Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American coaches of foreign national soccer teams


 * 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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

American coaches of foreign national soccer teams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed by article creator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTCRUFT. Adequately covered by, does not merit a separate list article with half-a-dozen entries and only routine coverage. GiantSnowman 08:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:LISTN, no indication that the notion of American coaches managing non-american teams has garnered anywhere near the level of coverage required to justify a standalone list. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is mostly prose, so LISTN does not provide a reasonable basis for deletion. And the references were admittedly thin a week ago, but they have been improved since then and this is now a well-sourced article. Barryjjoyce (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails LISTN Spiderone  22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully submit that this WP:VAGUEWAVE ought to be given no weight, as it does not explain why guidance that pertains to lists provides a reasonable basis to delete a well-sourced article that consists mostly of prose. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - There is significant coverage of Sampson's and Bradley's exploits as American coaches of foreign national teams, and the concept has attracted interest (evidenced by the coverage of Dooley's exploits with the Philippines' team). However, I'm not sure there are enough notable entries to justify a stand-alone list and the inclusion criteria ought to be tightened. I'm dubious that Panagoulias was viewed as an American coaching Greece (I realize the cited article says so, but the Chicago Tribune is unlikely to be the best source for such information). While Dooley was a US citizen and played in the US league and for the US national team, he was born in West Germany, so there ought to be some criteria explaining why he qualifies. Jogurney (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - that's notable coverage about Sampson and Bradley - not about this as a topic. GiantSnowman 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - I did a quick search and agree that most of the coverage is specific to a person (e.g., Sampson or Bradley), but on occasion there are sources that touch on the issue of American coaches working for foreign national teams or clubs. This book spends a page or two on the issue (written in 2010, it pre-dated Bradley's appointment to coach Egypt). I'm still at weak keep, but I think the focus of the article (or list) should change to American coaches of foreign national teams or clubs (since the two are intertwined in the coverage). Jogurney (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep — Responding to the various concerns raised above:
 * GNG / Sufficiency of Coverage — GNG requires multiple sources. The article in its current format has cites from more than 10 independent reliable sources. Several of the sources explicitly discuss these coaches as a group or set (eg, the Soccer America article). Surely that is enough. If not enough, how many would you like to see? I can add more.
 * LISTN / ListCruft / Category — This article is not a list. It is a combination of both prose and a table. I can add more prose if you want. How much would you like to see? Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - no, GNG requires significant coverage, which we don't have. GiantSnowman 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman — The significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG states that the sources must provide more than a trivial mention and provide enough material so that no original research is needed. This article would fail the test if the sources were, eg, discussing the national teams with only a passing mention of the coaches names and not mentioning the coaches nationality. Here, we have sources that discuss the coaches — sometimes individually, sometimes in the context of other American coaches who are at the helm of other national teams. Many of these articles are about the coach himself, the foreign team he coaches, and his American nationality.
 * If you disagree, please explain further your view as to (1) why this article does not meet the significant coverage test, and (2) what sources would need to exist to satisfy the test. The more specific and detailed you can be, the better it will help me understand your position. Barryjjoyce (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the coverage isn't about the topic/phenomenon of 'American coaches of foreign national soccer teams', it's about some Americans who have been coaches of foreign national soccer teams. That's a key difference. GiantSnowman 09:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman — I'm not sure I understand the "key difference" you assert between American coaches of foreign national teams vs Americans who have coached foreign national teams. Perhaps you could re-read the first paragraph of the article and the sources and explain what you think those articles are about, if something other than American coaches of foreign national teams.
 * In any case, I'm assuming your original views re LISTN, LISTCRUFT and Categories are now moot, but thought I would check with you to be sure. Are you still claiming some or all of these three reasons are valid reasons for deleting this article? If so, which ones, and please explain your views further so I can assess. Thanks. Barryjjoyce (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is about 'American coaches of foreign national soccer teams', but there is no significant coverage about 'American coaches of foreign national soccer teams'. There is some coverage about the individuals (which makes them notable), but not about the over-arching topic alone. GiantSnowman 16:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman — Your point re requiring articles about "the over-arching topic alone" seems at odds with WP:SIGCOV, which states that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Do you have a wiki policy or guideline you can quote and link to that supports your position? And how about my question above re your earlier statements on LISTN, LISTCRUFT and Categories: What is your current position on that? Barryjjoyce (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the titles of various articles make clear that the articles are focusing on the American nationality of the coach. For example, * "Bradley's job a boost for U.S. credibility" * "Dooley seventh American to coach foreign national team" * "American Ian Mork to coach Belize against his home country" * "From Queens to Kathmandu: a New Yorker's two-year stint as Nepal's coach". Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep — There are very few American coaches in the MLS alone, let alone the coach of the national team of other countries. Bradley's reign as Egyptian coach garnered much coverage during the time, and Dooley's tenure in the Philippines has also gained some attention. I haven't really looked into the other ones, but by and large being an expat American coach in football/soccer seems to draw the press, and thus should be considered notable in my opinion. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - that's notable coverage about Sampson and Bradley - not about this as a topic. 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there coverage had a lot to do with the fact that they were American. Also your views on this article are somewhat ironic given the fact that you voted "keep" on this discussion. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.