Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Notable international basketball competitions

Another issue has come at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petr Bohacik regarding which international competitions have players that are presumed notable. At first we found that he played in FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship, then it was later discovered he played in EuroBasket. We already have WP:NOLYMPICS specially mentioned. What are other specific international competitions whose players would presumably receive enough coverage to meet GNG? As a litmus test, if EuroBasket is presumed notable, we should be able to find significant coverage to demonstrate that Bohacik meets GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
—Notification of this discussion was left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What does WP:Association Football say? Seems like a direct parallel. Rikster2 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not automatically assume that basketball gets as much coverage as football in Europe. I was in a medium-sized town in Germany during 2008 NBA Finals, and I could not find any broadcasts of the game (as much as the NBA hypes how global the league is). Broadcasting on satellite could only mean that expats are watching.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything, I just asked a question. We can start with guidelines for football and work backward. Rikster2 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the Olympics stays. The FIBA Basketball World Cup should also clearly qualify. After that you get into lesser competitions. I would think EuroBasket and the Pan American Games would be the two most likely competitions - and ones we could have a lively debate about. The Commonwealth Games, Maccabiah Games and the Asian Games are also ones to consider. Rikster2 (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is a lot of these notability issues almost do not belong in sports, but in their geographic wikiprojects. Yes, women in the WNBL in Australia are almost certainly likely to pass WP:GNG but I'm not the least bit certain about New Zealand's Women's Basketball Championship. Making the national team in Australia for wheelchair basketball (or playing in the NWBL) means you are likely to be notable. The top level for wheelchair basketball in the USA on the university level appears to make people notable. I'm not certain national team players for the CNMI are likely to be notable. (Look up "James Lee" and basketball here to check.) This is a problem across all sports, with geography really needing greater consideration over the actual sport in many cases. (This geography issue also plays a role when it comes to notability of players based on gender. Some countries do a much better job at covering women's sport. Others, not so much.) --LauraHale (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Laura that coverage varies by country; within a country, it varies by league. Before Asian Games athletes are presumed notable, I would want to see some non-starters in the poorest-performing countries consistently meeting GNG before making a general presumption. Also, if we have not had an issue with people struggling with notability for an event or a league, I do not see the benfit to spend time discussing a problem that does not exist (yet). GNG can always be used until an NSPORT shortcut is deemed necessary.—Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You cannot easily make notability requirements almost outside the Olympics, Paralympics and the most profitable professional sports leagues in the world where games are broadcast outside the home continent. Geographic popularity of sport is really different. It impacts notability. Unless you can get a geographic component built in, any attempts to do top level qualifications for sport for SNG are going to be problematic. (Heck, determining if a league is notable, forget the players, is another problem.) What Bagumba said: GNG can always be used until an NSPORT shortcut is deemed necessary. --LauraHale (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would still argue competing in the FIBA World Championships should qualify. Rikster2 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Comment - would still argue competing in the FIBA World Championships should qualify. Rikster2 (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

How about that FIBA World Championships/World Cup? Rikster2 (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

EuroBasket is an absolutely huge tournament. It's more important than Euroleague, and in many European countries it's more important than the Olympics basketball or the FIBA World Cup. Let's try to get serious here. EuroBasket is HUGE. It's not minor or lesser in any way. It's an enormous sporting event of huge significance in Europe.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

FIBA World Cup is listed by the NBA and FIBA as the biggest basketball even in the world, with the Olympcis basketball being second. So if it does not qualify then neither does the Olympics basketball. Case in point, the last FIBA World Cup had over 1 billion TV viewers in total. I don't see any possible way that does not meet a notability criteria.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The easiest answer would seem to be this: FIBA World Cup basketball players are considered notable if basketball ranks in the top three for participation sports in the country or in the top three for domestic competitions for sport television ratings. Putting qualifiers like that around notability should address the issue of geographic disparity in notability where the game is less popular. --LauraHale (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that works. Take France for example. A player in the French national team at FIBA Wold Cup Basket is definitely notable. However, I am not sure if basketball in France meets either criteria there.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not every nation participates in the FIBA World Cup. There are numerous qualifying tournaments. I think it is safe to assume that the nations that qualify are putting a strong emphasis on the sport. And Bluesangrel is correct about the scope of viewership - In the 2010 tournament I got about 80% of the games televised live in the US - and not just the ones featuring the US team. Rikster2 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

TV coverage of an event does not imply that every player is covered. For example, every FBS college football team is televised, but it doesn't mean every player on the team is notable. The Rose Bowl is notable, but not all of its participants are.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Instead of using anyone's opinion on what events "should qualify" , or making assumptions about TV viewers and coverage, what are the obstacles preventing us from demonstrating that Event X generates sufficient coverage to presume notability of its athletes. This seems to me the only way to make this guideline more transparent, and dispel the perception that individual WikiProjects are using subjective criteria in coming up with NSPORTS.—Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Name your criteria. What is going to satisfy this? If the largest multi-national tournament in the world doesn't qualify I am having a little trouble understanding what would be. I will research, but what is a realistic amount of info that would prove the scope of this event? Would taking a couple of minor players and looking at if they meet GNG overall do it? The TV coverage may not prove notability of the individuals, but it should satisfy the question of the scope of the event itself. Rikster2 (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said, FIBA World and the NBA have recently stated that the FIBA Basketball World Cup is the premiere basketball event in the world. The head of the NBA, David Stern, even tried to remove Olympics basketball as a senior sport altogether and replace it with an under 23 tournament, just so that FIBA World Basket Cup would be the only tournament. That's how important the NBA sees that tournament as being, so important they actually asked the Olympics committee to remove the senior men's basketball from the Olympics. So I personally believe that means any players playing in it are notable. Otherwise, if not, then why are NBA players notable or Olympics basketball players notable, and certainly why would any NCAA basketball player be notable? This is the biggest basketball event in the world, so if we are to say players playing in it are notable simply for that, then there seems to be a double standard being applied. Because then one can easily argue that every 10-15th man on an NBA roster isn't notable either. At least in my opinion anyway. I am not saying every player that plays this tournament should get an article and is so notable they should have one. Not at all. But I am definitely saying that if someone makes an article for a player because they played this tournament, well that should definitely meet a notability standard in my mind. This event is called "the flagship of world international basketball" so basically, this is basketball's version of the football (soccer) World Cup. This is a hugely big tournament and deal. The US sports media has so far chosen to ignore this tournament, but that does not mean it isn't notable, as it's huge in many other countries like China, Europe, Latin America, and yes it's important in English speaking countries like New Zealand and Australia also. Certainly far more important by several magnitudes than anything related to Australia's pro basketball league. It's not something that articles need to be made for any player in this, but it would not make any sense to say that an article written for a player in it does not meet notability. I hope that makes sense.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

FIBA World Cup

All players may very well be notable, but it can't because any of us have the opinion it's a "premiere" event, or the NBA or FIBA is marketing it as such. We need to identify multiple sources that would give (or already have given) significant coverage to all its players. Do some countries get coverage and not others? It needs to be shown. Perhaps if we start with some of the lower players on the lower-ranked countries, identifying the multiple sources that cover these players would be a start.—Bagumba (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

After randomly Googling some Angolan players, I'm pleasantly surprised by the amount of information available. Articles like this, this, and this and representative of the type of coverage available. That's better than what you can find for the modern American Basketball Association. Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Frequently Asked Questions page

As the same questions tend to be raised over and over again on this discussion page, I've created Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ to discuss the relationship between topic-specific notability guidelines (and the sports-specific notability guidelines in particular) and the general notability guideline. I realize there is a disagreement between some editors on what is considered non-routine coverage, which some think should be resolved by setting a higher bar using topic-specific notability guidelines. However, at this time, I don't believe this is the consensus view of Wikipedia's guidance on routine coverage, and the FAQ reflects this. Please provide your feedback; if we can reach an agreement, then the FAQ can be linked to from the main article. isaacl (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what's written in the FAQ. Based upon my reading of the guideline the GNG is still required, making this explicitly clear is a good idea. In the final question about routine coverage would people consider this and acceptable addition? James086^Talk 13:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I had pondered some similar wording, about the person being one of the primary topics of a source. I dropped it in favour of just saying that all sources must contribute to a well-rounded biography, though not necessarily a comprehensive one, as I thought this might avoid arguing over the primary topic rule of thumb. Nonetheless, if there is support, I have no issues with including a statement on this matter. isaacl (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the FAQ page linked to from here, so readers can easily find it? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned, once an agreement has been reached on the contents of the FAQ, appropriate links can be added. isaacl (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Woops, I missed that! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Some additional information has been added to the FAQ. Please provide any comments you may have, in the interest of building a consensus on these clarifications on the intent of the sports-specific notability guidelines. isaacl (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support adopting as a link from this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this edit and the example given in the edit comment, "Please note that NSPORTS eliminates high school players, and so could be considered to raise the bar in that regard.": previous discussion on this talk page, as I recall, concluded that if a high school athlete meets the general notability guideline, then the person meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. There has been disagreement about what constitutes independent, non-promotional, non-routine coverage for high school athletes. I acknowledge there is an inequity in media coverage, since local media usually spotlights local athletes, but typically cannot cover all of them at the same skill level, so some will meet Wikipedia's notability requirements and other similar athletes will not. In addition, this is a case where the everyday meaning of notability can actually be less inclusive than Wikipedia's. Nonetheless, I do not believe at this time there is a consensus to override the general notability guideline for these scenarios. isaacl (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing two different things. Yes, a high school player who actually satisfies GNG can be deemed notable (but not simply on the basis of the local news media). But the sentence in question isn't about that; my edit summary was showing a counter-example. As written, the sentence in the FAQ seems to be saying that no SNG anywhere can ever set a higher bar than GNG. That would come as a surprise at, for example, WP:PROF. My insertion of the word "necessarily" wasn't intended to create new case law, or even elicit a reversion for that matter, but just to remove the implication that you were making. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia's guidance on the notability of academics is that it provides additional guidance regarding what sources should be considered as providing evidence of the significance of the subject, and so it does not supplant the general notability guideline. I understand the clarification you are making, though, and will reword the FAQ on this aspect to discuss only the sports-specific notability guidelines. isaacl (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, that revision is fine with me. (It's not really worth arguing the philosophy of all this.) Thanks for your work on the FAQ. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with the part that says: "There should be sufficient in-depth coverage of the sports figure so that a reasonably well-rounded biographical view of the person can be written. (It does not have to be a comprehensive biography, but one that touches on the major aspects of the person's life.)" Sports figures typically receive coverage of their athletic accomplishments. Businessmen of their business accomplishments, etc. There is no requirement in GNG that there must be coverage that "touches on the major aspects of the person's life," and that should not become a new, higher standard for athletes. Moreover, the "in depth" phrasing is inconsistent with GNG. GNG requires "significant" coverage, and "in depth" appears to be an attempt to create a higher bar for athletes. We ought not to be imposing higher standards for athlete biographies than for biographies of businessmen, local politicians, or others. Cbl62 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no intent to create a higher bar than the general notability guideline. Ideally there should be enough information to create a reasonable biography, which includes typical biographical information such as major life events. It is true though that falling short of this ideal does not mean an article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion; I will edit the FAQ accordingly. isaacl (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree a reasonably well-rounded biography with "in depth" coverage is a goal, but it's not part of the notability requirement. Cbl62 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will proceed with adding links to the FAQ from the article and this talk page. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added links to the FAQ page from the article and this talk page. isaacl (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Second sentence

The second sentence I think introduces confusion. Is a person notable if they meet the sport specific criteria but not the GNG? If not, then I propose removing the words "or the sport specific criteria set forth below" to reduce confusion. James086^Talk 13:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of discussion was held about this; some people think it really should be "and"; others think that "or" is correct but still wanted "and" because they thought (somehow) this better conveyed the intended meaning. (I find this amusing in light of the fact that it seems the first sentence of the guideline isn't read that closely; are quick skimming editors really going to read "and" and come to a different conclusion than the obvious grammatical one?) If any editors would like to re-engage in discussing this wording, I suggest not getting hung up on trying to figure out how a phrase may be interpreted beyond its straightforward meaning. isaacl (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

As Isaac says, various discussions have been held on this, but I concur that the current wording is contradictory. We need to make appropriate changes to make clear the status of the SNG's in relation to GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Some people like simplicity: "A or B"; if it says "A or B for a reasonable amount of time until A can be met, or a discussion is held to establish that the standard for inclusion is met regardless", they tune out. It's a difficult balance to strike. isaacl (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And I think the clear consensus in AfD discussions is that if a person passes WP:ATHLETE, then he or she automatically passes WP:GNG. To say that WP:GNG needs to be passed as well is to impose a foreign idea on these guidelines. These is made clear at Wikipedia:Notability, which says "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". I agree on the need to clarify this, but it should be clarified to affirm that passing WP:ATHLETE is enough. StAnselm (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Over the past few years, the consensus among editors on this discussion page is that the sports-specific notability guidelines are not a replacement for the general notability guideline but only provide a bit of respite for appropriate sources to be found. The statement at WP:NOTABILITY is a general one for all topic-specific notability guidelines, and I don't know what the other guidelines say. But the editors interested in this sports-specific notability rules of thumb are free to refine the general notability guideline in the way they feel most appropriate for sports figures, including deferring to the general notability guideline if they choose to do so. isaacl (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be very helpful to check what the other subject-specific guidelines say, and I think this guideline should be refined in conjunction with them. StAnselm (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As the first sentence says, the purpose of WP:NSPORT is not to define notability, but rather to establish when it's likely that an athlete meets WP:GNG. Saying WP:GNG needs to be met is not a foreign idea - on the contrary, it's the whole point of WP:NSPORT. Like isaacl said, meeting NSPORT gives an article some leeway when it comes to establishing GNG really is met and that's all. Sideways713 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For the topic-specific notability guidelines with which I have a passing familiarity, as far as I know, they do not seek to replace the general notability guideline, but provide guidance on interpreting various aspects of the GNG (such as significant, independent, or reliable coverage) in the context of the topic area in question. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In general, WP:N reads, specifically, "GNG or subject-specific guideline (SNG)". Now, there are cases where SNG can be more restrictive than the SNG - NSPORTS does this in terms of limiting local sport coverage (eg high school athletes). But in the case of the major criteria listed here like the "played one pro game", we assume that if that's met, one doesn't have to immediately meet the GNG to gain presumed notability and the ability for a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the way that I have always understood it, passing NSPORTS means that one can safely assume ("presume") that the person would pass GNG, absent evidence to the contrary. Consequently, passing NSPORTS is a shorthand for saying that it isn't necessary to go out and show evidence that the person affirmatively satisfies GNG. The reason for that is to make it easier to find sourcing that can be used to make the decision about notability. That's not really the same thing as saying that it's OK for the person to fail GNG – because, ideally, if NSPORTS is written correctly, someone who fails GNG will also fail NSPORTS. If, in a particular sport, we keep finding people who unambiguously fail GNG but pass the current wording of NSPORTS, then NSPORTS ought to be revised for that sport. Outside of a situation like that, passing NSPORTS is enough, because we expect someone passing NSPORTS to also pass GNG. Effectively, that's like saying that all decisions are based, ultimately, on GNG, but it's usually acceptable to show that the subject passes NSPORTS as a convenient way of demonstrating passage of GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Put simply, articles that don't meet the GNG are not excused by meeting NSPORTS. If someone claims an athlete is not notable even though they meet NSPORTS, then an investigation should either turn up sources or the article should be deleted as not meeting the GNG. James086^Talk 13:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd add that the investigation should also, eventually, include looking at NSPORTS to fix its malfunction in passing that article. In that regard, and in regard to your opening comment in this post, you may want to look at #Arbitrary break for convenience, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with the analysis of the two comments immediately above, I think we all need to recognize that's simply not the way the sports SNGs have worked in AfDs over the past year. Satisfying the SNG has been an iron-clad guaranty of "notability," regardless of the analysis under WP:GNG, and often regardless of whether independent sources even exist. For that reason, I am very weary of adding the various national basketball leagues like the Turkish league, etc. Are most of the Turkish league benchwarmers really notable by a GNG standard? Do we know? Are we even competent to do that analysis in Turkish language sources? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing the "or" clause will only add confusion. Agree with Dirtlawyer1. WP:PROPOSAL says a guideline proposal "documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to them". It's currently not common that GNG is enforced once NSPORTS is met, although the presumption is that GNG can eventually be met. In the rare cases it has been challenged, either GNG is finally demonstrated or consensus is that editors need time to look harder. The existing third paragraph in NSPORTS is fairly clear: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." If someone wants to pursue enforcement of GNG for SNG, I would suggest starting an essay, and seeing if it gains traction in AfDs.—Bagumba (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

While you are correct that the GNG is rarely enforced in AfDs where it can be demonstrated that NSPORTS is met, I can think of at least a dozen recent AfDs where an article satisfying NSPORTS by a very narrow margin (e.g., a footballer who made only one substitute appearance in a fully-pro league during his entire career) that have been deleted when the GNG cannot be met. I do think that the GNG is relevant for articles that satisfy NSPORTS, especially when the articles narrowly pass the SNG or have existed for a very long time with no sign of being able to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What you are seeing is the fact that notability - GNG or SNG - is always presumed, since you can't prove something is truely non-notable. If consensus believes that even if SNG is passed, in that a (for example) we have a player that has played a few games at a pro level but there's little else that can be said of him, and that the GNG will likely never be met, then the presumption of notability is fairly challenged, and deletion is possible. The point of having SNG like NSPORTS is generally to provide criteria that says "There are or will likely be sources about this topic due to meeting this criteria, but it will take time for them to come to light", such that we give a generous amount of time (on the order of years) for editors to locate and include such sources. But if we've had an article sit around 5-10 years with no new sources found after good faith efforts, then maybe that presumption was wrong. So basically if you create an article on an athlete that meets NSPORTS, you don't have to be worried about the GNG at the start , but this needs to stay in the back of the head to be able to expand with more sources and head towards eventually meeting the GNG. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Jogurney: Can you provide the AfDs where the article was deleted even though NSPORTS were met? It would be interesting to see if there is any pattern (e.g. interpretation of "highest level", low threshold in specific sports, etc). It would also be good to start compiling these, otherwise we always deal with anecdotal evidence on both sides.—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see those cases, too. My reaction is this: unless the article subject clearly and with little or no doubt satisfies a strict and literal reading of the SNG, then the GNG analysis should be applied. I remember one recent case that turned in part on whether an American college basketball player had satisfied WP:NCOLLATH, which, among other things, presumes notability if the subject sets an NCAA Division I record. The subject actually set a Division III record, and folks wanted to argue about it. The subject clearly satisfied a GNG analysis, however, so the whole SNG argument was moot. That's the way it should go, IMO. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The AfDs for articles that marginally passed NSPORTS without hope of passing the GNG were not as recent as I remembered, but here are several: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades. On the other hand, this is an AfD which came to the very opposite (and IMO bizarre) conclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Oxley. I hope this helps. Jogurney (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

One thing to bear in mind is that discussions regarding whether or not a person meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are not exclusive to the Articles for Discussion pages. Relevant discussions are held on many different talk pages such as the article talk pages for various persons and on project talk pages. The consensus view of how the general notability guideline can be refined to best meet the needs of Wikipedia in the context of a given subject area is based on counsel from many editors, and is not just an accounting of "person X with Y accomplishments is presumed notable", since Wikipedia ultimately requires appropriate sources sufficient to write a significant article, or else the article cannot be written in any case. isaacl (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, NSPORTS is just a shortcut to demonstrate GNG. If it isnt there, use GNG. Just finding 3 significant sources and linking to them in the article or talk page without writing anything else would avoid a hella lot of PRODs and AFDs.—Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but often the three linked sources are a stats site (e.g., Baseball-Reference.com), a pro team or league website (e.g., NFL.com), a team or league press release masquerading as a news article (e.g., MiLB.com), or a team or league media guide (e.g., 2012 Florida Football Media Guide). Those examples may be reliable sources, but none are independent sources suitable for demonstrating notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The general notability guideline already covers what sources are appropriate to determine if the standards for inclusion are met, in terms of independence from the subject, significant coverage, reliability with respect to editorial integrity, and so forth. Stats sites and media guides are fine as primary sources for facts contained within an article, but do not determine if the subject should have an article in Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

For meeting an SNG, we need sources that meet WP:V - they should be independent and reliable - but they don't have to meet the more stringent GNG requirements that include secondary and "significant coverage". For example, we can use stat books (presumed reliable) to make the statement that a player participated in a pro game, which would meet NSPORTS' criteria for presumed notability and a stand alone article. Of course, in the long run, if that's the only source that can be found, then likely the article will be deleted. But for article creation and initial retention, stat books are just fine as long as they are demonstrating the NSPORT criteria is met. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Would people object to a time limit being inserted to the guideline? For example: If after X amount of time a person has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, an article is no longer presumed notable under this guideline. Presently an 8 year old article about a competitor in a single 1997 event is deemed notable by the application of this guideline (Kiyoaki Hanai - AFD). I suggest the time limit be the same as the cycle for the event they participated in (annual event = 1 year, Olympics = 4 years) because it's unlikely that new articles are going to be written about last year's competitors. James086^Talk 10:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't that go aginst the idea that Notability is not Temporary? Rikster2 (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not at all because they were never proven notable in the first place. This guideline only says that if a person meets NSPORTS then it's likely that they meet the GNG and thus warrant an article. If a person doesn't meet the GNG then they are not notable. If this time limit were put into place then articles that meet NSPORTS would not be given forever to prove notability. Currently, articles that are about non-notable subjects are defended at AFD because they meet this guideline, not because they are notable. James086^Talk 15:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to WP:There is no deadline, it seems reasonable to me that some deadline is needed. If someone reasonably wants to keep an article, what is a good faith amount of time that would be needed to locate the source (assume worse case offline, not in your local library, etc). Six months? Remember, these articles can always be recreated later when sources are found. I'm assuming the disputed article is just a stub or a sprawling of stats anyways, for which there are other stat sites that have the same (and likely more comprehensive) info.—Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Setting any type of timeline is a factor that will be gamed, so its best not to force it. To me, this timeline is something measured in years but how many years depends on the nature of the topic. In one case, if we have an athlete who's whole pro career took place within a few years, but post 2005-ish (read: online news sources are abundant) and one can't find sources after about one or two years of looking, that's probably a reasonable enough time. On the other hand, a player from 1950 is only going to be readily documented in print and by necessity will be harder to search for, so more time allowance is reasonable here. It probably also depends on the sport: its one thing to talk about NFL pro players (a widely documented sport), and players from sports like cricket or the like (typically limited to country or region). --MASEM (t) 16:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would object to this. Presuming that because no sources exist simply because none have been added would be in conflict with a number of current policies and guidelines. See the summary of notability outlined in WP:NRVE: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." The entire purpose of topic-specific notability guidelines is to establish whether or not sources on a given topic are likely to exist. If you aren't going to trust that recommendation, then why have those guidelines at all? As noted higher upthread, this is particularly important when applied to topics from countries where English is not the primary language, given most Wikipedians' lack of interest/skill in doing a thorough search of non-English sources. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not meeting GNG

{branched from above}} Jogurney brought up these AfDs for consideration: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades. These seem to generally be for footballers from second-tier leagues whose sources would most likely not be in English, if they exist at all. I wondering if the fix is to put more disclaimers about GNG in NSPORTs, or to have WP Football revisit minimum requirements for leagues, esp. lower-level ones from with mostly non-English coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that the same problem - lack of significant coverage sufficient to produce an article with more than statistical information (someone fleshed out the article during the AfD with census data, but we could do the same for literally everyone who lived in the United States during similar time periods) - was posed by the article on Henry Oxley (who played in Major League Baseball). So, I really don't think it has anything to do with playing in leagues with mostly non-English coverage. Jogurney (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Using non-notable facts to establish notability is Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability. That is a separate issue altogether, a desperate measure to keep for the sake of keeping.—Bagumba (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Oxley, I suggest we do not revisit it unless someone has a good faith reason to open another AfD on it. There was a consensus to keep in the AfD with a large number of participants, and it was discussed again at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_14#Why_are_players_noteable_merely_because_they_played_for_a_team.3F.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't intend to open that debate again. My point is that you can find examples of articles that narrowly pass these bright-line guidelines (almost any sport, almost any league) yet cannot satisfy the GNG. Unless we set the bright-line so high that many articles which should be presumed to satisfy the GNG are below it, this is going to happen. The good news is that editors focused on sportspeople have generally been able to use common sense (rather than dogmatically following the bright-line test) to delete those instances. I would support raising the bright-line a bit, but that's not really necessary if editors are willing to use common sense (contrary to what I think happened at the Oxley AfD). Jogurney (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Jogurney - The Oxley AfD resulted in a 17-2 consensus to keep. The fact that the great majority of participants did not agree with you does not mean that they were unable or unwilling to use common sense. Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's all true, but I am still convinced it was the wrong decision. Jogurney (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it's (again) unconstructive to rehash Oxley here in light of past consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTY

• I'm really beginning to feel this guideline is a bit discriminatory. This isn't solely to do with the Ryan Young AfD, it's something I've been thinking for a bit. I'm proposing the following changes:

• A player is presumed notable if they have played in 10 top-flight games, where the top division is not a WP:FPL and there is no professional league in that country.
• A player is presumed notable if they have played in 50 games in a national-level league that isn't a WP:FPL.

• Evidently the latter is aimed at my frustrations with regards to the aforementioned AfD, but the former is more for Welsh Premier league players or similar. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - NFOOTY needs to be changed to include less players, not to include more players. Besides, your Ryan Young doesn't seem to pass GNG after 300 matches in the Football Conference, and you want people to be presumed notable after only 50 matches at that level? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• First, he's not my Ryan Young, don't try and imply a COI, second, he hasn't played 300 games in a national league, nor have I ever said he has. He has, however, played over 50. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Err ... so let me get this straight: the current rule is "discriminatory" because it penalizes players who choose not to play in (or fail to make) a fully professional league? Okay, so stipulated. What's the problem here? Our task here is not to champion the Welsh Premier League. It's to gauge what level of involvement a player has to have to be notable. Ravenswing 01:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Welsh Premier League is an example. There are plenty of other leagues that are in this situation - Irish Premier League is another that I can think of right off the bat, leagues that are fairly major in the country, and leagues that definitely are as notable as the lower leagues in the FPL list anyway. It's not so much for things like the top Maltan league (for the sake of argument), but this is a non-discriminatory proposal. It doesn't look likely to pass, but I don't see why a player whom played 10 games for a major IPL team would be less notable than a League 2 player whom played for 5 minutes and then never played again (or some of the Japanese players whom have played 1 professional cup match but nothing else) - the latter sorts of articles regularly get kept. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• "It's not so much for things like the top Maltan league" ... there's your answer right there. This isn't you disagreeing that there are leagues below which a player fails of notability; this is you disagreeing (say) that the Welsh and Irish leagues should count among them. (One could readily claim, for instance, that the top Maltese league is as much of a big deal in Malta as the top Irish league is in Ireland.) Alright, that's a debatable notion, and WT:FPL is the place to raise it. Ravenswing 16:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The comment about the Maltese thing is that I'm guessing there's only going to be one major national paper that ever covers a player, and the chance of a foreign paper covering them is very low. English/British papers are more likely to have some coverage on a Welsh or Irish league. Again, these are simply examples, I'm not attempting to "champion" any particular league. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Question can you provide evidence that players almost universally receive enough coverage to satisfy the GNG if they play in 10 top flight games or 50 national level games? This guideline is to provide a suggestion on whether a sportsperson will meet the GNG, not to replace it or to allow articles to remain if they don't meet the GNG. James086^Talk 20:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The numbers are arbitrary: they can be raised or reduced depending on what people want. We routinely keep bottom-league FPL players whom have played 2 games or more: why should a top-level league, that isn't fully pro, player, whom has played 5 times more games, not be considered notable as well? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• They should not be considered notable unless they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The league and number of games is irrelevant. If you can show that 99% of Welsh Premier League players receive this sort of coverage, then the guideline can be altered to include them. The bottom league players aren't notable because they have played 2 games, they are notable because they've received the required coverage. James086^Talk 12:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Because consensus holds that players at that lower level aren't notable. If you want to work to change that consensus, feel free, but once again, this isn't the place to do that. I do recommend your tactics going forward revolve more around convincing people why your POV is right, and less about demanding they prove to you that your POV is wrong. Ravenswing 21:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wish that people would stop deciding I'm trying to promote a particular league - I'm not. But I really can't understand how a player whom played one game in League 2 (which is the 4th tier) is more notable than someone who played 10 games in a semi-pro top division, and thus, why that merits inclusion (again, the number is arbitrary, it can be adjusted either way, but the point is a valid one). Perhaps the bar for fully pro, but non top-division, leagues should be raised as well. This also affects the women's game, where articles quite often get removed, despite the player having played many, many times in the top division (but due to the lack of professionalism in most leagues, they don't get included). In addition, if a player fails the NFOOTY guideline, 95% of the time, people won't bother looking for coverage, even when it may exist. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to make this clearer: If a player meets the GNG they are notable. If they do not meet the GNG then they are not notable. It doesn't matter if they are the star player for Manchester United, if they haven't received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then they aren't notable. James086^Talk 12:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• I am well aware of this. However, NFOOTY has been treated as the primary guideline 95% of the time, with players being kept for passing NFOOTY but failing GNG. As that is the current consensus, that is also what I edit to. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Players who pass NFOOTY but fail GNG should be deleted. The guideline merely suggests that if they pass NFOOTY then they should pass GNG, thus it's ok to create an article for someone who passes NFOOTY. If however, the article is called into question at AFD then the search for sources should occur and a decision on whether they pass GNG should be the decider of whether they are kept or deleted. If you want to add something to the guideline (for example Welsh Premier League, just as an example) then you should show that 99% (arbitrary, but almost all is required) of WPL players meet the GNG, then it's reasonable to assume that WPL players are notable. If a significant minority of WPL players do not meet GNG then it should not be added to NFOOTY, because it's not reasonable to assume that all WPL players are notable. We can't change the rules to make the WPL players notable. Again, WPL is used only as an example. James086^Talk 22:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• To say that players are kept for passing NFOOTY and not GNG is incorrect: every week some footballer are deleted for failing GNG despite passing NFOOTY. To me this looks like a pointy discussion, as Lukeno could not save Ryan Young (footballer) from deletion, and I don't see the point in discussing this anymore. We should rather discuss how we can limit the number of footballers that are presumed notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That allegation is false and I request you retract it at once. I directly stated about the Ryan Young AfD at the top of this, and that would have NOTHING to do with the top-division players in there anyway. Also, your comment about players failing GNG and passing NFOOTY being deleted is very rarely correct, 95% at least are kept in this scenario, even when they only just pass NFOOTY. If you've got nothing useful to contribute other than frivolous allegations, then please refrain from commenting. I would quite happily agree with the limit of NFOOTY's FPL games being raised as well, and having some sort of more logical format to it, than the current blanket one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

error on shortcut box for Wikipedia:NGAELIC#High_school_and_pre-high_school_athletes

I tried to make a shortcut box for Wikipedia:NGAELIC#High_school_and_pre-high_school_athletes but dont think I did it right can someone fix it please? Theworm777 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Tightening the criteria for WP:NHOCKEY

There have been a couple article creations lately that have impressed on me the desire to revisit some aspects of our ice hockey SNG. As presently constructed, I think it allows for the inclusion of too many people who had trivial careers, or that criteria were written in an overly broad fashion. There are two articles specifically that spur my desire to discuss some of these points. The first is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D'Orazio, where notability is claimed primarily based on a Canadian university award. Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall our ever discussing - here or at WT:HOCKEY - whether a CIS award winner could be presumed notable. We did for NCAA players, and I think the result of that discussion resulted in an overly broad definition. The other is Scott Winkler (ice hockey), who was a non-notable college player who tragically died. The article was created as a result of the news event (WP:NOTNEWS), but on the talk page, notability was retroactively claimed on the basis of his appearing with the Norweigan national team at a low level regional event. In both cases, the article subjects merit a technical pass on NHOCKEY as currently worded, but I disagree that either is notable. Coupled with another entry that has bugged me ever since it was put in, there are three current and one potential line to this SNG that I would like to discuss. Resolute 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

3.Played at least 100 games in fully professional minor leagues...

The purpose of an SNG is to argue that "we can presume this subject is notable because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that someone who did foo will receive coverage significant enough to pass WP:GNG". This criteria is not rooted in that presumption, and I believe it should be struck. 100 games is a season and a half, even in the lowest levels of pro hockey. Most low-level players will never garner coverage that meets GNG, and even at the ECHL or AHL level, I do not believe one can presume that 100 games merits an automatic pass. Except for unusual cases, players at these levels might get a story or two in the local paper as part of ongoing coverage of the local team, but not much else. My proposal is to remove this line entirely and consider the determination of notability of minor league players on an individual basis. Resolute 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have gone back and forth on this one. I would support it but would prefer jacking the number up first to something like 500. That way the truly notable minor leagues from back when the minor leagues were a bigger deal (Original 6 era) would not be hit so hard by the google bias against more recent players. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fine with this one as it was before, but would support raising to either 200 or 300 games played. 500 is a bit too high for me. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If we were to go this route, then I would prefer a higher number. At least 300 (roughly five seasons) or more. But even at 300 or 500 games, I do not believe most players at the lowest levels would generate coverage. An AHL player might, but not a UHL player. I have a concern that any number we come up with is arbitrary and we cannot demonstrate that GP > x = expectation of notability. For instance, my grandfather played well over 500 games in the Original six era IHL. I've searched up and down for solid evidence of notability (not for Wikipedia, but for family history), and there just isn't a lot. That is only one example, but I do think it reflects the majority. Resolute 20:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • This is true. As I said I would be ok with removing it and making all minor leaguers face GNG individually. This would be similar to how baseball handles it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Truth be told, I hate how baseball handles it -- their admitted take, at the time, was that they just plain didn't think minor leaguers could be notable, end of statement. I think that's a muddleheaded notion, and demonstrates ignorance of hockey history, where for decades, players who today would be third-liners on NHL teams played in the low minors ... the more so in that not only NHOCKEY but all the subordinate sports criteria completely support the presumptive notability of a fellow who stepped on a big league playing field for all of two minutes. I think the current standard is fine, I wouldn't object to 200, but I'd strenuously lobby against 500 or removing any standard at all. Ravenswing 04:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
        • As something of a coda, I just took a look at hockeydb.com and glanced at how many players played as many as 200 games for longstanding AHL franchises and didn't play in the NHL. Rochester's only had 13 in its entire history. Hershey has had 17. The Indians had only five. The 30 years of the Bisons had only four, and the twenty-someodd years of the Hornets zero. Ravenswing 05:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
          • What about 250 games? That would take players past the standard 3 year entry contract Assuming seasons stay at 76 games a year or close to it. That way we weed out the one and done players who are very unlikely to be notable. This is probably the number we should have choosen to begin with. Your comment about how few played that many and didn't play in the NHL is sort of the point, this criteria was only ever meant to catch the relatively few players that fell into that sort of situation. But lately we have had people who aren't using common sense creating players who play 100 games in the ECHL which is a bit ridiculous as very few 100 game players in the ECHL are likely to be notable especially ones who just passed the mark and never played again. The number clearly needs to be higher to stop the gaming that is going on with the criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I wouldn't go to war over 250; I admit I considered that exact standard -- three seasons worth. Ravenswing 14:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – I am in agreement with Ravenswing's rational, and I object to raising the minor league games played standard any higher than it already is. At one time the NHOCKEY criteria was any professional experience, and then it was raised to 100 games played - which means that most current players need to have played at least into their second year at a fully professional level. This effectively weeds out all players on a try-out or one-year contract who go no further. Even that standard is not fair to a goaltender who likely needs to play 3 or more seasons to reach the same 100 GP level. A better topic to discuss might be what leagues are considered to be “fully professional” and what leagues are not? Dolovis (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I have gone back and forth on this one, but after reading Dolovis and Ravenswing's comments, I think it should be kept as it stands now. However, I do think the guideline for which professional leagues only need the 100 game threshold should be improved. 100 games in the CHL and SPHL, for instance, is completely different from the same amount in the AHL or ECHL. For leagues such as the CHL and SPHL, I'd propose around 250-300 games played for any players to be presumed notable. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  Truthfully, even 100 in the AHL often isn't enough for us to state that we can expect a player to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A not unreasonable number will, but many wont. Would it perhaps work better to set the number at 250 for the AHL, and case by case for lower leagues? This keeps in mind that players who clearly pass GNG do not need to meet an arbitrary threshold of games played. Resolute 13:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  Hence Criterion #4. #3 explicitly doesn't apply to lower-tier leagues such as the CHL.

4. Achieved preeminent honours...

This one has been modified through various discussions, but I believe has suffered poor verbiage as a result. We've discussed the merits of NCAA award winners, and there is logic to top players at that level being presumed notable as many or most earn ongoing coverage for being top players at this level. In Canada, however (and perhaps counterintuitively), the CIS is not a path to the NHL like the NCAA is. It is pretty much a dead end where most players are there to get a few more seasons in while they get an education. Winning an award at this level rarely portends a significant future hockey career, nor does it often generate too much other than a local news story. Likewise, Canadian Major Junior generates a high level of coverage, while the top levels of American junior are far more spotty. My proposal is to tighten the wording of this line to specific organizations. Further additions or removals may be discussed either here or at WT:HOCKEY:

Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American, major award) in one or more of the following leagues: American Hockey League, Canadian Hockey League (Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, Western Hockey League) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association.(Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements)

Since we have disputed it before, if this proposed change is accepted as worded, I will begin a discussion within the hockey project to define "major award". Resolute 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I like your changes however, we would need to create a page and link to it of the exact awards that meet it. Like the soccer notability guidelines above link to exactly what leagues count for their guidelines. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would add other leagues, like the old International Hockey League or the old Western Hockey League as well, if we are going to list leagues. They were at least on par with the AHL when they existed. I would also limit the NCAA to Division I. Patken4 (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• You're missing the point of criterion #4, Resolute: it was never intended to establish notability for top-level minor leagues, but for mid-level loops such as the CHL, major junior, NCAA hockey and the like. The AHL and the old WHL don't belong. As far as the old IHL goes, that loop had several stages, and declaring its whole history on a par with the AHL's just inaccurate. Up into the early 70s, it was a semi-pro loop akin to the old Eastern Hockey League or the current LNAH. Starting around then, it gained some NHL affiliation, and was on a par around with the CHL. The mid-80s was when its ambitions really started to kick in.

  Finally, if you're going to define leagues outright, like FOOTY does, your list can't be North America-centric. How do we gauge the European leagues? Ravenswing 05:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, your argument touches on the exact reason why I propose these changes: SNGs were never expected to establish notability at all. They were expected to describe the point at which we can expect reliable sources exist to satisfy notability criteria. However, SNGs are used to justify articles that lack notability because they inevitably use arbitrary criteria. And in this case, they allow editors to create reams of articles on non notable players on the basis of an award won in a lower league that does not generate much coverage. My goal is not to say "this league notable, this league not notable." My goal is to say "we have established that players who win these awards in these leagues generally receive enough coverage to meet guidelines". Players in other league would be determined case by case, and if a case is established that other leagues meet the bar, we add them as needed. Resolute 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – The value of criteria #4 is that it allows the well deserved inclusion of notable athletes who have achieved, what amounts to, national recognition for their outstanding athletic performance. It should not be gauge for crystal balling as to whether or not the athlete will become an NHLer. To suggest that a national award winning amateur athlete is not notable because they may not play in the NHL should be entirely discounted. Such players should be included in NHOCKEY because they have already achieved notability. When a major junior hockey player, professional minor leaguer, CIS or NCAA athlete, or a World Junior player is announced as being the best in their position, that is a preeminent honour and should be recognized as such. It is understandable why a big fish in a small pond may achieve notability before a big fish in a small pond small fish in a big pond receives similar recognition. The fact that a national or league award is publicized and written about in several sources demonstrates notability. Dolovis (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

6. Played on a senior national team...

This one is my bone of contention with Scott Winkler. I dislike the wording primarily because lower level competitions do not generate the kind of coverage that supports a presumption of notability. That includes lower divisions of the World championships. Consequently, I propose that this be restricted to the highest levels only:

Played on a senior national team in the Olympic Games, the top division of the World Championship or the Canada Cup/World Cup of Hockey. Resolute 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Little more hesitant on this one but I could support it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed to this one as per my comments on WT:HOCKEY. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  Suppose I struck the limitation to the top division of the WCs? Resolute 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd be all for it. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 00:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Very well, struck. I will treat Ravenswing and Dolovis' opposes as continuing to stand unless they choose to re-comment following this change. Resolute 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is a significant departure from NSPORTS generally, as it's always been the case that players for senior national teams in recognized international competitions pass. Ravenswing 05:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – National senior team members who compete in international tournaments are notable. However, simply being a member of a senior national team is not enough to establish notability, so reliable sources are required to verify that the person actually played in an international competition with the national team. Dolovis (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, if you believe that, then you should be able to demonstrate that we can expect most players on this list [1] meet WP:GNG. If you can do so, I will happily withdraw this proposal entirely. Resolute 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

EIHC should be looked at separately from the World Championships. I personally think that for "other" international tournaments such as the EIHC, players should be looked at and their notability should be determined on a case-by-case basis. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 14:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed: Satisfaction of GNG

There are examples of award winners that may not otherwise meet GNG, and there are going to be cases of minor league players, members of national teams in lower divisions, etc. that will. Even though the lead already explains this, I would like to add a line specifying GNG as a requirement:

Meeting any of the above criteria presumes a player is notable, but this SNG is not meant to be definitive. If that presumption is challenged, it must be demonstrated that the player meets the general notability guideline (GNG; i.e.: at WP:Articles for Deletion). Additionally, a player who meets GNG may be considered notable even if they do not satistfy any of the criteria listed. Resolute 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Before yesterday I wouldn't have thought this necessary, but since someone attempted to insinuate that something in the top of the NSPORTS guideline didn't apply to the individual sections then maybe it does need repeating. Wikilawyering is ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Just as a note, I would try to avoid directly linking to WP:AFD, but I don't know the better link to be made as an alternative means to discuss the notability of an article before it is sent to AFD; AFD is meant as a last resort. Perhaps WP:BEFORE? --MASEM (t) 14:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The only issue with BEFORE is the presumption that meeting an SNG = automatic notability pass. The challenge to notability would inevitably be made at PROD or AFD. But the simpler alteration is to just remove my bracketed note, and leave it stated that the presumption can be challenged, and would therefore need to be defended. Resolute 20:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • All I'm suggesting is that AFD should be a venue of last resort if you're pretty certain the article fails notability. If you question it but aren't 100% sure, AFD is not the right veneu, and most of the advice on BEFORE is alternate ways to discuss that. (There are factions of editors that strongly oppose the use of AFD as a testbed and that's what I'm suggestion is to be avoided.) --MASEM (t) 06:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – Inclusion of the suggested paragraph is verbose and redundant. The first three paragraphs of WP:NSPORT fully covers your concern. If you have a problem with that wording, then I suggest you open a fresh discussion to change the wording at the top of the page. Dolovis (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• As with Dolovis, while I don't disagree with the text, it's redundant: every SNG, Wikipedia-wide, is subordinate to the GNG, and every article is (theoretically, at least) subject to the GNG's provisions. Ravenswing 14:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

NBASKETBALL

Per the current notability guidelines, any player drafted in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft is notable. This apparently includes the BAA (the precursor to the NBA). However, in the 1947 BAA Draft and 1948 BAA Draft, half the draftees never played. Therefore, there's no real info available on them in general, because they're just regular NN people. Should the guideline be adjusted? MSJapan (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it needs changed. First, we are talking about 2 out of 60+ drafts so I think these are outliers. Second, just because they never played in the BBA/NBA does not mean they were not notable. For example, Walt Dropo (1947, #4) opted to play pro baseball. Further, in that era pro sports are not what they are today, so some of the players that did not play in the BBA/NBA still played basketball elsewhere, such as George Kok (1948, #2) who played in the American Basketball League and that play may be considered notable. Third, many of them were college stars and those accomplishments make the notable (some level of presumption in that if you were drafted high, then you were a college star with some level of press coverage). Fourth, high draft picks usually receive a large amount of press coverage. I would imagine that in the local newspapers of their day non-trivial coverage was present in the player's hometown newspapers, college town newspapers, and newspapers of the city that drafted them. Finally, this is just a guide and everyone needs to pass GNG anyways. Out of all the players drafted in the last 60+ years in the first two rounds I would imagine a few that are not notable. However, I don't think those few are enough to eliminate this guideline. RonSigPi (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that the handful of players we're talking about probably met GNG as college stars, factoring in the press coverage college basketball received in the late 40s (which was why someone thought pro leagues would be viable anyway). For goodness sake, Jarrod Polson is a modern day scrub at Kentucky and he passed an AfD review. Keep the guideline as is. It pretty clearly states that early draft picks should be presumed notable, not just those who played in the NBA. The reason is that they are presumed notable as high profile college players or in other pro leagues, and my years of experience and 1000s of edits agree. Rikster2 (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

George Hauptfuhrer, for those unaware, is what brought this redux on NBASKETBALL about (side note: he's notable). The system isn't broken using the first two rounds criteria, so don't fix it. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Arena football

I'm not sure I would consider the Arena Football League to be a top-level professional league, as the guideline suggests. It consists of players who aren't good enough to play in the NFL or CFL, which are top-level leagues, and it sticks out like a sore thumb among the other leagues listed (NFL, CFL, AFL, AAFC, and USFL). I'm not saying that arena football players can't be notable; they are eminently capable of meeting the GNG just like anyone else, of course. But those cases usually won't be cut-and-dried enough to extend a presumption of notability to everyone who has played at least one game of arena ball. I think that the Arena Football League should be removed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As of now I am not for or against this change, but have a few thoughts. I don't know how much it being a 'top-level' league matters and one could argue that the AAFC or USFL were never top-level leagues. While I know each sport is different, I do like looking at other sports as guides. In other sports there is no requirement to play in a top-level league (e.g., in soccer the fourth-level English Football League Two has their players notable). In most sports, such as soccer, rugby, Australian rules football, the 'one-game' requirement is for 'professional' leagues (i.e., players don't need another job). Currently AFL pay is not at a professional level (see [2] and was only that way for a short time (circa 2003-2008). However, I think the other thing to look at is the 'reliable sources' likely available. Many of the AFL teams are in major sports markets with a good amount of media coverage. For about half the league (6 of 14) the AFL teams are the only pro football team they have. Also, some of the AFL teams are in cities without sporting opposition during the winter/summer (e.g., no NHL/NBA/MLB in Jacksonville) or at all (no major sports team in Des Moines or Spokane) while other may only have one major pro team (San Antonio and Salt Lake). I think these facts would lend themselves to their being a large amount of coverage and in turn a high likelihood of sources existing. Also, even if the AFL players are 'players who aren't good enough to play in the NFL or CFL' they still will need to be quite good players and as such likely have been successful college players. Those successful college careers will carry their own reliable sources that factor in. Then again, this presumption stands for all AFL players and I question how much coverage was out there for teams like the Cleveland Thunderbolts or Miami Hooters. I can see it both ways with this presumption so don't come down one way or the other, but figured my insight may be useful. RonSigPi (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• I think that for the top league, the coverage is likely to exist; those teams get substantial coverage on a regular basis. I also think that if we're going to cover a league it's better to cover it thoroughly rather than in a scattershot manner. So I would stick with the current rule, which, as far as I know, has been working fine; if there have been substantial problems, that might put a different light on the matter.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• If it's not fully professional, then it doesn't matter whether it's the top-level division or not; appearances in the league are not enough for notability. Likewise, if it is fully professional, then the level of the league is irrelevant, as it does give some presumed notability. At the moment, that's how NFOOTY works. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Tennis Qualifying

Hello, I have a question about Tennis Qualifying articles. Should the qualifying rounds have its own article? I've seen multiple tennis tournaments in Wiki that have a separate article for its qualifying round, but the qualifying section is already in the main article.

Here are some examples:

1999 ANZ Tasmanian International – Doubles Qualifying 1999 Dreamland Egypt Classic – Singles Qualifying 1999 Estoril Open – Women's Doubles Qualifying

Should these qualifying articles be deleted, or be redirected to its specific section in its appropriate article? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Fully professional

Hello. I have a question about notabily footballer and fully professional leagues. You know Süper Lig, TFF First League, TFF Second League, TFF Third League are professional leagues in Turkey. But whats meaning of fully professional? For example TFF Third League is not fully and Süper Lig is fully ? Whats the decisive criterion? I am asking these questions because of for example this pages some footballers are notabily in tr.wikipedia, but same pages in en.wikipedia footballers are not notabily? (for example Atahan Menekşe). What it must be our criterion? If en.wikipedia's regulation is true, we should delete a lot of footballer in tr.wikipedia. Beyazmavi (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beyazmavi. "Fully professional" is just something that's been made up by a few editors at en.wikipedia's football project. Supposedly about all a league's players earning enough through football to support a wife and children (? or something) it's just a way of pretending that certain leagues are notable and others aren't. As a result we have a huge, huuuge bias towards male, lower division English/Scottish players while coverage of top-level players from certain other nationalities is stamped out altogether. As a concept it's pretty subjective and doesn't really have any meaning outside en.wikipedia. In actual fact most editors now recognise that it's complete nonsense! Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed for as long as I can remember and little if anything has changed. The line is drawn at conferring notability if you have appeared for a fully pro-side, however briefly and often with scant referencing. Regardless of my view on the desirability of this 'rule', would suggest the only way to change it is to come up with what you believe to be an alternative and to seek comments and thus (maybe) get it changed. Without that, saying that it is 'nonsense', changes exactly nothing.--Egghead06 (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all ı must say that my english is not perfect.So sorry for this. I m reviewer in tr.wikipedia, and ı am analyzing other languages wikipedias about this subject. Just ı want to learn that, fully professionel is about support, earnings or something like that? You know en.wikipedia criterions of notabily about football players, just 2 criterion. So ı couldnt understand what we must do in tr.wikipedia. I suppose it s complicated situation. Thank you for answers.. Beyazmavi (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally fully professional means a league where everyone is paid a living wage and that expenses are not incurred by the players playing. Clavdia is actually incorrect in thinking it was a term made up by editors. The term is in reference to the well known term Semi-professional. Which has a very distinct meaning in the professional sports world. It should also be noted that players who don't meet the NSPORTS requirement can still qualify under WP:GNG so it doesn't actually stomp anyone out. -DJSasso (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a term made up by editors: where is the Fully-professional article? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The term is used a lot in sports news articles. I don't know why there isn't an article on it here but I am guessing its because the professional sports article serves mostly the same purpose although it isn't as well written as one might hope. To quote part "Otherwise, the league may be required to classify itself as semi-professional, in other words, able to pay their players a small sum, but not enough to cover the player's basic costs of living.". Not to mention it doesn't take much common sense to see if there is such a thing as "semi-professional" that there has to be something that is "professional" or "fully professional". -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As Djsasso notes, Clavdia is wrong - the term has not been made up by editors, but is in common usage - see uses by the BBC here:

• Accrington Stanley's switch to full-time status in the summer will take the number of fully professional clubs in the Conference to 12
• His aim is to turn the club fully professional
• But with the Conference now almost fully professional
• This season, several clubs have opted to step up to full-time status to ensure they are even better prepared for the jump to the fully professional stage

You can find plenty more like that here. Number 57 21:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Most users recognize that NFOOTY is flawed, yes. However, it is not explicitly biased towards English leagues at all, and certainly not Scotland (which, until the recent reshuffle, only had two tiers covered!) as the Italian and American setups have at least as many leagues in the list (in the American case, far more) as England does, and most of the other major nations have two or three divisions included. The perceived bias can only come from the fact most people speak English here, so most people write articles on players in English-language leagues. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Look, everyone knows what professional means. Adverbs like "fully" (or thoroughly) are here nor there. Our problem is that we have a handful of editors at WP:FOOTY, who are obsessed with provincial English or Scottish clubs and so flood Wikipedia with biographies of fourth-rate male footballers. Meanwhile the Irish football project, which looks as if it once thrived, is completely strangled and articles for genuine top-level players summarily deleted. The same problematic editors also rig deletion discussions by bloc voting. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And your alternative to NFOOTY would be what? Unless it is put forward how can any change be made? --Egghead06 (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The level of a league is irrelevant as to the notability of the people playing in it. Notability is determined by how many people are aware of something; if a league is not fully professional, that's a key indicator that fewer people are attending games (as there is insufficient revenue to pay players). If we used attendances as an indicator instead of professional status, we'd still end with very similar results. The problem is not a bias towards English players (or players at English clubs), it's because lower division football is more popular in England than anywhere else in the world (I believe the English Championship is the fourth or fifth best supported league in Europe), and therefore the players are more notable than top division counterparts in places like Estonia, where games are watched by an average of a couple of hundred people. How can you argue that a top division footballer in Estonia is more notable than a fourth division player in England when around 10 times more people watch the latter per week (average attendance in the Estonian top division was 223 last season, whilst League Two's average was 4,389)? Number 57 06:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the lads at WP:Footy have their own favoured/cherished leagues and start with the presumption that these are inherently "notable". Working backwards from this premise they come up with all sorts of excuses and bogus justifications to try and make it look objective. "Fully professional" is just one of these excuses. Even when it fails - as with Scottish Championship - other excuses (attendances, supposedly exceptional media coverage) are trotted out. It is a sham: biased, discriminatory and utter, utter nonsense (apart from that it's alright though). Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't actually answered the question above. Who is more notable - a footballer watched by 4,000 people every week, or one watched by 1,000? If we compare football with other sports, we don't have articles on top division players in sports like field hockey because of the low attendances and lack of professional status - only international players meet the criteria. As for bias and favourism, we have over 70 countries listed as having fully professional leagues and only around 20 without fully professional leagues. You really need to tone down your hatred here and be rational. Number 57 16:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Fully professional isn't one of their excuses. It comes from the time that all athletes fell under that requirement in the old days of WP:ATHLETE. Since then we expanded most sports to be more specific and turned the guideline into WP:NSPORTS. Soccer however has proven hard to do because unlike in other sports there is no clear cut #1 league and it is so popular throughout the world that there are too many variations to account for. The easiest way to do it is as its currently done which again is just a rule of thumb. GNG trumps it. If you can find a better solution by all means offer it. But many people have tried over many years for a better solution but we have not been able to find one. To be honest I think you would have a hard time with your drive because most people want the soccer guidelines to be less inclusive rather than more inclusive which seems to be what your are suggesting. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Clavdia, either disengage from this altogether, or actually say something constructive for once, and cut the constant personal attacks out (and gender assumptions.) Every single one of your claims has been proven to be false, misguided, or misleading - your claim of it favouring English and Scottish leagues is clearly false, your claim of something being professional or not is definitely incorrect (amateur means that you receive no payment, semi-professional is when you receive payment, but have another job, as the contract is not enough to live on; usually just game expenses, and fully professional is when you're a full-time player) and your claims of WP:FOOTY members being biased towards certain leagues has also been explained/disproven. And this is coming from someone who has attempted to get the NFOOTY guidelines altered (to accompany all national-level leagues, regardless of nationality/stature/professionalism.) Also, you've got no proof to back up your claim that the Scottish Championship isn't fully professional; the whole point of the new Scottish league system was to make the full three tiers fully professional. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I want it to be less inclusive too, but without all the arbitrariness, subjectivity and hypocrisy. And Lukeno I haven't made any attacks - think of me as a critical friend. Gender assumptions? Well where are your female members? I won't be going anywhere because enough decent editors have already been driven away by WP:FOOTY drones and their mania for "delete, delete, delete" everything except for players in their own pet leagues. WP:FOOTY could politely be described as a stuffy old gentlemen's club for the pale, male and stale. Countless editors have just got sick of it and cleared off, that's why (in some cases) poor quality editors and admins have been left to "rule the roost" and make an even bigger mess of things. So this esoteric concept of "fully professional" encompasses a living wage, not having other employment, ground attendances (?) and/or full-time training? Beyazmavi will be non-the-wiser after this - aren't guidelines supposed to be clear? I still don't know what it's supposed to mean and I live in the UK and have 'consumed' sports media for years. Also, this is the third or fourth pompous lecture on the subject which I've sat through. Finally, Lukeno94, the Scottish leagues being professional might be an aspiration but it certainly isn't a reality for any except the Premiership. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi.I want to say something. First of all i think this list is not fair. Because the list show us to just Süper Lig is fully professional. But in Turkey we have 4 professional leagues.(Süper Lig, TFF First League, TFF Second League, TFF Third League). At the same time in England have Premier League, Football League Championship, Football League One, Football League Two. And they are fully professional?? İs it fair? I meaning this regulation is seems for England. I investigated FIFA and UEFA offical sites. But ı didnt see "fully professional". If UEFA or FIFA have a regulation about "fully professional", somebody must show. By the way ı m not defending to 3th and 4th level league footballers must be notabily. I m defending that just 1th and 2th levels leagues players must be notabily. And the other example Football League Two is fully professional and Segunda División B is not fully.How?? I think this regulation is not acceptable. Sorry for my bad english. Just ı want to understand this subject. Beyazmavi (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources that state the divisions below the Süper Lig are fully professional, then they can be added to the list - it's not complete by any means. As for why Segunda Division B isn't listed as a fully professional league, I suspect that it's because it's a regional league with 80 clubs playing in four divisions - i.e. if it followed the same structure as England, the bottom teams would be at the sixth level, and no country has professional leagues that far down. And as someone else mentioned above, no-one's managed to suggest a better alternative. Number 57 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If you need a source, you can see here. This is a official letter The Grand National Assembly of Turkey. It's Turkish. But ı can translate. It's first paragraph saying that: Turkish professional leagues have got 134 club. Süper Lig 18, Bank Asya 1. lig(TFF First League) 18, İkinci Türkiye Ligi (TFF Second League) 45, Üçüncü Türkiye Ligi (TFF Third League) 53 teams are struggling. Thats mean we dont have a fully professional status in Turkey. Also Turkey Süper Lig isn't fully professional. It's just professional. And ıf somebody want to determine a criterion about this subject, we can take reference this list. And this list can be fair. Because really ı dont think a "fully professional" concept is a fair. But EPFL concept can be fair. Beyazmavi (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And just ı want to officall thing about fully professional. I searched UEFA and FIFA's offical sites, but ı couldnt see this concept. And ı can be learn, which leagues fully which leagues are not. Just ı want to offical sources. Thanks. Beyazmavi (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason we use the "fully-" modifier to professional leagues is to try to identify the type of players that would have sufficient coverage to pass the general notability guideline. There are plenty of leagues which self-identify as professional but do not have many (or in some cases any) players which are sufficiently covered by reliable sources. As most editors are only proficient in English, we may be missing out on certain leagues because we lack the skill to analyze the available sources (e.g., I've had trouble finding sources for Turkish players who compete outside of the Süper Lig, but I have to rely on web translators to identify coverage in online newspapers like Hürriyet). I think the project is willing to re-consider any of the classifications on the WP:FPL page if an editor can make a case that players in that league will typically have enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As an example, I searched for articles about Atahan Menekşe in Hürriyet's online archive, but all of the articles appear to be routine (e.g., transfer news, match reports, etc.) rather than significant coverage. I also noted that Atahan Menekşe's tr.wikipedia article has only a football database entry as a source. In short, I found nothing to support the idea that an article about him would satisfy WP:GNG. I did a very quick search, so I'm not sure, but I hope you understand my concern. Jogurney (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for interest. I understand but for example ı can find a lot of info about this player. (not only Hürriyet). But ı agree with you. And ı dont think this player is notabily. But at the same time, ı dont think Football League Two's footballers are notabily. This league is 4th level. How this leagues players can be notabily? I m sorry but really ı cant understand fully professional regulation. I said before, really ı couldnt something about fully professional FIFA or UEFA's offical sites. I think ıt must be different criterion for decide who is notabily and who s not. When ı look the fully pro list en.wikipedia, just ı see it s not fair. I think, neither Atahan Menekşe nor Junior Brown (footballer) are notabily. I hope ı can describe myself. Beyazmavi (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's quite possible that Football League Two players don't often meet WP:GNG. Junior Brown seems to be a borderline case, but a quick search brought up some coverage from the BBC which appears significant, and it's likely that an editor who is more familiar with English football would find even more coverage. However, if many League Two players cannot satisfy WP:GNG, we should re-think treating it as "fully-pro". Jogurney (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fully professional and meeting GNG are not 100% linked. The English League Two is most definitely a fully professional league, that's an incontrovertible fact backed up by numerous sources. As a result, we can't strike that out of WP:FPL without a fundamental rewrite of the list, and without a fundamental rewrite of WP:NFOOTY; both of which have been attempted on many occasions, and never succeeded. Bringing up Junior Brown isn't really logical at all; [3] isn't purely routine, and nor is [4] - he meets WP:GNG with a very minimal effort of searching, and he's played on numerous occasions in a WP:FPL league (not just once). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly, neither the Scottish second tier (before the restructuring) and the Finnish first tier were fully pro, but they were still included in the list under the assumption that most players met GNG after playing one match at that level. When we have done such additions to the list, we wouldn't have a big problem with removing a league from the list (e.g. Football League Two) if we found out that most footballers in that league don't meet GNG after only one match. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• The Scottish second tier was a funny one, as it appeared it was fully pro at one stage; and that kept it in, even after it became clear that it wasn't fully pro; I don't remember GNG coming into the debate. The Finnish Premier League I couldn't tell you about, but I'd be surprised if that one wasn't, at the very least, 90% pro. I'm of the general opinion that one appearance isn't enough, and that it should be a higher figure, with more leagues counting; but my proposals, like most others, have failed. If the Football League Two was to go, then there would be a whole load of others that would have to follow, as they generate far less coverage - the Cypriot First Division being a clear example, which I struggle to believe is fully pro anyway (and I find the source to be dubious). Besides, League Two is covered quite well by the BBC and Sky Sports; in fact, at one point, the English Conference National was reasonably notable, during the Setanta years (with Setanta and the Non-League Football paper thing covering it) but that never sat in the FPL list (quite rightly, as it was never fully pro) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to ask my last question:) I suppose that fully professional regulation is not applicable outside en.wikipedia.Is it true? And for example we know that Süper Lig and TFF First League (1th and 2th level leagues) are not very different criterian in Turkey. Of course Süper Lig is first level, but TFF First League's footballer are notabily in Turkey. For example you can find a lot of sources in Turkey who player TFF First League. I mean, can ı find international offical info include something like this ? (fully pro.) Because we are regulating our criteria in tr.wikipedia. For example, this is Europe professional leauges list and which marked leauges are fully professional. Can ı find list like this ? Just you must know that, for example if we accept fully professional regulation in tr.wikipedia, we will have to delete a lot of players article. And again ı must say that, TFF First League's footballers are meet WP:GNG criteria. And this criteria is saying that Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Best regards. Beyazmavi (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Many things are different on the non EN (English) wikis. If you have no notability criteria for footballers, or are attempting to update them (!), there is no reason why the controversial English model should be copied on the TR wiki. Good luck. --Egghead06 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in this matter. So we must determine criteria in tr.wikipedia. However ı still dont think is fully professional criterias are fair en.wikipedia. I think it should be reviewed. It s just my idea. Again thank you. Best regards. Beyazmavi (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• The "fully professional" criteria isn't the issue; it's the fact that it's that or bust with NFOOTY, unless you win an international cap. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe one day :) Beyazmavi (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Boxing - Notability discussion

Changes to WP:NBOX/WP:NBOXING are being discussed at length here... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Notability discussion, please feel free to have your two-penn'orth/two cents. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Volleyball - Notability discussion

There is a discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Participation of project members is required, but at the same time, editors outside the project are welcome to join the discussion. Osplace 17:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Association football Youth player notability

Per the current notability guidelines, players who have represented their country in any FIFA sanctioned senior international match (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. I argue that a youth player representing their country in Under-20 or Under-17 World Cup tournaments should also be considered notable due to the significant coverage the youth World Cup tournaments have received in recent years.--2nyte (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is a debate that has happened a lot of times in the past, and has never gained any traction. Nor will it now. If a player has a notable role in the tournament, then they'll meet GNG and be notable anyway. If they don't, then they'll be non-notable, and won't justify an article. Simples. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Venue notability

I've just noticed that though this covers sportspeople, It doesn't cover what the notability guidelines are on sports venues. Would it be reasonable to suggest that any venue that has hosted an international event in a major sport is notable? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Venues fall directly under WP:GNG. If you can find sources that talk about the venue itself as opposed to an event being held there then you can show notability. There was a failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) at one point that attempted to cover buildings. I had a bit of a laugh because I went to find the name of this proposal in the archives of this page and one of the first things that came up was me answering the same question to you 3 years ago. :) Anyway I thought that was amusing. But yeah it comes down to GNG for venues. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Coaches and methods

What are the notability criteria for coaches and their training methods? A previous discussion on this page proposed criteria for track and field coaches:

• Coaches are notable if they have coached multiple Olympic champions, World champions or senior World Record holders and have received widespread credit and significant international coverage as a result.
• A coach that introduces a new technique or training method may be notable without meeting the above criterion if the technique or training method is itself reasonably notable and the coach in question is widely credited as the originator.

On the first criterion: what is the equivalent of 'Olympic champions, World champions or senior World Record holders' in non-Olympic sports and sports with multiple conflicting governing bodies (e.g. powerlifting)? Can a coach be notable in national rather than international coverage for a (notable) sport that is not popular or contested worldwide?

On the second criterion: What constitutes a notable training method (i.e., in what sources should this training method be mentioned)? When a training method is credited to a coach (as in the case of Mark Rippetoe; see AfD discussion) does the notability of the coach still depend on the novelty of the method, and if so, what sources could support the claim of novelty (other than primary sources obviously)?

Thank you for considering these questions. 75.180.29.69 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can be notable if the meet WP:GNG. This page doesn't limit notability, it is just a rule of thumb to judge when they probably meet WP:GNG. As for training methods, the same thing applies, the method would have to meet WP:GNG in that it has been written about in depth in multiple sources. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wording of WP:NFOOTBALL

In interest of reaching a broader consensus, I have moved the following discussion from WT:FOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So about a week ago I PROD'ed an article about an Estonian footballer, it was promptly contested by someone who misinterpreted this, as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football, as meaning that all footballers who have played in a national top flight are notable. I see this type of objection every couple of months. So this got me thinking, is WP:NFOOTBALL as clear as it can be in conveying the intended meaning? I don't think that it is.

First let me say that this is not intended as a discussion on whether or not we should change the national caps and FPL appearances confer notability rule. If you want discuss that please start a separate thread.

That being said, I would like to propose the following the wording for WP:NFOOTBALL:

1. Players who have appeared in, managers who have managed in, and referees who have officiated any FIFA sanctioned senior international match (including the Olympics) are notable. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
2. Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.

Note: For the purposes of this guideline, a player has appeared in a competition if he or she was in the starting line-up or came on as a substitute. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

There are a number of advantages to this wording. The changes to point one address the issue I brought up above. Also, they preempt any abuse of the word represent. You might argue that the current wording doesn't include managers who manage the national team of a country other than their own since they don't represent their country, though the notion that they are somehow not notable because they are foreigners is clearly preposterous. This wording avoids discussion as to whether or not neutral referees represent their country, and matching the wording to point 2 has an added benefit given the changes to the explanatory note.

I think point two very clearly conveys the FPL rule, and doesn't need to be reworded, though there is currently an errant comma after the word managed that I would like to remove.

Finally, this wording makes it clear that the you must actually play rule applies applies to national and club teams alike, and avoids fights over what constitutes a domestic team.

Please bear in mind that this is only a first pass at clarification. Your thoughts, suggestions and improvements are appreciated. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This may be an opportunity to codify the apparent consensus that players appearing in cup/continental matches between two teams from fully professional leagues are presumed notable. Hack (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd support both the above changes. Number 57 07:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement; but the discussion should take place at WT:ATHLETE for broader consensus. GiantSnowman 13:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the clarifying language. Jogurney (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Instead of using the ambiguous phrase "appeared in", and then subsequently having to define it (which indicates it is expected not to be correctly interpreted), I would prefer the wording "played in" to specifically exclude bench warmers and make the wording clearer. C679 10:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there any article/section on Wikipedia that sets out what is included as a FIFA sanctioned senior intl', and if so can it be linked? Eldumpo (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to using the word played instead of appeared, we would still have to define it. Pretty much every article on an active footballer begins Foo is a fooian footballer who plays for Foo F.C. regardless of whether he's appeared in a match for the club in questions or not. As for what is a FIFA sanctioned match, I don't believe it's been explicitly defined anywhere on the pedia, but then again it's also pretty self-explanatory. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If there isn't, it could be worth creating an article at association football match for this purpose. GiantSnowman 12:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)