Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 31

Proposal - NFOOTY#2 - raising the bar

At present NFOOTY criteria #2 states - "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.". I suggest modifying this to "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in ten competitive games between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.". While a single international match should suffice (given the wide coverage of such matches, and players in such matches usually having a tracking record) - the same is not true of a youth player who subbed in a game or two (or an interim stop-gap manager for a single game) in EFL League Two or 3. Liga. Such a youth player may only have minor local coverage (if that), and would not be even close to reaching WP:GNG. Setting a higher bar - of multiple games - will trim the excess here. Obviously, a top-tier Premier League prospect may be notable prior to playing 10 games - however such a prospect is often notable prior to playing a single game, and could still get in by meeting WP:GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have notified WP:WikiProject Football about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have notified Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) of this discussion. Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - why 10? Why not 2 or 5 or 20 or 100? What makes 9 full games (playing time = 810 minutes) somebody less notable than 10 x 1 minute cameos (playing time = 10 minutes)? (And no, I'm not suggesting we base it on playing time - particularly as that can't be determined for players pre-internet). It's all arbitrary. The 'one game' rule is not perfect but it does actually work, and has done for years. Remember it's an assumption of notability. GiantSnowman 15:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  10 is as arbitrary as 1 (and could be much less than 810 minutes - these could subbed in or out). We could easily set 5 or 20 - the point is raising the bar. Proving "lack of notability" vs. a "Keep per NFOOTY" for individual that do not have SIGCOV is difficult. Lets look for instance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver - none of the Keep votes presented in-depth independent sourcing (that they could read) - most of the keep votes were based on NFOOTY. Seeing that NFOOTY is being is used as a methods for an automatic keep / no-consensus result - and that the standards implied by NFOOTY are rather ridiclously low compared to other SNGs (e.g. WP:SOLDIER or WP:ACADEMIC) - it makes sense to raise the bar here. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  We should always be aiming for GNG, which trumps NFOOTBALL. There is plenty of AFD consensus that comprehensively failing GNG when meeting NFOOTBALL is not enought (I put together a fairly detailed list at this AFD, and there have been more since). However, the point of NFOOTBALL is to give young players at the start of their career breathing room. That should not change, hence why 1 game is a good bar. GiantSnowman 15:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  I disagree that any of the sports-specific notability guidelines serve to give sports figures breathing room at the start of their careers. This would be having an article on a subject based on a prediction of the future. As has been discussed before on this talk page and captured in the FAQ, the sports-specific notability guidelines serve to give breathing room to find existing appropriate sources to illustrate that the general notability guideline is met. isaacl (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, sorry, that is what I meant. GiantSnowman 16:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  That your list at that AFD indicates that many times NFOOTY passes fail GNG when evaluated critically - is a rather strong indication that NFOOTY should change. It is also rather clear that some rather non-notable (with no substantial coverage) players who appeared once or twice in 3rd league play have passed AfDs by the dint of the "Keep per NFOOTY" club. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  No, it shows that it works. We create an article after the player makes 1 appearance - if sources are not found down the line, then the article is deleted. Sources are much more likely after the debut, after all. GiantSnowman 16:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Which means we create articles on non-notable players that may never get deleted, don't have independent in-depth coverage, and are a breeding ground for BLP issues in article space. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  There are loads of non-notable articles out there, and articles full of BLP issues, shall we just delete everything and start again? GiantSnowman 16:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  No, of course not: don't be absurd. But the whole point of SNGs is that a subject that meets one will likely meet the GNG, which is why we don't just enshrine the GNG as the sole notability guideline. Icewhiz is exactly right: if using NFOOTY to evaluate the notability of a footballer has an unacceptably high failure rate, then the guideline is flawed and needs tightening up. Ravenswing 02:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose arbitrary number. And also they're presumed to be notable, so doesn't mean they definitely are if they've played one game anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Arbitrary? WP:NSOLDIER(2) sets a bar of OF-6 - Brigadier general. WP:NACADEMIC(1) sets a bar by the amount of citations of their publications (e.g. an h-index of 20+ would generally be considered notable). But for football - a single substitution by a youth player in a small-time professional 3rd tier match? Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's greaty for soldiers and academics - but we're talking about a completely different kettle of fish. GiantSnowman 16:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Which doesn't actually address the point that many (if not, in fact all) SNGs have arbitrary standards, NFOOTY included. Ravenswing 13:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose arbitrary/POV. One is a simple bright line. Play for a professional club's reserves or youth team and you're probably not notable. Step onto the pitch as a first teamer? Notable. Simples. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As per the above, a figure of ten is arbitrary. The rule has worked well as it is for many years and I don't see any benefit to this change. Number 57 16:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A figure of ten is purely arbitrary and there's no evidence it would be more accurate than the current criteria. Smartyllama (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NFOOTY has to do a lot of things. All sports SNGs assume notability for players which play at the highest level, whether it be baseball, cricket, et cetera - but the football SNG has to be comprehensive worldwide, and the "fully professional league" requirement assumes (almost always correctly) a player who has played in such a league has received a level of coverage. I admit the problem with WP:NFOOTY is that not every player it covers will pass WP:GNG since the level of coverage can vary by club - for instance, a brand new team may get promoted to a fully professional team but receive little media coverage - but raising the bar of games played has no bearing on WP:GNG. If we were to modify the SNG, I would argue looking through the AfDs at players who passed WP:NFOOTY and failed WP:GNG - and even then this may lead us back to the current result. SportingFlyer T·C 19:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I notice there are three AfDs currently open or just recently closed discussing players with one substitute appearance - would adding clarification that the player has either a) started a match, b) played at least 90 minutes, or c) otherwise can be shown to pass WP:GNG be palatable to anyone? SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would support that proposal for sure. I think 90 minutes of play is much more likely to produce GNG compliance than something less than 90 minutes of play. See my note below for some additional thoughts. Jogurney (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Because otherwise, we have articles like this (5 games for 2nd- and 3rd-tier pro leagues over two seasons), this (1 game, 2nd-tier league, 16 minutes total career playing time), this (1 game, 1st-tier league, 2 minutes), this (1 game with a first team), this (3 games), this (4 games), this (6 games, none of them on a first team), this (no first team games), and this (no games in a top-tier league). Compare those with Shaq Pinas, clearly notable (14 first-team, top-tier league games). All of these examples come from the category intersections of (1) Dutch (2) defenders (3) born in 1988; who knows how many more are out there. I would go further and suggest 10 games in a top-tier league. Regular players in top-tier leagues should have an SNG "exception" to GNG, because in many countries, secondary sources will be inaccessible to us. The rest should not have an article unless they meet GNG. Leviv ich 21:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose — Having a guideline of this sort inevitably means drawing some sort of artificial line, but making it "anyone who has appeared at a certain level" is a lot simpler and less arbitrary than "anyone who has appeared at a certain level a certain number of times plucked out of the air". The problem, as has been said, lies in people blithely asserting "keep, meets WP:NFOOTY" without giving consideration to WP:GNG, and that issue won't be resolved by artificially fiddling with this straightforward guideline. Jellyman (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support – I'm not particularly tied to the number 10 as opposed to another number, but I agree that having played in a single professional football match is in no way a guarantee that a subject will meet GNG. Ideally, we could do some sort of data analysis to determine what threshold of professional games played correlates to meeting GNG a high percentage of the time, but assembling the data for such a study may be very difficult. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I had this idea as well, and figured the same difficulty. At any rate, any AfD discussion revolving around NFOOTY results in people bringing up WP:ROUTINE sources – be it 1 or 10 – when the point should be to make people accountable for the implicit claim of WP:SIGCOV they make by invoking NFOOTY. NFOOTY is a form of WP:MUSTBESOURCES that people get away with. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support the 1 game threshhold for automatic inclusion is dumb low. Numerous players sho meet that standard have no SIGCOV at all because no one cares about them. This guideline just lets football editors pad their creation stats. Legacypac (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The number 10 is no more arbitrary than the current number, 1. The number is meant to represent the likelihood of there being substantial coverate in reliable sources about the player, and that likelihood is higher at 10 games than at 1. Sandstein 08:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - this new proposal will adversely impact on pre-internet footballers with less than 10 appearances; and nobody has yet to explain why 10 is better than 1 (or any other number), given that (as I've already said and has been ignored), playing in 1 x full 90 minute game makes somebody less notable than playing in 10 x 1 minute appearances? As has been said by others, 1 is a meaningful clear line between 'has played' and 'hasn't played'. Saying 'has played some more' is meaningless. GiantSnowman 09:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment GiantSnowman The point is that if he actually played a full game, than that player will be covered and pass GNG anyways, right? Also there is that WP:BLP1E in sense of "notable only because of one professional game" territory I am uneasy to go in... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support GiantSnowman I think Rosguill explained it the best. Playing in 1 match only vs playing in 10+ matches...the chances you get covered by reliable significant coverage in secondary sources are much higher. The reason why NFOOTY needs tightening is because WP:N says that a topic is notable if it meets GNG or SNG (which is NFOOTY), basically dismissing the part of NFOOTY that "it gives a presumption of notability" to "it is notable" automatically. And that makes a blatant fail of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES in AfDs. I had an alternative proposal in my mind coming from WP:NACTOR, to "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in at least one competitive game in two or more different teams, between teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football." Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to see a reason why this should be changed. I think the fact that a player was able to make it playing for a pro team in a pro league or international level is grounds to show that that player is notable, even if it is just one game. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 10 is purely arbitrary while 1, of course, is highly significant. This would be a truly unhelpful modification. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support This should have happened at the same time that ATHLETE turned into NSPORTS. This is the only sport that gives presumptive notability to all professionals regardless of level of the league. What should really happen is that it should be 1 game in the top league in a given pyramid. It is presumption right down to the 3rd levels etc that is the big issue. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

So you think somebody playing in the top league in, for example, Guam or Samoa is more notable than somebody playing in the 2nd division in, for example, England or France? GiantSnowman 14:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No what I would do, like most other sports do is figure out which of those top flight leagues are the ones that truly 99.999 percent of the time meet GNG and use only those instead of every country and leave the rest to GNG. Ice hockey for example does a good job of this. They take the top flight leagues in the countries with the most hockey coverage and allow for 1 game. Countries that aren't covered so much by the press have a different level needed and so on and so forth. Down to the point where in the really low level leagues only winning something like MVP will get you in. I should also point out per WP:N there are no degrees of notability, you either are or aren't. So someone who meets GNG in Samoa is no less notable that someone who plays in England. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

But that's what happens in football - WP:FPL is a list of leagues in which 1 appearances confers notability. GiantSnowman 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Except that is a list of every league that is fully professional, which isn't the same. What I am saying is you shouldn't be including every league that is professional because most professional leagues won't live up to the standard of 1 game. That is the reason the footy criteria have often been looked at as a bit of a joke. A number of years ago every other sport said hey lets get rid of WP:ATHLETE which said that every player that was professional that played a game was notable and replace it with something a bit more specific and nuanced because 1 game in any pro league no matter how low of a fully professional league is not a good indicator of meeting GNG. And at the time football fought against it and kept the old criteria. 1 game played in the 4th level of soccer in England is not at all a guarantee of meeting GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The 4th level of English soccer is exceptionally well documented for a minor league, though. Which criteria would you use for determining which leagues make the SNG "cut" if not professionalism? SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That doesn’t shock me as England is football crazy. But you know what? The second level of US soccer isn’t well documented at all, and it is possible that the Malaysian first level isn’t either. WP:NFOOTY needs to be evaluated, every professional player isn’t notable. Rikster2 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rikster2: I just went through a full team's worth of player profiles for Phoenix Rising FC (picked at random) and FELDA United (picked since I've seen them play) and while not all players were bluelinks, I didn't see any player which would fail WP:GNG. Both the USL Championship and the Malaysia Super League seem to be quite well documented. SportingFlyer T·C 03:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, try the worst teams in the USL League One (also in WP:NFOOTY) and get back to me - with specific ref for 12th men. I pulled the Malysian League out of thin air, and it’s possible players appearing in ONE GAME (I’d want to see refs) might meet GNG, but I don’t for a second believe that all players getting paid for one professional match meet GNG, You’d have to prove it to me. Rikster2 (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I’d be interested in what sources you think show someone like Brandon Keniston meets GNG. I hardly did a comprehensive search, but didn’t see anything on an intial scan that indicated he met GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Keniston also fails WP:NFOOTY and is redlinked for a reason. It appears he's a 17-year-old new signing per [1] and [2], but even those insignificant mentions give a hint into the level of coverage the league receives. SportingFlyer T·C 04:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I randomly picked the 4th English league. Admittedly England was probably a poor example, but that is definitely not the case for every minor soccer league. That being said the very first guy I looked at randomly Harry Benns is sourced completely with passing mentions, non-independent or routine sources and after a look I couldn't find any that weren't those things so he would fail GNG so I am not completely convinced that level is covered as well as you think it is. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Benns clearly passes WP:GNG with articles such as [3], [4], [5], along with coverage in dozens of match reports. Perhaps the first step should be defining what qualifies as passing coverage for sportspeople under the WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Match reports are the very definition of WP:ROUTINE coverage. So much so they are often used as the example of routine coverage when people are talking about it as a concept. It says as much in the first section of NSPORTS. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment One or ten games? I think it's down to an article as a whole which needs to be weighed. A player that only plays 20 minutes and then disappears into non-league should be deleted. The words will generally be regarded as notable NFootball isn't saying playing one game is notable at all, it's asking a question of notability. What we have at the moment is fine, just need some of the thick skulls here to pull the wool off their faces and really access an article instead of voting to keep an article based on games played. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose -- I don't see the advantage in enforcing such a change.--EchetusXe 15:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – 10 is arbitrary (unlike 1 game/match, which is sufficient to assert notability); no improvement in such change. SLBedit (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – per above, see no reason to change it. Kante4 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – In particular NFOOTY gets often used to exclude subjects that in reality would qualify under GNG. This situation would worsen if the change would apply. Agathoclea (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • An SNG cannot override the GNG; if the GNG can be met, the topic should not be excluded due to an SNG. (I remember a case of a footballer that had only just been signed onto a professional team and not yet played but had been notable before that point, and it clearly distinguished that a think like NFOOTY should not be used to evaluate notability). --Masem (t) 17:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this about a notability evaluation - NFOOTY makes it absolutely clear what we will consider notable and is generally extremely helpful to people coming onto the project. Cases where NFOOTY is passed but GNG is not tend to be fairly obvious. Players who fail NFOOTY must make sure they pass the GNG, but the difficulty here is what people think meets GNG for sports articles is unclear anyways (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conan_Byrne). If we want to go down the GNG road, we need to have a separate conversation about what is and what isn't routine sports coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 01:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per GiantSnowman. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – not the worst suggestion, but I feel like it doesn't really change the situation all that much. The current system is fine, just needs the AfD process for low appearance makers to be clear; rather than, as Govvy mentions, blindly using NFOOTY to keep those type of articles, which I have admittedly been doing myself; not out of ignorance, but out of confusion. I think clarity with the consensus is all that is needed, otherwise no-one other than long time editors know what's going on. I've been a part of NFOOTY for five years now and yet I still don't know all of the past consensus that editors bring up. I'm slowly picking it up, but how are newer editors supposed to know about multiple past consensus which isn't listed anywhere obvious? R96Skinner (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as completely arbitrary instruction creep that is unnecessary beuracracy. The consensus at AFD over and over again is that the present SNG is acceptable as individual cases show that multiple sources exist in most cases for players who meet the SNG although they may well be offline and in non English sources Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that the usage of this SNG is used as an argument in these consensuses it's a bit self-generating - the discussion has to be held outside of the AfDs where it can't be used to defend itself (given that we put so much focus on AfD participants not deciding on what policy should be, just what it is) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the one-match/start standard is ubiquitous across multiple sports on WP, and I see no compelling case to change this. Every now and again, a borderline case will go to AfD, and those can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• On match one game is only ubiquitous across the top level leagues, not every professional league. That is the big difference here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose changing from "one match" to a different, equally arbitrary bright-line number. Support re-considering which leagues and matches count -- it is weird if international matches like UEFA cup matches don't count if the league is not "fully professional" while English League Two gives an automatic presumption of notability. —Kusma (t·c) 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No pressing issue that is solved by the arbitrary increase from one professional appearance to ten professional appearances. You appear to be concerned by the proliferation of stubs, when WP:PERMASTUB pages aren't inherently problematic in the first place. They aren't a nuisance that need be removed by overzealous pruning. Domeditrix (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Coming from the GNG/WP:N angle, I want to stress that the key to be looking for is at what tier where we can have an article more than just "primary" data (where a player grew up, went to school, what teams he played for, and his box scores) but why we should have an article on that player - effectively being able to have significant coverage in independent secondary sources. We are not a "Who's Who" for athletes or any other profession. This is why the 1-game requirement has always been iffy because there's no strong indicator this significant coverage comes from just one single professional play. I would argue that at least for a SNG inclusion, we're looking at players who have been with a team for all of at least one professional season and has played at least a quarter of the games of that season (eg as to cover potentially notable second-stringers). This doesn't players that don't meet that can't have articles, but those athletes need to meet the GNG otherwise (or another factor of NSPORTS). --Masem (t) 16:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't take into account the different numbers of games played in different professional leagues across the world (meaning that "a quarter" is going to be different for different players) or international-level players who do not play for a professional club/in a professional league. GiantSnowman 16:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, I know that would create several levels of distinction by sport, but reflects the nature of some sports. Take MLB baseball - teams play well over 100 games a season. Playing 10 games may be just a temporarily minor leaguer brought up to fill in for an injured player after which they are sent back again, where as playing 10 games of NFL football in a 16-game season is much more significant. So using some percentage of games typical for that sport is a better measure. --Masem (t) 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a fixed percentage is the way to go for all sports. For example, in the NFL, as it lacks a corresponding minor-league structure, the line between NFL player and non-player is thinner, though that too varies by position. Baseball has an extensive minor-league structure and so there's a much smoother gradation from minor leaguer to major leaguer in terms of appropriate coverage meeting English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. isaacl (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe then it is not a percentage, but it should be a per-sport or per-league number that considers the volatility of player movement to minor leagues/etc where they exist. If there's little possible mid-season movement, then the rough percentage or number can be lower, while it should be higher in leagues where player mobility is readily there. --Masem (t) 22:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are really barking up the wrong tree worrying about truly top-level leagues like the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB and a handful of top-tier soccer leagues. In those cases it really is the case where 99% of players meet WP:GNG and the SNG is fine at one game. I really don't think that is the problem here. Rikster2 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm using those as examples of games-per-season counts, and why a flat X games is not necessary a good measure. --Masem (t) 18:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am generally supportive of raising the bar in the manner proposed above (although I think 5 matches is a better measure than 10 based on my experiences attempting to find significant coverage in reliable sources for footballers who scrape past NFOOTBALL with 1-2 appearances). When people say 10 (or 5) matches is an arbitrary line for the presumption of notability, I would answer 'of course it is', and so is the current 1 match requirement. We are attempting to set the threshold at something that approximates the line where the GNG should almost always be met. I'm convinced that is not true at 1 match. Jogurney (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• What I don't like about the guideline is that it treats all "fully professional" leagues the same, although there are wide differences between first and fourth tier leagues, so raising the bar a bit could be appropriate. At the same time, players in top "not fully professional" leagues (i.e. from the wrong country) tend to get deleted for failing NFOOTY. In theory, a more nuanced approach (i.e. rely more on GNG and less on NFOOTY) would be great. In practice, I see how having a bright line rule makes creation, maintenance and deletion of football-related articles much less of a nightmare. —Kusma (t·c) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I have no doubt that a player appearing in one Premier League or La Liga match meets WP:GNG based on the interest level and coverage of those top-level leagues. The problem is you have second- and third-tier leagues included on the same list using the same standard. I live in the city of a USL League One club and I have a very difficult time believing that any player appearing in one game meets WP:GNG. In fact, I will just come out and say it - they do not. The level of coverage and interest for that league in the US (and probably USL Championship as well) is similar to minor-league baseball, ice hockey or basketball - and there is no "one-game standard" for minor-league players in any of those. Break WP:NFOOTY into tiers and we'd all be better off. Rikster2 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That is exactly the argument I have been trying to make above. It's the one game in those low level leagues that is the real problem. It isn't the 1 game in the premier league etc. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Do any of the opposers believe NFOOTY needs improvement? If so, what are their suggestions on how to proceed?—Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: I thought this would be a better place to ask this question. It seems we both agree that 130,000 football biography articles out of 800,000 overall biographies (1 in 6) is an imbalance. How should it be addressed? Leviv ich 04:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Levivich: As I've mentioned, a showing of an imbalance does not mean a bias exists towards football. At this current moment, there are tens of thousands of players currently playing in fully professional leagues, all of whom typically receive press coverage significant enough to pass WP:GNG. (Some don't, as we've seen.) It's possible we're at the "correct" number of football articles, but other areas are lacking. SportingFlyer T·C 05:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am going to call bullshit on this. It probably is true for top tier leagues. It most probably is not true for many of the lesser leagues - in some in-depth coverage of the teams is limited to very local papers - with probably less coverage than US college sports which we do not presume notability for (unless they win a major award or simply meet GNG). A youth player coming in as a sub for an injured player in a really minor league might only ever get a passing mention (that he came in as a sub) in match reports.Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Due to the worldwide popularity of this sport, I get that this is difficult. I have no doubt that a Tier III player in England, Germany, Spain, etc. gets 100x as much coverage as a Tier I player in, say, Uzbekistan. I agree with what was said above - what we really need to do here is go through every league worldwide and figure out whether or not players who play in 1 game in them will meet GNG consistently, irregardless of whether they're "fully professional," "Tier I/II/III/IV," or whatever else people want to throw out there. Now, that would be a Herculean task, and that's probably why it won't happen - people won't want to spend the time to actually do it for every league in the entire world. And, as an American, I can start by concurring with what Rikster wrote above, in the US, nothing other than MLS play should result in 1 game auto-notability. Maybe in top European soccer countries (England, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc.), players in Tier II/III/IV leagues get the coverage to justify 1-game notability for their players, but soccer is not a particularly popular sport in the US (certainly nowhere near as popular as American football, baseball, basketball, or ice hockey). It's ridiculous to think that we routinely delete articles about minor league baseball/American football/basketball/ice hockey players who don't meet WP:GNG, yet we grant automatic 1-game notability to players who step out onto the field in Tier III minor-league soccer games in the US (this would be the baseball equivalent to granting 1-game notability to players in Double-A ball). "Fully professional" or not, soccer leagues in the US don't generate anywhere near the level of coverage as American football, baseball, basketball, ice hockey, or most major college sports, as well. That ought to be an easy place to start trimming down NFOOTY, right there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• 2 games just as a starting point. This is likely to remove about half the players. Then we can see what we should do further.

BUT what I would really suggest is that we do something additional--make this the only rule in this field, and eliminate the option of using the GNG. It will at the least immensely simplify the discussions. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. GNG must always remain an option where the requisite significant coverage is present. NSPORT was adopted only on the premise that it was to be an inclusionary standard and that athletes who satisfy GNG also warrant stand-alone articles. This is as it should be. Cbl62 (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

there is no MUST about the GNG: it is not policy. The only relevant policy is NOTINDISCRIMINATE. We can use whatever guideline there is consensus for. I have been suggesting this for many years now in all fields where there is some numerical value for accomplishments that can be determined unambiguously. Some fields it won;t work, some it will. I would think sports is one where it will/. Tell me, one what basis would multiple news articles be written about a player who had not won several professional games, if not for the purposes of publicity? DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

GNG has been, remains, and IMO should remain our central guidepost for determining notability. Consensus strongly supports it, and it works well. If an athlete has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources (excluding such things as mere simple statistical databases), then an article is warranted. The problem here is not with athletes who pass GNG; rather, the issue is whether soccer players who have played only one professional game are likely to have received the depth of coverage upon which we can or should presume that GNG is satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: Do I misunderstand your point, or do you really assume there are 70,000 footballer biographies on Wikipedia with only one professional game played? SportingFlyer T·C 07:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

It would follow from the usual Zipf distribution of accomplishments in all other fields. But if I admit I am basing my number only on generalities, not an analysis i of the subject, about which I have a totally neutral position. If I am wrong, the cutoff should be at some other number--my suggestion is to make only a small change in the qualification at first, whatever numerical value. But I do know that the ones that typically outrage the people who want to reduce the coverage here are those with only one or a very few games played, and eliminating those examples might depolarize the issue a little.

Fair. I don't think it's that big of a problem, to be honest - there will be some players who fail WP:GNG but pass the SNG we still have articles on. I've proposed tightening it to 90 minutes played as opposed to one appearance above as a starting point. I don't like the idea that only the SNG would cover the topic - we recently had an Irish player who had played over 500 games in the Irish leagues, which does not get a notability presumption under the fully professional leagues list, who passed WP:GNG but would have been excluded under the SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Modified proposal

Per SportingFlyer's note above, I do think a significant improvement could be made by clarifying "played in a fully-pro league" means the following: a) started a match, or b) played at least 90 minutes as a substitute. Most of the articles that fail the GNG miserably are players who made a handful (or less) of cameo appearances in a national cup (where the club fielded a below-strength side) or in a late-season league match with no real consequences. This would limit the presumption of notability for such players. Jogurney (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support modifying NFOOTY2 by changing:

Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues... to:

Players who have started a match or played at least 90 minutes, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues...

and gonna pitch one more time that we replace "fully-pro" with "top tier". Leviv ich 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Thank you for writing it out here - that is exactly what I was thinking. As far as "top-tier" league, I cannot agree. There are plenty of top-tier leagues that don't receive much coverage in reliable sources, and certain high-profile second-tier (and even third-tier) leagues receive so much more (e.g., England, Germany, Spain). Jogurney (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - how does this take into account players from the pre-internet age? There's clear opposition to any change btw. GiantSnowman 19:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we think significant coverage in reliable sources would be more likely for footballers who played in the pre-internet age? I suspect the availability of offline sources for those footballers is fairly similar to the availability of online sources in the internet age, and based on my experience over the past several years attempting to source stub articles on footballers from the internet age with a substitute's appearance or two as their career highlight, it seems reasonable to expect nothing but routine coverage. Jogurney (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. This will instantly help clarify the grey area under the SNG without causing wholescale changes to the project. For those who think this is still too inclusive, I would argue it's a great starting point. I disagree with both posts above - the lower English leagues are stronger than a lot of top-tier leagues, plus you would need to add top-tier fully-professional leagues or this will create a larger problem than the one we have now. In terms of pre-Internet sources, I don't see why this would be a problem at all, plus where the information can't be confirmed players would still qualify for an article under WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this will create more problems than it solves, and I have three main concerns; firstly it leaves Wikipedia incomplete in encyclopedic terms; if I bought a book of players of Club X, it would most likely cover all players, regardless of how many minutes they played. Secondly, I think readers come to Wikipedia after a player makes his debut expecting to find an article, and we'll have an endless cycle of articles created on players who made their debuts as subs. Thirdly, I can also forsee the 90 minute rule creating arguments over exactly how many minutes a player has played. What if they made their debut in the 62nd minute three matches in a row, but each game went to 94 minutes? Number 57 21:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• A player making an appearance on a club notable enough for their own published historical player directory would still likely pass WP:GNG, we deal with WP:TOOSOON articles all the time including in instances where the appearance didn't count towards WP:NFOOTY, and any article that comes close to the 90 minute mark (especially if there are multiple appearances) should probably still be analysed on WP:GNG grounds anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• When more than 1 in 7 of our biographies of living people are footballers, I think we have a considerable problem. I expect that the only scrutiny for most of these biographies is being done by very busy editors using automated tools, and that's not OK in such a popular topic area. Something must be done to mitigate the colossal risks Wikipedia is taking in maintaining this number of BLPs in a narrow but popular sphere. But let's not just keep making alternative proposals until something sticks. Instead, let's begin with a site-wide, watchlist-notified RFC to find out what proportion of footballer BLPs the community thinks is reasonable.—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the problem is that there are not enough editors interested in creating content in other areas – for example politicians. If we had articles on all MPs for the last 100 years, I'd say that would probably add 200,000 biographies at least, and that's just one topic. Number 57 10:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Number 57: - you seem to be arguing that while Wikipedia is WP:NOTSTATS/WP:NOTDIRECTORY it combines elements of a encyclopedias/almanacs/gazetteers (WP:5P1) - along the lines used in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). However, our Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (which NFOOTY is part of) states clearly in the top - "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia", "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (linking to GNG). Thus, at present, the sport specific guidelines (including NFOOTY) merely provide a yardstick of what is likely to meet GNG - they do not supersede GNG. If you think that Wikipedia should be a gazette of certain classes of sportspeople - then that requires a broader change here. Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Clearly addresses the problems identified. To those why say we risk an "incomplete" Wikipedia, we are not a directory of every football player ever. Besides, notability is only about standalone articles. Biographical information about non-notable individuals can still be included in competition, team, and roster articles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose How is someone who starts one game and has a career ending injury after 23 minutes notable but subs who play less than 90 are not notable? 90 minutes is arbitrary and virtually impossible to prove for any footballers pre Soccerway. The problem is that there are vast parts of the football articles that no one bothers with. This allows footballers who don't meet NFOOTY or GNG to remain simply because no one cares to look at their articles. Dougal18 (talk)

• The number of players who have suffered a career ending injury in the first 89 minutes of their professional soccer career has to be miniscule, and honestly any player would probably be notable for that very reason. 90 minutes is the length of one game excluding stoppage time, and the "started a match" adds clarity for when the number of minutes played cannot be found. There were no substitutes in the World Cup until 1970, and no subs in the English league before 1966-67, and no subs at all apparently before 1958, so this doesn't create a huge problem for the pre-Soccerway era. SportingFlyer T·C 08:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - is the current SNG perfect? No, by no means. Does it provide a clear cut off line that can be easily understood and readily applied across AfD / PROD with complete uniformity? Yes. Would an increase to the number of appearances remove a number of probably non-notable footballers? Yes... but. The but being widely discussed above, namely what constitutes an appearance? Is someone who made ten 1 minute substitute appearances more notable than someone who made 9 ninty minute appearances? It's a fine proposal in principle, but it simply raises different questions and challenges, challenges that make decision making about notability inherently more difficult. The one appearance rule presents a clear, logical line in the sand, namely that, with the exception of very odd exceptions, you simply cannot be notable as a footballer if you have not actually played any football at a given level. I would encourage those who wish to move the goalposts to consider whether replacing one set of problems with another is really the best way to go. Fenix down (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think we've spent quite a bit of time at AfD (yes, I'm mostly to blame) dealing with stubs on players who played once or twice in a fully-pro league (typically in a cameo role) and then flamed out. Most of these comprehensively fail the GNG and do not belong in Wikipedia. I haven't seen a lot of BLP violations within these stubs, so there isn't a pressing need to cull them, but who has the time to do so? I think this would save a lot of time at AfD, and when the GNG can be met for such stubs, those articles can be improved and saved. If I believe that 90+ minutes of play doesn't frequently yield GNG-compliance (which has not yet been my experience), then your concern will play out - but shouldn't it eventually if these BLPs are about non-notable footballers? Jogurney (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Fenix down and Jogurney: - I disagree, ardently, that clarity and applicability are anywhere close to being sufficient. Obviously a tightening of rules would cause various problems - 1 of which would be defining various things (I'd actually like to spin this out and have some wide discussions on several factors and be done with that aspect). However, NFOOTY is so weak as a notability requirement that it gives an absurdly easy ride to footballers. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• One of the biggest issues here is the perception WP:NFOOTY can be a low bar in terms of notability guidelines. I don't think changing the presumptive rule from "1 appearance" to "90 minutes or one start" will make all that big of a difference, but it does solve the problem of "this guy made two substitute appearances but doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG." We vote on footballers at AfD almost exclusively on passes/fails WP:NFOOTY, and I don't see any problem in making it more difficult to do that for marginal players. Finally, whatever change we make or don't make will create problems. SportingFlyer T·C 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Is someone who made ten 1 minute substitute appearances more notable than someone who made 9 nintey minute appearances? Doubtful. The person who played 10 career minutes would almost certainly be less notable than the person who appeared in 9 games for a total of 810 minutes. The former should not be "presumed notable". Hence why I think this guideline should be changed to 90 minutes instead of 1 game. Leviv ich 18:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I also feel that being subjective to time played is the same as games played. Common-sense seems to have gone out the window now. Govvy (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose it's easier to administer as it is and older era players have less or no information about their playing time minutes so it would be difficult to apply fairly which is a problem best avoided by keeping the present wording, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fenix down. The one match rule is easy enough to apply across all football biographies, and is understood by most who comment at any given AfD. Changing it to a combination of matches/minutes only makes things more esoteric, and wastes more editing time for everyone involved in the discussion. Anyone who spots an article they think can't possibly be notable is, of course, free to take it to AfD, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no reason for this.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Disregard that. I accidentally posted this to the wrong place. Sorry.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Top-Flight *Preliminary* Discussion

As an aspect of both proposals as well as in the general discussion, there has been the suggestion of narrowing the league requirements for assumed notability from simply "fully-professional". Generally the suggestion has been to "top-flight", but with standard agreement it would need to be broader, in aspects, than this. GNG would be used for footballers from other leagues.

Obviously, there would be various complexities in deciding how to go about this, some of which have already been identified.

In the vein of solving one problem at a time, it would be preferable to consider this suggestion as separate (or an optional bolt-on) to any other tightening of NFOOTY.

• 1. Inclusion of Non-top leagues in countries that still generate far more notability than top-flight leagues in other countries. (e.g. English Championship)
  2. Need to create a discrete list to remove the need for editors to litigate each league in turn. This would be presumably 200+ top-flight leagues, plus some number of others, plus a number of historical leagues.

Hoping for some thoughts, other problems, solutions etc etc, before considering if worth scripting into a proposal form. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• No. How is a top-flight player in Guam or Samoa more notable than a professional who happens to be playing in the Spanish second, German third or English fourth division? GiantSnowman 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Top flight doesn't necessarily have to mean the top league in every country. In most of the other sports only the top leagues in a few countries meet the grade. Being that soccer is more popular around the world there will likely be more countries whose top leagues meet the grade. I would also point out again NSPORTS doesn't determine amount of notability, it only states how likely a player is to meet GNG. It is very well possible (though I am in no way saying it is true as I haven't looked) that someone playing in the top league in Samoa is covered in its media more than someone in the English 4th division. That doesn't mean one is more or less notable than the other. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• covergae driven, yes - As NFOOTY merely specifies a line likely to meet GNG what we should be checking is degreee of coverage of each league. In soccer crazy England - perhaps even the semi-pros are notable... While in the US the lower tiers of pro play may not be notable. In short - it is a question of sports/gossip media (and book) coverage for each. The list of leagues currently maintained by the football project has some dodgy entries coverage wise.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  One way to test the NFOOTY list would be to strike any league for which players, after failing evaluation of GNG per an extensive source check, closed as delete or no consensus at an AfD. Such an outcome at an AfD suggests the NFOOTY line is wrong for that league.Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  That would however only really work for recent players due to how hard it is to check old pre-internet sources. But it is a good starting point. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Icewhiz, in soccer-crazy England, it seems to me there would be no shortage of easily-accessible, English-language sources, such that there is no need for any SNG because all those less-than-top-tier players would easily have their notability established through GNG. As I understand it, the purpose of the SNG is to help establish notability to players in countries that don't have as much easily-accessible sources... how many such countries are "soccer-crazy" like England, I wonder? Leviv ich 20:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  I gave those two examples as they should be easy for all English editors to assess.... As for non-English - a SNG should not be an excuse for creating an unsourced or very poorly sourced entry on a BLP. When creating a BLP article, one should have at least 1 strong RS.Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• No - we already maintain WP:FPL which is the equivalent of what you are asking for. Some of the sourcing behind the FPL list is suspect, but most of the decisions are the result of significant research and discussion over many years. Jogurney (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• The list at FPL isn't really the same thing, its just a list of all fully pro leagues. The idea here is to cut the list down to be less than every fully pro league, to only those where we can show that those 1 game players will meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's quite a bit of additional research then as identifying full professionalism has been quite a challenge already. I understand the idea here now, but I'm a skeptic on implementation. Jogurney (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not to be facetious but for some of these if its that hard to identify if a league is even fully professional, then I think it highly likely that a 1 game substitution player in that league probably didn't get significant coverage to meet GNG. But that is just conjecture. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's a problem of lacking editors knowledgeable in local languages or online sources. Take the Saudi Professional League - the governing body (AFC) for its national association has analyzed its level of professionalism for us (in its efforts to determine club eligibility for the AFC Champions League). Accordingly we can be confident that the league is fully professional (at least in the past 10 or so years since the AFC performed its review). However, it is challenging to find online English-language sources providing in depth coverage of the league. There are online Arabic-language sources but I don't think we have enough editors with the language skills to use those sources effectively. Trying to determine if these sources provide in depth coverage of a footballer whose highest achievement is playing in the Saudi Professional League won't be easy. Jogurney (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Per Jogurney and others, perhaps the better place to have this discussion is at Wikipedia talk:FPL, on a league-by-league basis, instead of trying to modify NFOOTY (as I had originally suggested)? Leviv ich 21:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I think this addresses the issue much more than the proposal to raise the number of games to meet WP:NFOOTY. I am struggling to understand the objections being raised - even if you just said "top tier leagues" and then added additional divisions to countries where the sport is ubiquitous (such as England, Spain, Italy, etc.) we'd be better off than this "one game if the player is 'fully professional'" nonsense. Everyone else would still be "keepable" if they met WP:GNG and you can always add leagues later if some prove to be key misses. Quite frankly, this is how every other sports SSG works. Rikster2 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The objections are pretty basic – the top flight in many countries is nowhere near being of a standard that would make the players notable. Number 57 22:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Then come up with a subset of leagues where players appearing in one game are actually likely to meet WP:GNG - That is not the current list. Right now you have all the top-flight leagues and a whole bunch of other ones too. Again, literally every other sports SSG has had to grapple with this. Rikster2 (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
      • What? We have over 130 top-flight leagues (which is a majority of countries) classed as not fully-professional, and therefore the players from those leagues not meeting WP:NFOOTY. Have you actually looked at WP:FPL?? Number 57 22:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I have. And for the US - including the minor leagues e.g. USL Championship is at odds with notability standards in American sports - e.g. WP:NBASE includes only the majors. The MLS itself is less covered than major league baseball. To include minors in soccer but exclude minors in baseball? The latter are more heavily covered - though in both cases coverage is very local (around the home city) -minor league games aren't "a thing" in the US - they are mainly for farming prospects, the fans mostly watch and follow the majors.Icewhiz (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Then sounds pretty easy. Pare down your list to “fully professional, top flight” leagues then actually look country by country and figure out for which countries lower division players might also meet GNG. Not that hard. Rikster2 (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• No Several of the biggest professional leagues aren't top flight. WP:FPL has a level of beauty to it because of the global nature of the sport of football - it makes the assumption fully professional teams receive significant coverage, even when the coverage may be in hard-to-search langauges such as Arabic, Hebrew, Farsi, what have you. I disagree with defining this problem as "we have too many football player articles" when it seems clear to me the vast majority of these fully professional players will pass WP:GNG. We are much better off focusing on the marginal players as a starting point. If this gets implemented, an RfC about what constitutes WP:ROUTINE coverage would be desperately needed. SportingFlyer T·C 21:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Football isn’t unique with its Global nature. We deal with that with basketball as well. It’s why someone who has appeared for one game in the Greek top league is assumed to have met WP:GNG while someone who did the same in the Romanian League does not and those cases are just left to WP:GNG. I would certainly expect footy to have a longer list of leagues that meet this standard than basketball does, but it’s the same concept. I am sure it is easier to have a bright line standard, but IMO your current bright-line standard doesn’t meet the objective of a SSG to give guidance for players who in all probability meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• No The 'top flight' suggestion shows a basic lack of understanding of the topic IMO. Number 57 22:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with what Rikster said here. Start with the presumption that every player who plays 1 game in a “fully professional, top flight” league is notable. Then, go through each “fully professional, lower division” league one-by-one and figure out which of them can consistently sustain coverage for players to meet GNG. For countries like England, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. these lower league players will likely meet GNG. For other countries, not so much. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• No its better to keep to the present system which excludes 130 topflight teams as not wholly professional so it is selective. Changing to topflight would be a huge timesink in assessing every country with endless arguments and prolonged discussions in each country and respective leagues of each country so it potentially could go on for years; so overall it's much simpler to keep the current criteria in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• No - not an improvement, arguably would make things worse. It would mean a definitive line for top-flight leagues in, for example, Anguilla, Gibraltar, Laos, Lesotho, Marshall Islands and Suriname but not for the English Championship, German 2. Bundesliga or Spain's La Liga 2. While I don't necessarily agree with the other two proposals currently up for debate, at least they have logical changes - this one doesn't, in my opinion. R96Skinner (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

NOLYMPICS question

Apologies if this has already been answered before, But I was just wondering: is simply being named to an Olympic team enough to qualify under NOLYMPICS, or do you actually have to participate in Olympic competition? The reason I started thinking about this was because of this article, Will Borgen. Borgen was a college ice hockey player when he was named to Team USA to compete in ice hockey at the 2018 Winter Olympics. He was named to the team, and traveled with the team to Korea, yet he was a healthy scratch and did not play in any of Team USA's games in the Olympic tournament. Would he qualify under NOLYMPICS, or not? (Side note, in the case of Borgen's notability, this is very much a theoretical exercise. Since the Olympics, Borgen has since played in games in the NHL, thus meeting WP:NHOCKEY #1, regardless of whether or not NOLYMPICS is met. But, it would seem to me that there could be other athletes that could be similarly affected, like alternate swimmers who never actually hit the pool in Olympic competition, or an athlete who suffers a training injury and withdraws before competition actually begins. Would they be notable under NOLYMPICS, or not?). Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've always interpreted competed at/competed in requirements as requiring participation in the specified event, and not merely being listed as part of a team at the event but never playing in it. Iffy★Chat -- 21:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Short answer: No. They will have needed to have actually started an event in order to meet the notability requirements for the Olympics. However, as you state, they already meet other sporting notability. And I also suspect that anyone selected to compete at the 2018 Winter Olympics, but didn't start, would probably meet WP:GNG, with coverage of the individual on the lead-up to the Games. Plus, you'd have to assume that they achieved something to be in with a shout of competing at the Olympics too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

For modern-day players, I'm sure they meet GNG. But, what about historical athletes, like, say, Stanisław Pastecki? As far as I can tell, his only claim to notability is being an ice hockey player at the 1928 Winter Olympics, but stat sites show zero Olympic games played. Does Pastecki meet NOLYMPICS, or not? Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say he fails WP:NOLY. He's not listed as playing on Sports Ref, but he was named there back in 2012. I guess they've updated their records to show he didn't actually play in a match. I don't know if he meets any other notability requirements though. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to go solely based on stats sites for players that far back. Because often a lot of the stats sites have not the greatest info for that time period. Often listing players with zero games only because they don't actually have any stats for that team/event. But they do have a list of players on the team so they list the player on the team but without any stats. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That was my thought, too: that the stats might not be all that accurate that far back (though several of Pastecki's 1928 Olympic teammates, like Aleksander Słuczanowski, Karol Szenajch, and Kazimierz Żebrowski do show as having played in Olympic games). But, then, how do we deal with this? How do we verify if Olympic games were actually played for historical players? And, should we be creating articles for these historical players if we can't find statistical verification that they actually played in games in Olympic competition? Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If I was to solely look at the current wording (... are presumed notable if they have competed ...), it would seem that they would have actually had to have been participants in a competition, not simply named to the roster. Meeting WP:GNG would be more straightforward.—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I would expect it to work like any of the other criteria. A game has to actually be played. -DJSasso (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC about independent sources for academic biographies

An RfC which might be of interest to watchers of this page has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:

Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.

Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?

Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Motor sports question - does one race make a driver notable?

I'm curious because the guideline says "Have driven in a race in a fully professional series." Does that mean they have to have driven in a full series (like, an entire NASCAR season) or is racing in one NASCAR race enough to make them notable enough to justify an article? JimKaatFan (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I read it as one race in any given series, assuming that the series itself is notable too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about golf notability

Asking because of the Draft:John Axelsen who doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, but won Eisenhower Trophy and McGregor Trophy. He seems to have won Danish International Amateur Championship three times (we don't have an article on it), and appeared on Youth Olympics. Are any of those enough to meet WP:NGOLF? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Competing at the Youth Olympics does not meet the notabilty requirements for an individual. I don't know about the other tournaments though. Looking at the draft, are there other resources online above and beyond him playing in certain tournaments, such as interviews and other press coverage? That could be enough to pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Easily his most significant performance is as part of the 3-man Danish team that won the 2018 Eisenhower Trophy. This is one of the few "elite" events in the World Amateur Golf Ranking: see World Amateur Golf Ranking#Men. The trouble with WP:NGOLF is that is extremely vague. Normally section 1 of WP:NGOLF (which covers playing in team events) is thought (for amateurs) to just include the Walker Cup (men) and Curtis Cup (women) - for which he, as a Dane, would not be eligible. Normally 4 (which covers amateur wins) is thought to include Elite events (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_30#Proposed_change_to_WP:NGOLF_(2) where I tried to start a debate about this section - clarifying the wording). At the moment section 4 tends to imply an individual win, although it doesn't explicitly say so. Personally I would say that being in a winning Eisenhower Trophy team should be sufficient. Nigej (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Softball?

Hi everyone,

I was wondering what the Wikipedia policy would be regarding notability guidelines for softball players. And if anyone happens to have that information, please add it to the page.

Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently no special notability guideline for softball. Accordingly, WP:GNG would govern. That said, I recently suggested developing an SNG for softball here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Softball#NSPORTS. Feel free to continue the discussion there if you would like. Cbl62 (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as SNG's for individual player notability, here are my thoughts:

1.) For men's international softball players, playing in the Men's Softball World Championship ought to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, i.e. "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level."

2.) For women's international softball players, playing in the World Cup of Softball or the Women's Softball World Championship ought to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, i.e. "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level."

3.) For American women's college softball players, being named an NCAA Division I All-American or winning some other major, national-level NCAA D-I individual award ought to meet WP:NCOLLATH #1.

4.) For women's professional softball players, the National Pro Fastpitch does exist, however, I'm not sure that every single player who played 1 game in the league is automatically going to be able to meet WP:GNG. However, players who had a long playing career in the league, or were named All-NPF, or who won some other major individual award from the league will probably meet WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ for some guidance on developing criteria for a new sport. In particular: Note the "nutshell summary" and the "Basic criteria" section are high-level descriptions of the type of criteria used by each sport. This does not mean that any criteria that fit these descriptions are suitable. You must demonstrate that the proposed criteria are effective as a way to determine if a subject meets the general notability guideline. You should be testing your criteria to confirm that they are highly reliable predictors of the subject being able to pass the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mrbeastmodeallday:, I encourage you to write one. Start by proposing something here. You will get comments, mostly good constructive ones. It took me a while to have the criteria for orienteering accepted. The criteria should be quite strict, to ensure that you will find third-part, secondary sources. Remember that relevance for team does not imply relevance for a player nor vice versa.Per W (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about association football

Does one international youth (U-17/U-19/U-20;U-21) match or tournament make a player notable? I did read the FIFA regulations from the cite but I didn't get anything about youth players. Thanks for the info in advance! --LV1000 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• No; as per point 1 of WP:NFOOTY, the only international appearances that confer notability are those in FIFA Tier 1 international matches (i.e. the main senior team of a nation), competitive senior international matches at confederation level or the Olympic Games. Number 57 12:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep; playing at youth level (club or coun try) is not sufficient. GiantSnowman 13:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Paralympic athletes, and 2 other questions

Two questions. First, if memory serves me, an athlete who medals at a continent-wide competition (e.g. European Games) are considered notable. I had thought it was here under WP:NOLYMPICS, but it's not. Anyone know if, and where, that is so stated? Should we amend this guideline? Same question for national champions in a sport. Final question is regarding Para-athletes. If they medal in the Paralympics, notable is conferred. But what about those who medal at the World Para Alpine Skiing Championships, currently that is not listed here. Shouldn't it be? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

For the European Games, I'd defer it to the sport-specific guide, if there is one. So in track and field, for example, they would meet WP:NATH (point 2, inished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games ...) I would suspect that virtually ANYONE at the European Games would pass WP:GNG, with both editions being in the golden age of online news coverage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree Lugnuts - I just can't find it written anywhere. And not every sport has a SR (e.g. skiing). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

ANOTHER question about association football

Minor League? Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Karani. Does playing in a minor-league equivalent automatically make an individual player or coach notable? Comparatively, that would mean that every minor league baseball player would also be notable... it doesn't seem to me that this guideline is being appropriately applied at the given AFD. Please advise.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Additionally, it seems to me that a community guideline such as WP:NFOOTY is dependent on the contents of an essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTBALL says "fully-professional league" - there is no such thing as 'minor league' in association football. We happen to maintain a list of such leagues at WP:FPL. What is the problem here? GiantSnowman 13:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Beyond that, that's a false equivalency: no one's suggesting that rookie-league baseball players are presumptively notable any more than anyone's suggesting that English National League players are presumptively notable, however much they're getting paid to play. They're just not buying into the North American WP shibboleth that nothing-below-top-flight-counts. Now if you want to argue that particular leagues don't receive enough coverage so that all of its players should not be considered presumptively notable, that's a valid argument, if supported by evidence. Ravenswing 20:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

There's definitely a difference between an academy footballer and someone on the parent team, just as there's a difference between someone in the minors and on the major league team. So not all academy players are notable - many/most are not in the same way that many/most minor league players are not notable. However Karani has played for a fully professional league and that tends to mean there'll be enough sourcing to support an article hence our SNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Two concerns: 1) The Kansas City Star refers to the team in question as a "development team for Sporting Kansas City." That indeed is a "minor league" team, even if they don't call it that by name. 2) a "guideline" which has at least some oversight among the community has a portion of that guideline dependent on the contents of another article Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues which has much less oversight. It seems to add WP:UNDUE weight to the list.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

You are clearly ignorant about the level of oversight at WP:FPL. A quick glance at the history and talk page show it is studiously monitored. GiantSnowman 11:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

And to address your first point, surely you are not suggesting that your interpretation of the language in a newspaper article should have any bearing beyond your own opinion on the matter. Ravenswing 02:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

First and foremost, if I were not ignorant on an issue like this, we would call this the PaulOpedia and that isn't the case. I'm here to ask questions and voice concerns, and a freaking TALK page is the right place for that. So do us all a favor and ditch the name-calling and instead just solve the issue. Second: If "development team for Sporting Kansas City" does not mean "minor league" what would you say it means? Substandard? Lower-level? Entry-level? Beneath? Bush league? Feeder? Junior Varsity? Even the league itself claims it is "Division II"--but you tell me. And remember-it's not my opinion that matters, and it's not your opinion that matters, and it's not the opinion of any other Wikipedia editor (or group of editors) that matters because such opinions would be original research--it's the opinion of the expert writers from third party reliable sources of whom we cite entries in this encyclopedia that matters. And the expert in the most critical position calls it a "development" team. Third and final--if the oversight at WP:FPL is truly as good as you indicate then it needs to be clearly labeled as such to avoid concerns like this. As it stands, it's just a loose list. How loose? The source for the verification of the United Soccer League is the league itself--not an independent source. So I would argue that the page is not really "studiously monitored" as has been stated. Looks to me like that list could do with some independent oversight.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why the term "minor league" (or whatever other term we might choose) is relevant here. WP:FPL includes many leagues which are not the top level in particular countries. For instance, it includes EFL League Two, which to someone of my age is the old "Fourth Division" (pre-1992), i.e. the 4th tier (teams effectively ranked 69 to 92 in England). I know were talking about a US team here but the footy project has taken on board the FPL concept and applied it worldwide, even in the US. Nigej (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the "minor league" issue is a problem here either, and I also don't understand why the primary source makes a difference. Swope Park Rangers is effectively a reserve team, but the inclusion of a reserve team in a league doesn't disqualify a league from being listed at WP:FPL - if this were the case, we'd lose several prominent leagues, including seasons of the Segunda División in Spain. Furthermore, the WP:FPL list exists in project space as a sort of "civil law" factual determination that a league is professional. SportingFlyer T·C 06:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be an issue? WP:NGRIDIRON states ": Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not presumed notable"; WP:NBASE states "Some active minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article"; Why should players of this sport get a free automatic pass?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Because it's based on how much coverage the league gets, not on the status of the league (or the teams in the league). If fully professional "minor" leagues didn't get significant coverage in reliable sources, we wouldn't be having this discussion Iffy★Chat -- 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Iffy-we quite often have oodles of discussions about articles that are not considered notable. Just because it's in Wikipedia does not mean it should stay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The other distinction here is that "minor" leagues in the United States are almost always purely developmental, whereas lower division soccer leagues are not, and still receive significant coverage. We do not include fully developmental leagues as part of WP:NFOOTY, such as the U23 leagues which are hosted across Europe, or the English Premier League reserve leagues, which are separate leagues than the English league structure. However, for leagues such as Spain and Germany, where the best teams have reserve teams which play in the greater league structure, those players would be considered presumptively notable for appearing for that team, as those leagues do receive significant coverage. The USL is a bit strange, since MLS had a separate reserve league (not notable if you appeared) which merged with the USL, so you have teams like New Mexico United which are completely independent and have an average attendance over 10,000 along with Swope Park Rangers who average 400, which is likely one of the largest variances in attendance in the world. I could see a Swope Park player failing WP:GNG if analysed, it would be harder for a New Mexico United player to do so. SportingFlyer T·C 22:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that SportingFlyer has made my point for me here--there may likely be some teams in the league that have achieved notability, but giving a "blanket pass" to all teams is giving undue weight to the league and to every team in the league, and to every player in the league.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, are you only talking about the USL Championship here, or are you saying a Barcelona B team player shouldn't be notable either? I completely disagree with you on the "undue weight," by the way. The USL Championship is generally well covered. SportingFlyer T·C 02:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

To quote myself from above, "they're just not buying into the North American WP shibboleth that nothing-below-top-flight-counts." We're quite aware that the gridiron football and baseball projects consider leagues below the top flight beyond the pale (though I'm darkly amused at the irony of all this coming from a fellow who a decade ago was arguing that college football coaches were presumptively notable). The whole reason, however, that WP:ATHLETE was devolved to the individual sports Wikiprojects was that one size does NOT fit all. You could just as readily -- and accurately -- argue that there's no way that sixteen year old athletes could ever qualify under NGRIDIRON or NBASE, let alone as a blanket thing ... but there are several sports represented in NSPORTS in which they can and do. Ravenswing 04:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You know, I'm tired of all the personal attacks. Do whatever you want.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Dilemma The link to the WikiProject page on pro leagues has existed in the guideline since 2010. I have no opinion on its accuracy or level of oversight. However, to an "outsider", it raises the question of whether it only reflects WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Should that page have {{WikiProject notability advice}} on it?—Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a sourced list - that isn't really a LOCALCONSENSUS thing. Number 57 12:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Striking part of my comment. I incorrectly interpreted that the project page was a list of leagues the project believes makes a player notable. Instead, it's just a list of fully professional leagues. Therefore, it's NSPORTS/NFOOTY (and not the project) that states that players from "fully-professional leagues" are generally notable.—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Done I give up, the soccer people can do whatever they want and I don't care. It's not worth the abuse to ask questions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

FAQ on second sentence

I have added a new frequently asked question to the FAQ list regarding the intent of the second sentence in this guideline. Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this comment was meant for this section. Assuming that it is, the second sentence is the one sentence that continues to get used as proof that this guideline can replace the general notability guideline, in spite of what the rest of the guideline says and what was agreed upon at its genesis. It truly is a frequently asked question. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If the sources we use are appropriate for establishing notability for some but not others, this is hypocrisy to the highest level and should have been settled 15 years ago. Bobo. 23:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not understanding what you mean. The second sentence says the article must cite sources backing whatever guideline is being used to presume notability (in the English Wikipedia sense). It is basically a restatement of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. So yes, the second sentence was settled a long time ago. isaacl (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with the fact that the sources we quote establish the eligiblility of an article by the subject-specific guidelines, and can find verifiable evidence to prove this in any given article using secondary sources of your own, feel free. Bobo. 23:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I disagree. Can you tell me what I've said that gives this impression? I haven't changed the guideline, and the FAQ I added was to underscore that the second sentence is unrelated to whether or not the sports-specific notability guidelines supersede the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If the sources we quote, and have done so for 15 years, to prove a subject passes an SNG, do not provide evidence that a subject is notable via the GNG guideline - whatever the GNG guideline attempts to prove - then please provide suggestions of alternative sources we can quote, given your knowledge of the subject(s) and the verifiability of the sources we use, and the verifiability of the sources you would exchange in each case. Bobo. 23:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer that because different articles cite different types of sources. Most articles pass the general notability guideline without any problem, and cite completely suitable sources. Players who have just passed a sports-specific notability criterion will sometimes have stub articles created for them by eager editors, and it might just include the one fact that made them pass the sports-specific criterion, with an appropriate source. When others come by and flesh out the article, they'll usually provide evidence that the general notability guideline is met. However, none of this is related to the FAQ. isaacl (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "just passed". Subject-specific notability guidelines relating to team sports covered on Wikipedia are absolute. That's the advantage of bright-line criteria. Bobo. 00:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: Please forgive me for mixing up what you mean. All too often I see arguments which claim that an individual "barely passes" a certain criterion. This implies some kind of woolly interpretation of a subject-specific notability guideline. Bobo. 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

An MLB player meets the baseball-specific criteria after appearing in one game. Before that one game, none of the other baseball-specific criteria are applicable (at least not for on-field reasons). isaacl (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

And no other subject-specific guideline regarding individual players in baseball matches is relevant as long as the single-game criterion is met. Bobo. 00:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the confusion is when I said "just passed", I meant the event causing the player to meet the sports-specific criterion just occurred. isaacl (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

As long as a database is well-maintained then these statistics will hopefully be amended as soon as possible. Bobo. 00:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Added a modifcation above just in case you don't see it. Bobo. 00:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Weightlifting Notability

Hi All. Can someone help me out with defining notability for weightlifting? Looking in the archive [[6]] the latest suggestion seems to be:

• Weightlifters are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below
• 1.Participation at the Olympic Games (all), or World Championships from 1973. (full results of World Championships prior to 1973 are missing on the internet, so we can't assume all these unknown participants meets notability)
• 2.Medalist at an elite international championship / Games (for instance: continental championships, continental Games, Commonwealth Games, Mediterranean Games)

I'm asking as my article Rosina Randafiarison has been given the dreaded 'notability' mark. Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose, what would ultimately be necessary is substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Source #1 is not independent or in-depth. #2 is not in-depth; just a directory. #5, same, just a brief name drop. #6 again is just a list entry. Do any of the other sources, or others in existence, cover her in better depth? If not, the notability tag is correct. Just mentions and name drops do not lead to notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I got hold of the other three references. #4 is a blurb with about a paragraph about her, #5 is a mention in passing, and #7 doesn't have her name in it at all is a brief mention. That is not enough source material to write an article, especially a biography of a living person. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In some other sports on the project page, there are specifications that people are "presumed notable if they meet any of [certain] criteria" - it was that sort of formulation I'm looking for. I just find it a bit difficult to see that a continental champion in a mainstream sport is not "notable"! (But I shall accept the wisdom of more experienced wikipedians) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

What I can see of #7 has "Du côté de la Grande île, le président de la fédération malgache, Harilenina Randriamanarivo, a confirmé la participation d’une équipe visiblement très compétitive. Finalisée durant le premier week-end du mois, cette sélection comporte en effet des leveurs d’expérience et déjà médaillés, souligne la presse malgache. À l’instar des frères Tojo et Eric Andriantsitohaina (hommes), ainsi que l’Olympienne Vania Ravololoniaina et Rosina Radafiarison (dames)." - not that that's going to tip the balance in favour of notability BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Not remotely; that's a casual mention. What the GNG requires is "significant coverage" of the subject. Ravenswing 19:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Take a look at the discussion just above, BennyOnTheLoose. Those "presumed notable" criteria you looked at were arrived only with long discussion and long pruning, and are all subject to the GNG; "presumed notable" is just Wikipedia shorthand for "presumed to be able to meet the GNG." Before a consensus can form around any new set, you have to demonstrate (through a sufficient representative sample) that 90-95% of the athletes who meet it can meet the GNG. There's no shortcut to doing that legwork. Ravenswing 19:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Fencers

I saw that there is no fencers section. What would you say if I created it by entering as minimum requirements the participation in the Olympics or the World Cup (as for other sports) and at least an individual podium in the Fencing World Cup? --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Olympians are already presumptively notable, from any sport. As far as the Fencing World Cup goes, take a look at the prior two discussions concerning lacrosse and weightlifting notability -- if you can demonstrate (for example) that the bronze medal winners over a spread of years can each meet the GNG independently (although I expect many if not all of them will be Olympians), I'd sign off on such a requirement. Ravenswing 11:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

in many other Wikipedias (fr:, it: notably), to be on a podium at World Cup is enough for notability requirements. 99 % of the winners of World Cup are also Olympians (except in the few countries where the fencing level is very very high, like Russia or Italy, because the federations must make a choice of 4 fencers only.-Binbaksa (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Binbaksa: In my observations, other language Wikipedias appear to be less patrolled when it comes to upkeep/review for guidelines and policies leading to many unsourced or poorly sourced articles. So that just seems like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I believe they also have different general notability guidelines, or at least have their own interpretation of what is consider coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter:. In “your” observations, do you speak Italian or French? Because if you don’t, I could simply reply that creating a fencer 🤺 in WPfr: is much more difficult than on WPen:. To be Olympian is not enough and at least one medal at a World or Continental competition is compulsory. It is not a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but a benchmark to see that the English part of the world is not alone and that Nations where fencing is an important sport took into consideration different criteria.-Binbaksa (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Binbaksa: I can read the articles, I can read the content of the sources on the pages, but what I was merely pointing out there are differences in how guidelines are interpreted by their community of editors. Neither is right or wrong depending on how they draw the line, its just that the English language Wikipedia has tended to have more strict leanings on WP:SIGCOV, such as disallowing WP:ROUTINE transactions or how some define WP:SUSTAINED. No need to get offended. Yosemiter (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not offended (for myself) but I could certify that your reading is quite inaccurate and incomplete (on fencers). When you do affirm that some guidelines are not “as well done as”, I can reply that: it depends. Who could judge? It is the same stuff saying that ”all Black people is less clever” (than White). The main big difference is only one: the English speakers are more than the French or the Italian speakers. And so? I am not better if I am a White man that speaks English (with some mistakes). And nobody may judge (by just reading) the contributions on Wikipedia.-Binbaksa (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Lacrosse

Why isn’t there a standard for lacrosse? And am I allowed to make one that follows the other notability rules since there isn’t?Twooeight (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Twooeight, you can suggest one but any formal change will need to be done through consensus - likely an WP:RFC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Twooeight In addition to Barkeep49's comment, any suggestion given should provide evidence that the brightline for players will meet WP:GNG over 95% of the time. Not sure that is possible with such a niche sport with no fully pro leagues. Of the two countries in which it is actually popular, the US barely covers the MLL or NLL, much less its players, on a consistent basis. Yosemiter (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is possible. Regional papers cover the sport, for example here. And there is a thriving lacrosse press, US Lacrosse Magazine, Inside Lacrosse, College Crosse, Lacrosse All Stars, to name a few. The game exists in 62 countries and World Lacrosse is a provisional member of the IOC. Finally, the PLL is fully professional. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 12:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer: Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Lacrosse players are inherently non-notable and many meet the WP:GNG. I am just saying making a generalized statement like "Played in a fully professional match" or "competed on top tier national team" may not be applicable right now. The PLL has played for about one month now as a travelling league. New leagues often get coverage at first, and then peter out lacking WP:SUSTAINED coverage of players (see PRO Rugby as an example of "first professional league" for rugby union in the US, where the coverage just died about half way through the first season, and then so did the league). I'll leave it to others to address whether content-specific publishers would satisfy GNG, but your Baltimore Sun article is about a player who easily clears GNG. He also is one of the most accomplished current players and the founder of the PLL (and having a SNG of "Founded a professional league" is a bit restrictive). What would you suggest be the SNG for lacrosse players? Yosemiter (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer: Expanding on Yosemiter's comments, the NSPORTS criteria really do boil down to nothing but "Is this an accurate guide for whether a player that meets this criterion can meet the GNG?" The number of countries where a sport is played is irrelevant (how many play gridiron football, after all?). That regional papers give match coverage is irrelevant (that cite you give would not support the notability of any single person). Provisional IOC membership or players receiving paychecks is irrelevant. Niche media needs to have broad circulation and a reputation for fact checking to be relevant. The GNG holds that "[i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That's the bar that needs crossing, and it'd be no small undertaking to come up with criteria that could meet it. Ravenswing 14:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ravenswing, I will tell you, I took on such a challenge. I successfully found about ten sources each from a random selection of articles. But because I was proving the point for inclusion, do not underestimate the forces of destruction within our midst. They will nit pick and place extenuating demands that are well beyond reason. What is GNG? 10 sources? If you make that, then suddenly the bar will move to 20. If you are successful with 20, it might jump to 50. Or the quality of the sources will be questioned. I've been in AfD fights where the entire country of India's major daily newspapers were discounted en masse by an editor claiming they were all corrupted. Against an India based article. And it worked for him. He got his deletion brownie points. We have to use lesser sources, localized sources and sport related sources. Some entire countries run their media through Facebook as the prime method of online output. The fact is, the New York Times will not cover these lesser sports. If they do, it will be an oddball feature. Look at what this freak does. Dissenting editors will attach, whether true or not, the term "trivial" or "routine" to sources so they will be discounted. Then the echo chamber of negative ivotes will come in from deletionist oriented editors who didn't really read the sources, only the fallacious categorization. The will here for exclusion is massive and easy. Inclusion takes far more work for minimal results. And its not just an uphill battle, the mountain keeps growing. Am I cynical or what? Trackinfo (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggested SNG

Some suggestions: 1) in one of three halls of fame: Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame, List of National Lacrosse Hall of Fame members, National Lacrosse League Hall of Fame, 2) Professional league all-star 3) College national award winner 4) Championship winning coach --- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenswing and Mnnlaxer: The halls of fame seem exclusive enough. Extend pro league notability to all players of a pro league and you're good. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@FoxyGrampa75: I disagree with the "all players of a pro league". The only fully pro league in lacrosse has played a grand total of 18 matches to date, highly doubtful that requirement meets WP:SUSTAINED GNG-level coverage for players. At the very least, I would like to see proof that the 10 players with the fewest minutes played in the PLL meet GNG before considering that. The Hall of Fame requirement might work, but again proof would be nice to see as well. Yosemiter (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mnnlaxer: Seems reasonable, but there are hundreds of people that would presume notability for just based on the HOF lists that do not already have articles. Is there any evidence, just for example, of William "Whoopee" Arthurs (Canadian HOF 1997) or Denise Wescott (National Lacrosse HOF 2018) with GNG-level coverage? The award winners might be a more exclusive list, but the same logic applies. Please provide examples where there is sustained coverage of any the people in those lists, maybe even just an entire induction class from a random year (like NLHOF 2010 or 1986). Yosemiter (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I took your challenge re Denise Wescott, and yes she appears to satisfy WP:GNG. See, e.g., [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Very nice, but my challenge for the HOF criterion was actually "maybe even just an entire induction class from a random year (like NLHOF 2010 or 1986)". The names I linked were chosen completely at random, without any sort of WP:BEFORE. I never stated the names I picked as not likely to meet GNG. I was simply indicating that before creating the HOF as a SNG, we should probably show that a large percentage from the HOF lists (which in its current form is mostly people that do not have pages right now such as the random two I picked) actually meet GNG before giving them presumed notability in an SNG. It looks like you have started, but one person meeting GNG is not the same as the hundreds of people in those lists meeting GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Yosemiter about this sort of evidence being useful, as would AfDs about people who met these criteria and were kept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe for the hall of famers it should only be players inducted since 2000 or another year (kinda just made that year up) because they would have significantly more coverage than a player inducted in like 1966 who likely played in the 1940’s. Anyone who has won major college awards, such as The Tewaaraton Award, will definitely have enough coverage for an article, and the same with PLL all-stars. Coaches may be harder, so maybe if they have won multiple championships instead of just one. Twooeight (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 to Yosemiter: demonstrate that 90-95% of the players in the National Lacrosse HOF can meet the GNG, and I'll sign off on presumptive notability for it. Seriously, folks, the fundamental criterion is whether players can meet the GNG. We can't just assume that belonging to a hall of fame, playing in X league or any other "this seems important/exclusive" factoid does so. I know it's a pain in the ass to do the legwork to acquire proof first, but that's the bottom line. Ravenswing 04:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)