less references than this article about a single person, at some point you have to recognize the absurdity of deleting this article. If that many independent news sources are speaking about him, there can be no policy based justification for deleting this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the crystal-clear consensus above that the subject passes the general notability guideline, so the anglocentric and male-centric WP:NFOOTY guideline happily doesn't come into it. I initially shared Hammersoft's surprise that this was relisted, but then when I saw who relisted it I was rather less surprised. Why do we put up with editors whose contributions to deletion discussions are no better than random? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG, thus NFOOTY is moot. However, I have to say that seeing this discussion relisted is not a surprise to me. Oftentimes long discussions lead to relisting because of the myriad policies and guidelines which are put forth, and the admins' job is to determine which argument(s) is/are stronger and more clearly rooted; if there is no clear consensus, then relisting can be appropriate. I must also express some disbelief at Hammersoft for pushing the insistence that a club team could represent a national association when the FIFA regulations clearly differentiate between a representative team and a club/scratch team. — Jkudlick • t • c • s12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated before, it's unclear. You feel it's clear, others do too. I don't really care. Reality; the FIFA guidelines do not state "national" anywhere. Perhaps among those who follow FIFA every day there's a presumption that is treated as a given, maybe even rightfully. Again, I don't really care. What I do care is that it is not specifically stipulated, and that lack of stipulation is echoed in NFOOTY here, which creates a myriad of problems. The presumption is problematic itself, regardless of whether it is correct or not. I do agree that the GNG requirements trump NFOOTY in this case. Failure to pass GNG can not kill a NFOOTY pass, and neither can a NFOOTY failure kill a GNG pass. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2016 (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.