Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Congratulations and thanks

This page has just been promoted to a guideline. I want to say congratulations and thanks to all of the editors who have worked on this proposal, both those who ultimately supported it and those who ultimately opposed it but made it better through their opposition. I think that this effort has been a real success in terms of solving a long-recalcitrant area of dispute amongst editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a real improvement, so as an outsider let me say "good job". Hobit (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mountaineers

I think that we need a section for mountaineers. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Kinloch (2nd nomination). We're sort of operating in the dark here because we don't have a criteria for mountaineers. Mountaineering is a legitimate (if minor) sport, yet mountaineers don't compete in professional competition, so we can't say "competed at highest professional level" or whatever.

How about "Completed some version of the Seven Summits" as a baseline? However, about 275 people have done this, and I don't know if we want to have 275 mountaineer bios (maybe we do). Also maybe you can not complete the Seven Summits -- maybe you just don't want to -- and still be a notable mountaineer. I don't know anything about mountaineering so I don't know, maybe people who do know something about this could come up with something. Herostratus (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We are hardly swamped with articles on climbers/mountaineers, and notability varies dramatically between them. There are many people who are well known with the mountaineering fraternity but pretty much unknown outside of it. There are very few who are fully professional, but many have sponsorship deals, so could be classed as semi-pro. I think there would be no real benefit trying to devise an "assumed to be notable" rule, and we should just judge it by the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Quantpole on this. This page is mainly for sports where new pages are regularly being created for their athletes (on the order of a new athlete posted every couple of weeks or even more frequently). I have never ran into an AfD on a mountaineer, although as Herostratus points out they occasionally do occur. I think it would be more appropriate if the mountaineering community came up with their own set of qualifications first in an essay, to guide their editing, but in general GNG would probably suffice for this sport. --MATThematical (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a couple of the seven summits, but not all. There's more to mountaineering than just the top seven - some have pointed out that the second highest on each continent is a far more impressive feat. However, that obscures that there's a whole other community - rock climbers, who not only often have zero of the seven summits, some are proud of it. I've done both, neither at notable levels of accomplishment, and don't participate in the disdain that some members of each community have for each other. Yvon Chouinard is a notable member of the rock-climbing community. I suppose (I'm mostly joking) that one could declare that notability requires climbing a 5.14 or first climbing a 5.13. Seriously, I think GNG works fine in this case, but it will exclude some world class athletes, because rock-climbing doesn't inspire the same level of media attention for comparable level so of ability. --SPhilbrickT 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Promotion

Firstly, I would like to congratulate all those who put a lot of work into this. I didn't entirely agree with it, but clarity was needed.

Being a fan of democracy, I have no issue with the fact that this was promoted by a small majority. What does trouble me is the lack of work put into association football. In particular, it troubles me that this list (which apparently is no longer deemed to be disputed) is now a hard-and-fast, play-in-these-leagues-or-automatically-face-deletion guide. I amended the lead here in an attempt to neuter this concern, but the real issue lies with association football. WFC (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

While I supported the project, I don't think we can ever call this complete. There will always be fine tuning, if for no other reason than to adapt for changing conditions. But in the likely event of omissions or errors in the original document, I would certainly hope we can continue to make amendments and have discussion. It is my expectation that there are a large number of the original editors on this project who have this watchlisted. Gross deviations from the intent of this project will get reverted and most discussion will be approached with open minds. Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Well said, Trackinfo. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I welcome the end of that last sentence, but the start of it isn't particularly conducive to discussion. This guideline was promoted as a result of addressing opposition; the "intent of this project" did not have as strong a mandate as the eventual outcome.
Anyway, my above edit has been reverted for reasons I do not entirely understand. My understanding is that this, like ATHLETE before it, is intended to suppliment the GNG, not superceed it. Could someone rephrase the lead to take this into account? Regards, WFC (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we (several of us) may be misunderstanding one another. My understanding is that this is a guide to determining efficiently whether or not a page is likely to pass GNG, and therefore, it does not override GNG. I'm having trouble understanding what your (now-reverted) edit was trying to fix. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It ties into Trackinfo's post above. This guideline can never be complete.
It is therefore worth stressing that if someone meets the GNG, the rules of thumb here are irrelevant. In hindsight my attempt at it didn't work. But even today I have been involved in an AfD where failure to meet WP:ATHLETE (as this is now known) has been cited as a reason for deletion, without addressing evidence that he might (or might not) pass GNG for another reason. I will not link to it as I do not wish to influence it. But this needs to explicitly state that evidence of an athlete meeting the GNG should be considered on its own merits, before the rules of thumb here are taken into account. WFC (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
At the AfD you mention, I would suggest saying there that the page in question passes GNG for other reasons, if indeed that is the case. It seems to me that the "Applicable policies and guidelines" section just below the lead here already does, explicitly, say exactly what you advocate, and the lead also basically says it, albeit not in the words that you suggested in your edit. If, at that AfD or at other AfDs as this guideline begins to be cited more and more, certain issues keep coming up, in which this guideline appears to be used incorrectly, then I would suggest that we examine here how to improve the guideline to fix those problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, this one person opinion; if someone has sufficient widespread coverage about whatever they do to satisfy WP:GNG their article shouldn't need to fear being deleted. That is, of course, assuming sane arguments at AfD. Not a lot of AfD people even know about this new guideline, replacing the one that was previously called WP:ATHLETE (which was rather vague), the adaptation to learning about this will take time. This guideline, like other guidelines on WP, simplifies the validation of the notability process. If someone (proven by sources) achieves one of these standards of achievement, then they are deemed notable, therefore further discussion; AfD arguments or even consideration for nomination should not be necessary. In other words, it should save a lot of time and unnecessary discussion. Trackinfo (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Trackinfo, I would be grateful if you appeared more open to the possibility that my opinions aren't an extreme view.
Trackinfo has pretty extensively fought to make sure this guideline does not override GNG, so I think its a bit unfair for you to claim he is calling your views extremist. All Trackinfo appears to be saying is that this guideline explicitly states that it does not overide GNG from the very outset, and that he is confused as to what you are trying to accomplish that is different from what is already in the guideline. (Hopefully I summarized your views correctly trackinfo) --MATThematical (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Historically, ATHLETE has been cited exclusively despite contrary claims of the subject meeting the GNG. I'm not saying that those claims were always valid; indeed more often than not they weren't. But they are usually made in good faith, and all too often have been ignored both by !voters and the closing admin. Imagine the impact that sort of treatment has on new, potentially productive editors. Nonetheless, this was promoted less than a week ago. As there is opposition to a change, I'm happy to wait and see whether it has made a difference before deciding whether to return to it. Regards, WFC (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
My some people are sensitive. WFC, I don't know you, I didn't mention you or interpret your views in any form, much less that they were extreme. While addressing a question you raised, I was purely speaking in a generic, analytical sense. As far as WP:AGF, the only lack of faith (or technically: questioning the sanity) on my part that I alluded to, would be by certain unnamed individuals who take a "delete at all costs" attitude into WP debates. Trackinfo (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Olympics

Why is it worded that athletes are "presumed notable" and nations, sports and events are "considered notable"? Shouldn't they all be considered and not presumed? Lugnuts (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, the language is a bit kludgy, but the idea behind "presumed" is that this guideline provides an indication that a page is likely to pass WP:GNG, whereas to "be" notable means actually passing GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
If we ever create an FAQ for this guideline, would it be okay to use that quote? That sums up exactly how I believe this guideline should be applied; as a benefit of the doubt in cases where other demonstration of notability is marginal, rather than canon law. --WFC-- 19:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess that depends on whether or not we actually do ever create an FAQ, but I'm flattered! As with everything on-Wiki, what I said was Creative Commons 3. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Paralympics

Why is anyone who has competed at the Paralympics assumed to be notable? They get much less attention than the Olympics, and many competitors are completely unknown to even sporting enthusiasts from their own country. Medal winners at the Paralympics are notable, and perhaps there are countries where all their competitors at the Paralympics have received sufficient coverage, but this shouldn't be a general rule. Looking at an example of a Paralympic athlete who actually has an article, Xavier Barios, I see no reason why he should be automatically included, considering that sources are very scarce, with one Google News result[1] (truly passing mention), and only 95 general Google results[2], none of them substantial coverage in reliable sources. Considering that he competed in two recent Paralympic Games, one would expect more if these athletes were automatically notable. I suggest to either remove the Paralympics from the guideline, or to restrict it to medal winners. Fram (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Australian rules football

Sorry, posted this on one of the archive pages originally.....

I think the second (and to a lesser extent the criterion for coaches) of three criteria for Australian rules football is linked to the wrong article. The criterion in question is Before 1990, appeared in a match of the Victorian Football League. Problem is, the Victorian Football League article is about the organisation known as the Victorian Football Association prior to 1990. The competition known as the Victorian Football League was renamed the Australian Football League in 1990 and the competition known as the Victorian Football Association was renamed the Victorian Football League in 1996.

Suggest the criteria be rewritten as:

  1. Has appeared in a match of the Australian Football League.
  2. Prior to 1990, appeared in a match of the competition known as the Victorian Football League (now known as the Australian Football League).
  3. Is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league.

Coaches are presumed notable if they have been the head coach of an Australian Football League team or, before 1990, a team in the competition then known as the Victorian Football League.

Any thoughts/comments welcome. Thanks. MC Rocks (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks good. I did the original wording and I'm a rugby league fan, so I'm more than happy to defer to your expertise! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really happy with either. The AFL/VFL change was in name only and should not be split over two points. Players and senior/head coaches should be treated the same. The last point is virtually the GNG, but I can see the point of stating it to ensure that lower level players without major individual achievements (really like that term!) aren't kept, or significant players who never went to Melb aren't dumped.
  1. Has played or coached in a match of the Australian Football League (known as the Victorian Football League before 1990).
  2. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state level football league - ie Current VFL/previous VFA, WAFL, SANFL, TFL, QAFL, NSW/ACTAFL, NTFL and their precursors. <these will be linked but I'm on a non-tabbed browser!>
I'll mention this at WT:AFL to ensure it has wider consensus.The-Pope (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
No problems from my point of view, was just trying to differentiate between the VFL/AFL and VFA/VFL. MC Rocks (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on this proposal:

  1. There should be the word 'or' between the criteria, to make it clearer.
  2. I would suggest having been listed by an AFL team would be enough for notability (there are players who have been drafted into a senior side but who have not yet played a senior match).
  3. For criterion 3, in addition to state leagues, you should add Superules, Women's Footy, and overseas leagues.
  4. The VFL wasn't the dominant league until perhaps the 1960s/70s. A coach or player of the WAFL from pre-World War 2 would be just as notable as a VFL coach or player from the same era. I think that before about 1970, the criteria should be VFL or WAFL or SANFL.

- Richard Cavell (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E?

Would it be worth making an explicit mention of WP:BLP1E in this guideline, perhaps the "generally acceptable standards" section? For disclosure, I would consider myself as an "involved" editor in this regard, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Massey. I would like to clarify that the "equally useless" comment refers to association football, for which this is a carbon-copy of WP:ATHLETE; for many other sports this is indeed a dramatic improvement on the old system.

In any case, I thought it would be prudent to raise this question here before making the edit. Apologies for wasting people's time if I have missed it. Regards, --WFC-- 19:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand, it's very clear that 1E trumps NSPORT. But on the other hand, please note how tricky the issue can be. I looked at the Massey AfD, and that was someone who played extremely briefly. On the other hand, look at the reaction to: Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2010#Proposal: tighten ATHLETE to require "one full season or more" of play in a fully professional league. I think consensus has yet to evolve as to where the line is drawn. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You also have to remember the athletes aren't notable for one event. They are notable for their career. The one game for example is just the highest point in their career. It's different than someone was notable because of say a big accident and was only notable because of the accident. -DJSasso (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
(I've indented your post DJ, hope that's okay?)
Reading that link from Tryptofish, it's very clear that people do not understand how ATHLETE/NPSPORTS are actually supposed to be applied. In my opinion the purpose of NSPORTS is to make articles "default to keep" where proof of the subjects general notability exists, but is marginal. In other words, passing NSPORTS lowers the threshold of proof we need, because meeting this criteria most likely means that the material is out there somewhere. But it doesn't remove the requirement altogether, if there is no qualitative demonstration of notability at all.
I take DJSasso's point, as well as a comment on Tristo's link that "One must accomplish a lot before ever being selected to play a game in the NHL." The same simply isn't true of the early rounds of the Football League Cup, or Football League matches towards the end of a season where the team has nothing to play for (such as the one that Massey played in). Some might consider these lesser achievements than playing in the AHL, yet the current guideline suggests that one of the aforementioned football games is appropriate, compared to 100 AHL games. --WFC-- 08:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think DJ indented that way to indicate a reply to you, rather than a reply to me. But please scrutinize how what you say here—about defaulting to keep—is not consistent with what I said in a thread just above, that you wanted to quote for a future FAQ. As I see it, NSPORT does not trump GNG, but rather, it provides useful guidance as to what will or will not pass GNG. If it is difficult to determine whether or not a page passes GNG, but it passes NSPORT, then it is probably notable enough to "keep" at AfD. But if it is clearly, demonstrably the case that a page fails GNG, NSPORT should not be used as a way to circumvent GNG. If we've written NSPORT correctly, it cannot be used that way. If we've made mistakes in that regard, for instance in the leagues you mention, they should be corrected case-by-case. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, I indented the way I did because it was a reply to WFC. NSPORT is just a guideline that says when people are likely to pass GNG. As such articles that meet it shouldn't be deleted on first sight because sources may be harder to find but they probably do exist, ie someone who played in 1918 or whatever. However, this does not mean that they can't be deleted, just that whoever wants to delete them should do a good faith (more than google) search for sources for them. What I meant about BLP1E, sports figures rarely are the case of one event but of a series of events that got them to where they are. ie if they played 1 game in NHL chances are they were written about in the minor leagues, in junior hockey and/or college hockey etc. which leads to them not being the product of 1 event (ie the one game). Whereas, some no-name joe schmo who hasn't played organized sports hits a free throw from centre court and wins a million dollars and is news for a day or two all over the county, is only notable because he made that shot. He doesn't have the career behind him. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cycling criteria are too inclusive

Male cyclists meets this proposed guideline when they "Have won a stage or an overall classification in a UCI Continental Circuits event (or an equivalent prior to the introduction of those classifications)." Looking at the list of these events, I don't believe that this is acceptable. Focusing on those events I know something about, e.g. those listed in 2009–2010 UCI Europe Tour, I believe that events with UCI rating 1HC, 1.1, 2HC and 2.1 are well-known events where the winner deserves an article even if he doesn't have any notable results in the remainder of his career. However, UCI rating 1.2, 1.2U, 1NCup, 2.2, 2.2U and 2NCup events are of a much more local nature, with very limited interest of the media, and winning one of those doesn't make someone automatically notable. These events aren't even fully professional events: the U-events are for under 23 year olds, and the NCup are for national Junior teams. The other ones (1.2 and 2.2) are open to pros and amateur teams. I believe that this assumed notability should be restricted to winners of 1HC, 2HC, 1.1 and 2.1 at the most. Fram (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree if the continental circuits have multiple levels of competition only top levels should count, at least for winning stages. For winning the whole event maybe thats a different story, but we are talking continental here not world level, so I assume a win at an age restricted event should not guarantee notability unless it is at the world level. --MATThematical (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I originally wrote the criteria - my apologies for missing this at the time. I was thinking that this criteria was probably too inclusive so I support making it more exclusive and I think that the criteria broadly looks right. As per MATThematical's suggestion, should age-restricted world championships races be included, that is to say under-23 or junior (age 17 and 18), as either partaking, medaling or winning? SeveroTC 11:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Well if we go with precedent and look at the track and field guidelines we would probably go with winning, unless we think cycling is a bigger sport than track and field at the age restricted level. I think they are both about on the same level of coverage though. Note that the only sport where junior accomplishments make up a big part of notability is figure skating where Junior competitors regularly are at the top of the senior level (while they are still juniors). In cycling and track I think its very rare for a Jr. to be at the level of an Olympic senior. In general the jr. can always establish notability through GNG or later on when he/she accomplishes something in a sr. race, so I would like to error on the side of restriction to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL type arguments. Champions are probably notable without appealing to crystal ball arguments. --MATThematical (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that winning at junior level in cycling is not usually notable but winning at U23 level probably is (and they are usually riding at elite level the next year anyway). SeveroTC 20:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Another thing that may be too inclusive: that it is notable to have competed at some races (TdF, GI, ...). I agree that a cyclist who competed a recent race, such as the 2010 Tour de France, is notable, but I have my doubts on old races. The Tour de France for example was in its early years open to everybody who wanted to join. For the first four editions, there were some cyclists for which not even the full name is known. Since 1909, the riders were divided into different groups, and the secondary groups (names for these groups varied) had separate classifications, with separate prizes. Only from 1938 was everything united again. Should cyclists before 1938, who did not compete in the highest category of the race, be considered notable because of that? (This also holds for the Giro d'Italia and Milan – San Remo and probably the other races mentioned, but I don't know too much about them.)
The problem is probably not too large, as this affects maybe 200 cyclists (wild guess), and this number will never grow, but for some reason I wanted to mention it here. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Motorsports guidelines suitable for dirt racing?

There is currently a discussion over at the AfD for Andy Bachetti that is trying to determine whether he meets the requirements for #1 of the Motorsports guideline, "Have driven in a fully professional series." The problem is, in terms of dirt track racing, what types of series count as a professional series? I was thinking that the Super DIRTcar Series might, but I am not sure on that fact. Can someone help enlighten those of us in the discussion? SilverserenC 22:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, at that Super dirt car series article there are 33 yearly champions since 1976 and not one of them appears to have a wikipedia biographical article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The top two dirt late model series in the world, Lucas Oil Late Model Dirt Series and World of Outlaws Late Model Series IMHO barely pass the requirements of a professional series. Super DIRTcar is a regional series and not fully-professional in my educated opinion. -Drdisque (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That kinda makes it practically impossible for dirt track racers to have articles on Wikipedia. Should we just fall back to the GNG for them? SilverserenC 21:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes. Note that the other clauses of the guideline have provisions for exceptional Dirt Track Racers to be included (for example if they are inducted into a hall of fame). -Drdisque (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
So...how many dirt track racers are in a Hall of Fame then? SilverserenC 05:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The whole purpose of the guideline is to generalise when someone will meet the GNG, not provide limitations or exceptions to it. In cases of uncertainty notability should just be shown through sources rather than debating the minutae of this guideline. Quantpole (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

for tennis players

It s good to see the guidelines error on the side of being strigent but they are too so for tennis players. Where individual ATP Challenger Tour events are given WP article pages (for their draws), where is the consistently in insisting that they players who play them cannot be WP notable. An even greater omission from inclusion are Davis Cup players, many of whom are not ATP World Tour level but whose individual win-lose results are recognized by the ATP as being on par with World Tour and Grand Slam ones (in each players win-lose record listed on ATP.com player profile pages). From one who follows tennis closely, I suggest that notability be for any player who has won a Challenger level match and any player who has played a Davis Cup rubber. (I d also support a top 300 singles ranking and top 150 doubles ranking as criteria too but admit that these numbers are rather pulled out of thin air, sound very arbitrary.) Mayumashu (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


Those guidelines wasn't clearly developed and can be easily challenged. It wasn't created by experts in the tennis area. The creator of the guidelines himself did say that he "Don't follow tennis much", per here. And I can't also find any concrete concensus being made prior to the creation of those guidelines. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Below are some suggestions on what merits a professional tennis player a WP article:
  • Women tennis players who has won at least a title in the professional ITF Women's Circuit (this is considered equivalent to winning a match in the WTA Tour)
  • Players who has featured for their country in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or in the Olympic Games
  • Women tennis players who has been ranked in the top 500 in singles or in the top 250 in doubles should be considered notable by default
  • Men tennis players who has been ranked in the top 600 in singles or in the top 300 in doubles should be considered notable by default
  • Players who has beaten any other player ranked in the top 200 in the singles ranking or in the top 100 in doubles in any professional tennis tournament
  • Players who has won any junior Grand slam tennis tournaments to be considered notable by default
  • Any professional junior tennis players who has been in the top 5 of the ITF Junior world rankings [3]
  • Professional players who has significant coverage in the media
Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


  • I say (and have been saying) the top 300 (maybe 400) in singles and top 150 in doubles (at any point in one's career) for both men and women (we re thinking alike both 'an octave higher/lower'). I d take this a step further, ideally, and say for the 1980s the top 250 (singles) and 125 or 100 (can t decide now - doubles), as there were fewer players on tour, and prior to this, the 1968 - 1980, the top 200 (or 150) in singles (doubles ranking weren t kept); than for pre-1968, what, world top 50 for amateur and any touring pro, as there werent many
  • Instead of supporting any win over a top 200 (or any ranking number) as one minimum criterion, I d favour any Challenger level main draw match win as being a minimal basis (in either singles or doubles), in large part as we keep WP pages for drawsheets of Challenger events (and we should, I believe).
  • I don t favour giving notability for participation in qualifying for main draws, no matter the level.
  • I agree that players who have played a Davis Cup or Fed Cup rubber, no matter the group level, should be included (and Hopman Cup and Olympics main draw, too.)
  • I agree that junior grand slam winners are notable. And I d support ITF world top 5 ranked players (combined rankings are used) too.
  • I don t think media coverage would need to be a criterion, but if it were, than only national / international media outlets/outfits (what player we haven t covered with the other criteria would get media attention?) *(this is already covered by GNG anyway)
  • And for builders, organisers, national or international halls of fame
  • (I need to look some at the WTA tournament structure and its levels to make an informed statement on women's players - determine the equivalent of winning a men' Challenger level main draw match.)
Mayumashu (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


There are approximately about 1800 men and 1400 women tennis players who are currently ranked on the ATP and WTA. For women, players must earn ranking points in at least three tournaments to appear on the rankings. Here are some documents on the tennis ranking rules with points calculations. ATP WTA
  • For singles I'd go with 300–500. I suggests players who has been ranked in the top 300 to be considered notable by default while players who has been ranked between 301–500 to be considered notable only if they have won at least a title in the ITF senior circuit.
  • I suggest giving notability to players who have won at least a match in the qualifying round at any ATP World Tour, WTA Tour and Grand slam tennis tournament
  • I agree that any Challenger level main draw match win as being a minimal basis for WP notability
  • I agree to include builders, organisers, national or international halls of fame into notability guidelines
  • Also suggests giving notability to any tennis coach who has guided a professional tennis player into the top 10 of the world ranking
Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 23:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I ll accept (concede) that a qualifying win in a grand slam or ATP World Tour event can be a criterion too, and definitely agree with your idea for coaches - can t be overlooked. I m wondering then if any Futures tournament winner, regardless of ranking, is notable and wonder, in fact, if it shouldn t be top 400 for men and 350 for women in singles, and top 150 for men and 100 for women in doubles (all 'by default'). Singles tennis needs to be weighted somewhat as it is considered more prestigous (prize money and media coverage being two indicators). How would you handle going back in time where there were far fewer ranked players in the 1980s and 1970s? (Would you accept my suggestions there?) Apologies, still haven t looked at the WTA structure - not much of a womens sports fan, truth be told Mayumashu (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
WTA Circuit $25 000 to $100 000 tournaments are the equivalent of men's Challengers, aren t they? I guess then that a main draw match win in one of these would mean notability as would a tournament win in a $10 000 event, assuming it is like the men's where there are several $15 000 and $10 000 events a week but only three or five $25 000 to $100 000.
  • Detailed ranking suggestions:
    • Men's singles ranking — prior to 1980 (top 100); 1980–1989 (top 150); 1990–1999 (top 250); 2000–current (top 400)
    • Women's singles ranking — prior to 1980 (top 75); 1980–1989 (top 100); 1990–1999 (top 200); 2000–current (top 350)
    • Men's doubles ranking — prior to 1980 (top 50); 1980–1989 (top 75); 1990–1999 (top 150); 2000–current (top 200)
    • Women's doubles ranking — prior to 1980 (top 25); 1980–1989 (top 50); 1990–1999 (top 100); 2000–current (top 150)
  • Suggest giving notability to any men's tennis player who had won at least a title in any of the ITF Futures tournament
  • Suggest giving notability to any women's tennis player who had won at least a title in any of the ITF $10,000 tournament
  • Suggest giving notability to any men's tennis player who had won at least a match in the main draw of any ATP Challenger tournament
  • And suggests giving notability to any women's tennis player who had won at least a match in the main draw of any ITF $25,000–$100,000 tournament
I am not sure about the players ranking prior to 1968 (before Open Era). Maybe you can come out with some suggestions? Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 19:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The one thing I strongly agree with up there is that Davis Cup/Fed Cup players should be considered notable. If we consider participants in the Ryder Cup and other team golf competitions notable, it's only fair to give the same credit to the largest team tennis competition. I'm sure the participants get/have gotten a lot of coverage in their own nation's press. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey thanks, Arteyu, for inviting me to participate in this discussion. I'm sorry that I can't offer any advice on the subject though. My knowledge on tennis is limited. I do support the last listing of suggestions though. I'll be happy to work on creating templates and do infoboxes for the players that you guys finally decide on. My suggestion about the Open Era, would be to keep the number of players to be notable low. Not many people will recognize players from that era unless they are tennis history buffs. I'd be happy to help in anyway that I can. I fully support the final decision and like I said I favour the last listing of suggestions under this listing " *Detailed ranking suggestions: ". Tamer_of_Hope talk 19:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


I would be away from wikipedia for a few days or maybe weeks. So this might be my final proposal on the guidelines. Suggestions or opinions are greatly appreciated.

Final guideline modifications proposal
Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if
  1. The player is a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category
  2. The player has competed in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or similar international competition
  3. The player has competed in the main draw in one of the major professional tournaments:
  4. The player has won at least one match, in the qualifying draw, in one of the major professional tournaments
  5. The player has won at least one match in the main draw of any of the ATP Men's Challenger tournament
  6. The player has won at least one match in the main draw of any of the ITF Women's $25,000–$100,000 tournament
  7. The player has won at least one title in any of the ITF Men's Futures tournament
  8. The player has won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $10,000 tournament
  9. The player holds a tennis record recognised by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA

Tennis players who have been ranked per the below criteria are also presumed to be notable:

  • ATP men's singles — prior to 1980 (ranked 100th or lower); 1980–1989 (ranked 150th or lower); 1990–1999 (ranked 250th or lower); 2000–current (ranked 400th or lower)
  • ATP men's doubles — prior to 1980 (ranked 50th or lower); 1980–1989 (ranked 75th or lower); 1990–1999 (ranked 150th or lower); 2000–current (ranked 200th or lower)
  • WTA women's singles — prior to 1980 (ranked 75th or lower); 1980–1989 (ranked 100th or lower); 1990–1999 (ranked 200th or lower); 2000–current (ranked 350th or lower)
  • WTA women's doubles — prior to 1980 (ranked 25th or lower); 1980–1989 (ranked 50th or lower); 1990–1999 (ranked 100th or lower); 2000–current (ranked 150th or lower)

This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won at least a junior Grand slam title or have been in the top 5 of the junior ITF world rankings

Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, support User:Arteyu's suggestions for Open Era tennis, and in full, as according to this latest list. I would not include the phrase however 'and other such international tournaments' but stick to an exact list (be it the four - Davis, Feb, Hopman Cups, and Olympics - or with one or two others too that users see as fit), but otherwise, I like too the phraseology used to describe the criteria. As for pre-Open era, I m not sure but suggest winning a main draw match (don t know for sure if there were qualification rounds then) in any tournament that has gone on to be a Grand Prix or ATP Tour event in the Open Era (such as the Cincinnati, Canada, Italian, and Monte Carlo Masters); any main draw participant in precursors to todays Grand Slams, anyone ranked in the top 50 in the world, according to recognised authorities (prominent publications on the matter - as computer rankings were not kept then); and anyone paid to play, as pros then were few and to a man (I don t believe there were women touring pros) former notable amateurs. I don t know if that covers everyone. Mayumashu (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I wonder if we don t need to allow for NCAA div 1 champions, maybe top 3, 5, or 10 ranked, and/or all-Americans, a la as we do for basketball, football, if not other sports. then again, maybe NCAA tennis is not of the calibre of the major Amer. sports (but who decides this?) Mayumashu (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Good afternoon, Arteyu. Thank you for inviting me to the conversation as it's a lovely way to get back into Wikipedia, which I need badly at this point. I agree with the above suggestions, but would like to add another criteria that isn't exactly "statistic-based" (ie. rank, titles, prize money, etc.). I think that we should allow articles about players who are not necessarily highly accomplished players but those that receive some press or notability at a lesser level. Let me explain what I mean through example. The tennis player Blake Strode (notice the red marks around his name – his article doesn't exist yet, and won't until you approve of my writing it), recently won a national tournament that doesn't give him ranking points, but enables him to get a wildcard into the U.S. Open qualifying this year. This tournament, considering its lowly ranked players, received a lot of press. The finals of the tournament for both the men and women were covered on television, and several news articles appeared online. My suggestion is, that if you google a player (or use Yahoo, or any means of news for that matter) and they come up with results other than just an ATP, WTA, or ITF profile, that they can have an article. That way, you can back up their information by citing the article as a reference, etc. This is mentioned below but I just wanted to reinforce that here as well. Another idea is that if the player has an ATP biography they are of general note, but hardly ever do you find a player who has a biography that isn't already on Wikipedia. Also, with regards to the junior grand slams – I think that if you have a player like Michelle Larcher de Brito or Ryan Harrison who haven't necessarily played junior events but have enjoyed recognition on the tour and in the media. Lastly, I'm open to feedback about the numerous articles I've created, and it'd be interesting to hear if you feel that I am starting articles on irrelevant people (it's been so long that I cannot recall specific examples at this time). Thanks much! –– –THANKS! Tennisuser123 (yak!!) 16:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If I may chime in, certainly you don t have be notable both as a junior and a senior (or open) player - it s either or. The suggested criteria are meant to work that way - one is notable if meeting criterion A, or B, or C, down the list. As for that special new USTA tournament for a wild card into qualifying for the Open, I think that tournament should have an article based on the coverage, but not necessarily the players - they should have to meet our criteria (Cecil Mamiit does through Davis Cup if not his ranking - not sure off the top of my head. Has nt Strode won a Challenger match? checked and he did, Champaigne, IL challenger last year, beat Vince Spadea in 1R; but if he hadn t the event is notable and the player results for non-notable players should name these players without wikilinks) The trouble with any googled article is there is going to be a lot of local regionally written stuff - I m against saying the champion of Maine or Nova Scotia, for instance, no matter how well known locally, is WP notable (unless they happened to have be notable for other reasons or results too.) Mayumashu (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I'm sorry, but do you guys think this can be made consensus? I can see three to four people agreeing to some part of it, now can we change the guidelines to some of the modifications suggested here? Has been inviting many other wikipedians to join in but still not many have done so. And I also do not think that many would want join in a few days to come, and I don't see why it's worth waiting. My concern now are on the many tennis bios seeing hanging around in Afd waiting consensus to be reached. I need someone who are active on here to move some suggestions to the guideline page. Mayumashu? Can you do it? Or maybe someone else? Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 18:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think this proposal might be a little expansive. How many players who win a match on the Challenger Tour, or scrape into the Top 400-500 transitorily, will have the type of coverage that would enable us to write a decent biography? When a lot of liberty is given to editors to create articles on marginally notable subjects, it is inevitable that the articles will be created by enthusiastic editors and then neglected over time. That's why I prefer a restrictive NSPORT, and allow the GNG to be used for exceptional tennis players who don't meet NSPORT.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been holding back, but I'll chime in at this point. I agree with Mkativerata. Unless there is solid consensus to expand the criteria to be more inclusive, I would rather keep them as is, and require GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I've pointed out in my very first edit in here that the current guideline wasn't clearly developed and can be easily challenged. Mistakes can also be found very easily. Since when is the ATP World Tour 500 series and WTA Tour is a second level event? The second tier for ATP tournament is the ATP Challenger and the third tier being the Futures tournament. The first tier for ATP is the ATP World Tour (this includes the ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500 and ATP World Tour 250) while the first tier for WTA being the WTA Tour, then only the ITF tournaments comes in (I've mentioned all of these in my final guideline modifications proposal above). I don't think that the current guideline is valid. Can't hardly see any discussion being made prior to its creation except for here, which I don't think is near to being a consensus. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 23:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure, we certainly can't pretend there is consensus support for the current wording. Much of NSPORT was cobbled together by editors who were just doing their best to get something sensible up before it became a guideline. I recall I did Australian Rules Football and cycling - two sports I don't exactly follow. I have no problem with the ATP Tour part of the guideline, I just think winning a match on the Challenger Tour or being in the Top 400 might be a bit expansive.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you both make good points, now that I think of it. Maybe it would be easier to pare down the list of proposed modifications, leaving off, for example, the ones that Mkativerata sees as debatable, and just adding those that have not been disputed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Added criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and junior (per final guideline modifications proposal above) to WP:NTENNIS. For point 5 and 6 I've replaced "has won at least one match in the main draw of any of" to "has won at least one title in any of". Criteria 7 and 8 were left out. Ranking criteria weren't added pending further discussions and consensus. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 17:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work on this. Overall, I think it's good, but I'd like to scrutinize two points a little more:
  1. About criterion 4, "has won at least one match, in the qualifying draw, in one of the major professional tournaments", might that be too inclusive?
  2. Is the added language about junior players, Grand Slam title or top 5 ranking, also too inclusive?
I'm not saying that either of these things is definitely a problem. Rather, I'd just like to look at them a little more closely and determine whether or not they really have consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
A junior Grand Slam winner should be without doubt considered as notable. They have gotten overwhelming coverage in their own nation's press and I'm also sure that they passes the general notability guidelines pretty well. You can have a look at Tiago Fernandes, Noppawan Lertcheewakarn and Yuki Bhambri for instance. The top five ranked junior players also should clearly passes GNG as I could easily find significant coverage on them from the web especially from ITF websites. For a junior player to be highly ranked, they have to win many international Grade 1 junior titles. Seeding in any junior Grand Slam tournament would also be based on the rankings. Besides, tennis is one of the most popular sports on earth and I don't see why a top ranked junior player can't have an article on here. Still, it should be okay to me if you want to cut them down from five to only the top three. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 20:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Would it make sense, then, to delete the criterion 4 clause, and to change the junior top rankings from top 5 to top 3? I'm no expert here, just asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yea, that should be fine to me. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 18:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so catching up, it s likely to be top 3 juniors, plus junior slam winners (singles and doubles), okay. I d like to add finalists for singles, if possible. Then not top 400 but how about instead, top 350 (then top 250 for 1990s, 150 for 1980s, 100 for 1970s and then, what top 50 for amateurs in pre-Open era?). As for Challengers, why not make it quarter-finalists in singles and finalists in doubles? And for winning a match in qualifying - how about just grand slams. Then the rest as suggested. Mayumashu (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I've no objections on the ranking criterion as long as it is around 250 to 400. Also agree to giving notability to players who have won at least a match in the Grand Slam qualifying. I also have no hesitation on changing the fourth criterion if consensus can be reached but I'm not leaning towards giving notability to the junior Grand Slam runner-ups, it just seems to be a bit expansive to me. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 06:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

purpose of this project page vis-a-vis that of WP:GNG

Media coverage is the whole point, this criteria is to tell you when there is likely enough media coverage to warrant an article. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Media coverage is always there when there is notability for competing at a certain level, having a certain official rank (tennis, golf, pro bowling, etc.). chicken-egg. Mayumashu (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what this page does. It doesn't guarantee an article. It just says when a player is likely to have enough sources to pass WP:GNG. You can still get an article by not meeting it, and you can still have an article deleted by meeting it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Djsasso, I cut you off - is this a reply to the tennis player guidelines issue? Mayumashu (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, no worries. Yes it is. Just want to make sure that y'all were clear how this criteria worked. By some of your comments above it sounds like you think just meeting the criteria laid out here is enough. But that isn't how it works, you still need to meet WP:GNG and have enough media coverage to warrant an article. I don't know enough about tennis to know at what point players tend to get media coverage but that is something you need to keep in mind. This guideline is meant to be at what point is a player 100% guaranteed to have media coverage to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
The other user and I started to talk about how inadequate the tennis criteria were, at an AfD nomination and have laid out where we think we should cut off. Even with media, one needs to a cut off point - how local or regional is acceptable. The ranking / level of tournament criteria are another way to get to the same point - players with a certain ranking rather automatically get media attention (their tournaments do too) and those who happen not to are still notable according to their results (box scores, if nothing else - same as hockey). I guess where to draw the line with media needs to be stated too, unnecessarily so I say, but nevertheless to sure the whole thing up two ways. Mayumashu (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess it was comments like this "considered notable by default" that I reacted to. No one on this guideline at all is notable by default. No one gets a free pass, what we are trying to determine with this guideline is where someone starts getting press. Which usually doesn't happen for most sports untill a higher level. For example since I know you are familiar with hockey. Our guideline above requires a player to play in the NHL or have a number of years in the minor leagues. Everyone knows you start getting press for hockey alot lower as a junior player sometimes, but by making the guideline higher than where some players start getting it, you get a good point at which you can almost say its guaranteed they will pass GNG. I am not saying you need a line about media coverage, that is what WP:GNG does. What this guideline does is indicate at what level of play are players most likely to have the media coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
We're trying to establish some set of criterion that a tennis player needs to meet to enable him/her a WP article. And we're looking forward to form a clear consensus here; by building better tennis guidelines that can be generally accepted by others. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 23:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, which is why I think you are missing the point of this guideline. This guideline doesn't do that. This guideline is just a guide (ie rule of thumb) to when an article is likely to meet WP:GNG. That is the only criteria that determines when a subject can have an article. If a subject passes this and doesn't pass WP:GNG they can still be deleted. If they fail this and still pass WP:GNG they can still be kept. I notice you two are asking about this because of a deletion discussion, basically you guys need to be able to find multiple independant sources that talk about the individual. If you do that, it doesn't matter what it says on this page. -DJSasso (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've seen many association football player bios being created merely on the basis that they've played in a "fully professional" league and passes WP:ATHLETE, which quite a number of them I honestly think never passed GNG. And I've seen many sportsperson bios being deleted only because they've never passed WP:ATHLETE and never competed in any professional leagues or tournaments. Jon Main/Jon main is an example of association footballer who I think clearly passes GNG per [4] [5] [6] [7] but still having his bio being deleted numerous of times. I agree with you that the guideline is just a guide to when an article is likely to meet GNG, and I'd also agree that if a subject passes the guidelines and doesn't pass GNG they can still be deleted. If they fail it and still pass GNG they can still be kept. The issue on GNG and WP:ATHLETE are huge and I don't think it is appopriate to have a debate on it in here. What we're trying to do here is to have a discussion to reach consensus on the tennis guidelines, not on the GNG. With this discussion, we hope to make better the current notability guidelines for tennis players to be able to decide on which bios to be deleted or to be created in the future, and at the same time to decrease the number of Afd on tennis players. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 09:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
But it does matter what is said on this page, as GNG cannot function without it for sports and athletes. This and GNG are not exclusive items, as stated at the top of this project page. These criteria supplement GNG, in as binding a way as the criteria described under GNG - they inform whether an article can be kept just as GNG does. Essentially, there are a lot of athletes who have had media coverage but whose notability to a general encyclopedia are questionable and just a few whose notability would seem to be there (given reasonably strigent criteria) but who have lacked media coverage. GNG opens the door for a lot of athletes and the criteria here are about closing it to third and fourth tier, minor pros (hence 100 AHL games, ATP ranking of 350, etc. etc.). Mayumashu (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
No in designing this page we went through great pains to explain at the top of this page and throughout the page that this page does not overrule the requirement to meet WP:GNG. WP:GNG overrules this page at every step. This guideline just helps you to know if the article you are creating is likely to pass WP:GNG even if you don't have the sources right on hand. Its meant to tell if you are likely to find sources if you do a deep search. This guideline does not make the determination on if a player is notable or not. It says that right at the top of the page. And I quote This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria. It is not enough to make vague claims about the person's importance—the sourcing in the article itself must document notability.. It even bolds the part that says you still needs sources. This criteria doesn't close the door on WP:GNG. The reason it was developed was because people were using WP:ATHLETE to allow to many people in and too delete too many people. It was replaced with this, in order to try and stop the misconception that WP:ATHLETE overruled WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn t know there were users doing that... If we get the guidelines here right, then anyone who passes here will pass GNG by default, as we ve been saying. This doesn t mean this set overrules GNG - it just means there are in harmony, as they need to be. For me GNG, where it does not rule out regional or local media per se leaves the door quite open, more open than what we re establishing with this set of guidelines. Of course, we may not get it totally right, get the two sets in harmony, particularly as we are just starting, and the last arbiter is GNG, agreed. But this will be a moot point 99.9% of the time. Most importantly, these guidelines, in being more stringent towards the aspects of notability particuar for particular kinds of sportspeople, will inform discussions to keep or delete athletes far more than GNG will. Mayumashu (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, but what I am saying is that you can't use "Delete X because he doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS" which is what you are suggesting, if he meets WP:GNG then it doesn't matter if he doesn't meet this page. That is an incorrect use of this guideline which is why it says Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways. which means using WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay. For me then it boils down to two things and I apologise for my igorance. Wouldn t boxscores be considered coverage of the athletes mentioned in them? (If not, then GNG is not as inclusive as it seems to me to be; but it does seem very much, based on the wording of GNG, that the case for admitting them can be made.) Where does it say that this project page cannot have clout in determining keep or deleting of bios on par with GNG? Again, as I ve said earlier, I don t see this page is overriding GNG because GNG seems to me to be wide open, but you don t seem to see GNG as being so open. Mayumashu (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Grand Slam junior wins?

I was a very active editor editing tennis articles before my retirement, and I would like to bring this topic to your all's consideration, which it needs to be determined if it is a notable criteria. Also, you all can decide if other junior wins allow for notability.BLUEDOGTN 02:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Association football players

Well, the rules say appearing for a professional club makes a player notable, but I think it should be revised to have signed for a professional club. Most United reserves and Academy players have an article, but reserve and Academy leagues are not (per definition) considered professional. MichaelJackson231 (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thousands of players go through top flight clubs academies and play reserve team football before dropping into either non-League football or obscurity. --Jimbo[online] 13:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
What Jimbo said. Because it's such a massive club, some United players will pass the general notability guideline. Others have articles per this guideline, as seven minutes against Stockport in the Carling Cup changes everything. --WFC-- 00:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

40-man roster players

Are minor league players who were on 40-man rosters but are no longer inherently notable? Alex (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean baseball? You will want to ask at WP:MLB. Probably get a quicker answer there. -DJSasso (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the baseball section here indicates that minor league players are not inherently notable unless they otherwise pass WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
LOL I totally read the page I was on wrong, thought I was on the sports wikiproject...didn't realize I was at the notability guidelines. Its been a long day. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
At least you figured out that it was baseball! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, baseball. My apologies. Alex (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Football league matches

Several articles about a single English Premier League match have been nominated for deletion. Each afd's discussion goes differently, but I think that there should be guidelines in place to avoid the different discussions for each article. Does breaking a certain record for the league/club/player allow for an article for a single match? Or only cup finals get their own article? Should any "notable" league match just be included in the team's season page? Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 16:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Tennis notability AfD Issue

I noticed the discussion at the top of this talk page, but it seems kind of convoluted and isn't addressing what i'm here to talk about. I ran across this AfD and I felt rather confused, as the article in question is very clearly discussing a professional tennis player, as he has played in the ITF Men's Circuit. While it is, yes, the lowest rung of professional tennis, it is professional nonetheless.

Thus, you can understand my surprise when I came to this page to look up the specific additional criteria for tennis notability (expecting them to be something along the lines of having to have played in a professional setting, as almost all other sports notability requirements are written), but I instead found a rather stringent set of requirements that I think is far, far too restrictive for professional tennis notability.

So, what exactly should be done here, with the notability criteria and with the AfD? SilverserenC 22:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just having prize money doesn't mean an event is at the "fully professional" level. The ITF Men's Circuit very much falls in the category of semi-pro, which is routinely excluded from NSPORT and was specifically excluded from the old WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Then the ITF article needs to be written that way, because it describes itself as a part of the professional ladder right now, which is very much different from semi-pro. SilverserenC 22:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
So, I am to assume that the subject's ranking here and the "Turned Pro" year of 2004 are a sham? SilverserenC 22:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
A lot of thought went into developing the guidelines here. I haven't looked at the article or AfD to which you refer, and I'm not going to, so I can't answer in terms of the merits of that particular case. But the bottom line is that the subject needs to pass WP:GNG, and these guidelines indicate what a tennis player has to do to be likely to pass it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Again you're confusing "professional" (a broad adjective that encompasses "fully pro" and "semi pro") with "fully professional". --Mkativerata (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay, that makes sense. SilverserenC 22:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Mkativerata makes the key point here, and the necessary one for excluding ITF Futures level (i.e. 'Men s Circuit') players, the level of the player of the AfD mentioned. (ITF level players are basically those ATP ranked from 6 or 700 back to nearly 2000) - they are nearly all semi-pro. ITF Futures prize money is very low and few players at this level have endorsements beyond tennis wear and equipment, and then only some players have these - they are simply not making a living from competiting in the sport, the definition of full pro. ATP Challenger level players, however, may need to be included as most do scratch a living together just from their competiting on tour - at present they too fail the tennis guidelines. Mayumashu (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Rugby League

I think that Rugby league notability criteria are out of step with other sports as it is not explicitly clear what they are, you have to look into other places to get a firm understanding. With that in mind I propose to alter them so they more closely match other similar sports as thus :


Comments and suggested changes please. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league here. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Codf, an interesting proposal, there are a few finer points to resolve.
Item 1: I'm not sure what I think about this so I might respond again after thinking it through. Item 2 is fine by me.
I think item 3 is contradictory. "Fully professional competitions" doesn't tally with the earlier iterations of SL and the NRL. In 1895 broken time payments had been allowed and in 1898 professionalism was allowed but in the UK it was only possible for the top flight to be fully professional in 1996 (I'm not sure about Aus). If "fully professional" stands, most players from the first 100 years won't qualify for an article. If "fully professional" doesn't stand for these earlier iterations, why should players in other countries in competitions equivalent to past iterations of SL not be notable? Also, teams in the Championship (UK, second tier) are operating now at roughly the same level as they were before 1996 and are broadcast on Sky Sports.
Regarding the 'other personalities', there is no mention of administrators.
I think the commentator line has several flaws, seeming to focus on play-by-play commentators. First, rugby league is more than two competitions. What about other commentators: the historians and experts and those that write about aspects of the game other than Super League and the NRL?
I think the number of games refereed - which pre-dates your proposal - seems like it's been plucked from nowhere. Shouldn't there be consideration of awards, internationals and major finals? LunarLander // talk // 14:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Your point about "Fully professional competitions" - I was just taking that from other discussions, I don't intend it to exclude anyone from the first 100 years of RL - but understand the wording is not the best. Your point about other countries is also very valid, but looking at say Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Ice hockey as an example; I think that we need to explicitly define what is a Fully professional competition how about something like :
As for commentator line it was taken from the current "a consistent first grade rugby league commentator." with the aim of defining it, happy to see it award based or somthing like that.
as for referees - the simple solution may be to wrap them up with the same criteria as players - so if you referee a match for which the player would become notable so do you ?
Codf1977 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Challenge Cup has also been missed out. An SL squad player making his debut in the Challenge Cup is eligible, however I believe a Championship player is ineligible for an article after playing in the CC.The Infoboxer (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from but can't see how to justify what could look to some as dubble standards would it be better to just leave out the Challenge Cup for the very very few players that this affects and besides if a player for a SL team only plays in the Challenge Cup and never in the SL they are very soon going to pass the WP:GNG any way as a matter of press interest. Codf1977 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Then you are promoting players who have played at any level who take to the field in the Challenge Cup to eligibility for an article, that's alot of players to add into the mix.The Infoboxer (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No I am saying the exact reverse, don't include players who have played only in the Challenge Cup. 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't imagine that would go down too well in the Northern Hemisphere, maybe even the Aussies as the Challenge Cup has been very well regarded down-under. A move away from the standard as it is, ie a player plays for a SL team in the CC is eligible would eliminate a great many players from the first game being detailed there and then. It would also make a mockery of stats as they are included in the infobox and the proposal would see some of those games being unworthy of article creation. That would be a heinous crime indeed. To move away from the norm would not make sense at this point. Please tighten up the language so that only a player playing for a SL club in the CC is eligible, but to eliminate the CC would be blasphemous.The Infoboxer (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you give any examples of players that have played for a SL team only in the Challenge Cup and not in the SL it's self ? Codf1977 (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Codf1977 here. If someone only plays for a superleague club in the challenge cup then it is not likely for there to be significant coverage of that individual. Remember that this is a guide as to when someone is likely to meet the WP:GNG, so if they have significant coverage anyway it doesn't matter if they haven't competed at a certain level. Quantpole (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
A Challenge Cup appearance defo fits the WP:GNG bill. Whilst there is no sport that matches soccer for coverage, the challenge cup is reported on nationally and internationally. League Cup matches are sufficient in football for any footballer regardless of club. To remove the criteria in place regarding SL players only within the CC to no Challenge Cup would not make sense at this juncture, with the reasons given that it would be a double standard. Ammendments are made because we are trying to move forwards, not throwing the baby out with the bath water because it is deemed too difficult to find language sufficient to continue with the standard that is any player representing a Super League club in the Challenge Cup is eligible for an article.The Infoboxer (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The games may be reported on but the players may not be apart from to say that they played. To meet the GNG the coverage needs to be significant. And like I say, if they do meet the GNG then there is no problem. Why do you think that playing in the CC shows that a SL club player is notable but not a player for a lower division club? Also before getting too concerned about this particular issue, can you give any examples of articles it would effect as Codf1977 asks above? Quantpole (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
As for the SL player in CC is eligible for article, non SL in CC is ineligible position I would guess it is the continuation of policy. Most players go onto to make their second appearance within the same season, a few months later or sometimes the following fixture. I would be hesitant to remove criteria for eligibility, and by the same token I would be hesitant to open up the criteria allow players who do not fit the bill. Were a non SL club to reach the Wembley final and play in front of 90,000 people then it would need to be looked at. But at this time the status quo should remain.The Infoboxer (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
If someone makes their first appearance for a SL club in the CC and then goes on to make further appearances then great, it is likely they meet the GNG. If someone plays one game and then disappears without a trace then it is unlikely they meet the GNG. It is quite common for a SL team to put out a weaker side against lower division clubs which includes players who may not then go on to play in the super league. Quantpole (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As per this edit should the above be likewise amended ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Any first-grade appearance is worthy of article eligibility under the current guidelines. They are included within all club stats. I see no reason to move away from the status quo because some deem the language too difficult to tie down.The Infoboxer (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry I don't follow - the current guidelines are simply not clear, they leave it up to the reader to decided what is "a first-grade appearance", if you look at other sports they make it clear what leagues are at that level. All I am trying to do is to remove any uncertainty here. Codf1977 (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Then if it is the defintion of a first-grade appearance then every super league club defines a challenge cup game as a first-grade game and includes them in their statistics as such.The Infoboxer (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it's slightly different for internationals, insofar as that if you play in the world cup or for a major international team there will nigh-on certainly be enough coverage to warrant an article. But point 3 should probably be amended. --WFC-- 10:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry should have made it clear, I only meant point 3. Codf1977 (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok - how about this them :


I am open to adding a specific section on commentators, but need more input on what makes a commentator notable (see above). Codf1977 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The two game change is a real issue as the player has been reported on prior to the game, and then detailed following his debut, thus ticking the CNG box. I do not feel it necessary to move away from this, and to add in the Championship seems odd. Whilst I am not wholly opposed to Championship players being eligible it does seem a departure from first-grade debut to games to the new proposal.The Infoboxer (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The two games item is to cover WP:BLP1E issues, I am happy to change it to one but could cause issues later on with two conflicting guidelines.
The Championship players is as per LunarLander's point above "that today's teams in the Championship (UK, second tier) are operating now at roughly the same level as they were before 1996 and are broadcast on Sky Sports." again happy to see it removed, just trying to reach consensus. Codf1977 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I can certainly understand where LunarLander is coming from, if anything I probably lean closer to inclusion with that point. On the one event issue I would say that a professional sporting event is very different from those listed as examples. At this point sports supercedes that rule, if it can be applied here at all. By that I mean that professional sport has regimented fixtures, with teams competing year after year in age-old competitions, asking a question or praying are largely contentious issues where the events are infrequent or random events. It is the inherent notability of the sport and the national (or international) competition that is key, not whether the kid had a blinding debut.The Infoboxer (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to change the two back to one if WFCforLife (see comment above) is ok with it. Codf1977 (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Provided association football is left as it is I ultimately have little interest, but for the record I don't agree. If a kid has a blinding debut, the notability of having a substantial impact on a professional sports season would override all other concerns. He would pass the general notability guideline, making whatever we agree on this page moot. If another kid comes on as a last minute substitute or blood bin replacement in the same match without touching the ball, it would be laughable to argue he passes the GNG on the same grounds. --WFC-- 16:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, don't think a lad who as played just a few mins as a replacement could be said to meet WP:N automatically, safer to assume two games as a good starting point. In practice I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference as a player who has only played one game and with no coverage to meet WP:GNG would likliey be deleted at a WP:AfD anyway and could damage the reputation of these guidelines. As I said I am not bothered either way.Codf1977 (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So only international players from Australia, Cook Islands, England, Fiji, France, Great Britain,New Zealand,Papua New Guinea,Russia,Samoa, South Africa,Tonga and Wales can only be created but not others from countries like Serbia, USA, Canada, Jamaica...? YB 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No what these guidelines say is it can be presumed that anyone who meets them is very likely to meet the WP:GNG, even if a player meets them, if they do not have significant coverage elsewhere then any article about them might well end up being deleted, likewise a player might not meet these guidelines but could sill pass WP:GNG and it would be proper to have an article on them. The criteria for the list of countries is taken from what the Rugby League International Federation class as full Test playing teams. Codf1977 (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
That list would want attention because South Africa is on that list, but Ireland are not. That list on wikipedia is a few years behind the times.The Infoboxer (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Problem being the Rugby League International Federation does not have a working website with this sort of basic information on. Codf1977 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Building on point 3, at the moment I tend to use the reference on User:Jeff79's page as a guide:

Football played (or coached) at clubs in the:

  • NRL - include all
    • Toyota Cup - exclude all
  • Super League - include all
  • Pre-1996 Rugby Football League (regardless of division) - include all (unless someone has a better idea. I don't)
  • French domestic competitions - include all
  • New Zealand domestic competitions
    • Pre-1995 - include all
    • Post-1994 - exclude all
  • NSWRL/ARL/SL:
    • First-grade - include all
    • Non-first-grade - exclude all
  • Brisbane Rugby League & Newcastle Rugby League:
    • Pre-1988 first grade - include all
    • Pre-1988 non-first-grade - exclude all
    • Post-1987 - exclude all
  • Illawarra Rugby League
    • Pre-1982 first grade - include all
    • Pre-1982 non-first grade - exclude all
    • Post-1981 - exclude all
  • post-1995 Rugby Football League (e.g. National Leagues 1 & 2) - include some (see guidelines)
  • Queensland country competitions - include some (see guidelines)
  • New South Wales country competitions - include some (see guidelines)
  • Queensland Cup - exclude all
  • New South Wales Cup - exclude all

So I would propose two additional levels of first grade:

  • New Zealand club competitions prior to 1994 and the Lion Red Cup (1994-1996)

and

  • French domestic competitions prior to 2006.

This would include there competitions as first grade before they had clubs join the ARL and SL respectively. I like that international games are restricted to tests or WC games (do we include qualifying matches or not?) as this will stop the pages about US/Japanese/Argentinian/etc players who have player in one or two non-notable games Mattlore (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, especially on the Southern Hemisphere stuff as I can't profess to knowing too much about the comps, especially the older stuff. I think we would need to revisit international rugby league as USA and Jamaica are growing quick-time, whereas South Africa are listed as a Test-playing nation but have only just got back some real impetus into their developmental work. I would agree that the Japs and Argies would not be eligible, but the US international players would be, playing in international competitions and not being too far from qualifying from the 08 WC.The Infoboxer (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed that on User:Jeff79's page he says that list is for the rugby league biography infobox, as for what international teams to include, following on from other sports, it should be limited to teams that have full membership of the international body. Codf1977 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Someone will have to do some emailing and convince the RLIF to update their membership details because this is the closest we get to qualified information.The Infoboxer (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
There is also this which shows full members of the European Federation, which is interesting with regard to Ireland. Codf1977 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This is more up to date then their own homepage. At the minute I am happy to eliminate the UNRANKED teams WITH 'OFFICIAL OBSERVER STATUS', although even then Portugal have a professional player in the NRL and Catalonia may well feature prominently in the future. At this time it is best to eliminate the unranked teams and get someone to speak to the RLIF.The Infoboxer (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
We should not loose sight about what these guidelines are for, they are an indication as to who is likely to be notable automatically, so a player for Denmark could still be notable if they have received significant coverage, so given that would be happy just to take the Top 10 from that link. I will try and contact the RLIF and see if they have a up to date list. Codf1977 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe the top 10 is the way to go, a cull of televised teams, with internationally recognised teams being part of that cull doesn't seem right. The official observer teams should not have players eligible in the same theme that footballers who play for non-FIFA national sides. Lebanon's national sport would not have their players eligible for representing their country despite their games being televised in the UK and around the world. At this time only official observer teams are ineligible, with Italy and Jamaica competing at full international level, bu only since 2009 in Jamaica's case. Anything else would be a move away from the rl standard.The Infoboxer (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Members and rankings are available on the new RLIF website, currently at rlif.co.uk. LunarLander // talk // 00:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is the same as the list above (with the exception of Great Britain for historical reasons.) So that just leaves Mattlore suggestion to include :
  • New Zealand club competitions prior to 1994 and the Lion Red Cup (1994-1996)
and
  • French domestic competitions prior to 2006.
I have no strong views either way, other than I don't think that playing in any domestic cup should be a given unless it is for a top flight team - but we do need to be more specific in exactly what competitions . Codf1977 (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any further comments I propose this as the final version :

Codf1977 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think creditable reservations have been raised over international rugby league, and that list excludes countries that currently play full internationals, and includes one that has only recently set up a development program once again.The Infoboxer (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
But it brings them into line with other sports, these guidelines are not saying that someone who plays for another country in a full international is not notable, they still may be if they meet the the WP:GNG (the reverse is also true a player my meet the above but fail the WP:GNG and should not have an article). The whole reason for the change is to be clear as to what the community is looking for - at the moment it is not clear what "first grade rugby" is. Can you give an example of a player meeting the WP:GNG that would not be notable under the above proposals ? Codf1977 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Full international rugby league is inherently notable, and the current guideline removes some of those teams, but includes one that hasn't play test rugby league for quite a while. The IRFU detail their rankings but not what status each country is at, whilst the RLIF details are out of date, so who makes the cut their. The safest thing is to include affiliate nations as they play in full internationals, hell even Scotland and Ireland have failed to be recognised as international teams under the proposed terms, never mind a country whose national sport is rugby league in Lebanon.The Infoboxer (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Just adding a country to the list won't solve the problem, notability is not inherited so I dispute the statement "Full international rugby league is inherently notable" - Can you provide an example of a player that meets WP:GNG that these guidelines would not suggest is notable ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe full international rugby league being inherently notable is disputable, I just don't understand how a full international match does not fulfil criteria, past, present or future.The Infoboxer (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I dispute that anything is inherently notable (see WP:Inherited) - Can you provide an example of a player that meets WP:GNG that these guidelines would suggest is not notable ? Because if there is not then, it would seem to show that the above is more less spot on.Codf1977 (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that a player representing his country in a full international would pass the CNG, but you are proposing to remove the likes of the Irish who have played in numerous full internationals, despite being a member of the RLIF. I would assume players from the Ireland cricket team would be similarly sidelined by the proposal, but would still satisfy the CNG criteria.The Infoboxer (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I am saying that it is likely that a player playing in a full test match between two full members of the RLIF is likely to receive (or have already received) significant coverage. It is nothing to do with any given country. Also the last line reinforces that the WP:GNG which would mean any player that has received significant coverage to pass WP:GNG would not be sidelined as you put it. Codf1977 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
So CNG is passed, but now the proposal is only Test matches, what's next in soccer, so a friendly match is no good.The Infoboxer (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow your point - these guidelines are about RL - they are there to aid editors by indicating who is likely to be notable and meet the WP:GNG - I do not understand you objections, it would help if you can show examples of players who the current guidelines indicate are notable, who meet WP:GNG, yet these proposed guidelines say are not likely to be notable. Codf1977 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
So if they are an aid, why are we trying to eliminate pre-existing rules that state "Any current or former rugby league player who has none or limited first grade rugby league but has played in international representative fixtures is eligible for an article on the condition that it meets the general notability guideline including reliable secondary sources." At the minute my proposal is limited to eligibility of representative teams that play in full international fixtures, games the only the RLIF & RLEF can recognise as full internationals. To limit eligibility to the proposal on international rugby league, even if as you say, they would be able to go through the repechage system and qualify under CNG would not be a good move. My point is that it is not necessary to move away from the current guideline, merely tighten up the language and eliminate those countries who do not play in full internationals. As you say a player may well even qualify through CNG from these international friendlies or fixtures not recognised as a full international fixture, or tour warm-up fixtures, but should not do so automatically.The Infoboxer (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to eliminate anything, the aim has all along to is to clarify what is "first grade rugby league" and what level of RL a player normally has to play at to attract significant coverage - I have no wish to change the guidelines to remove anyone, but to have them accurately reflect the reality of the current situation - I ask again can you give any examples of anyone who the current guidelines indicate are notable, who meet WP:GNG, yet these proposed guidelines say are not notable ? Codf1977 (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

One possible example would be Wayne Rettie who scored two tries for Jamaica in their full international against the USA in 2009, who played international rugby league but because he now plays for the York City Knights in Championship One he would ineligble for an article under the proposed guidelines.The Infoboxer (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
He would - point 3 includes Co-operative Championship and Wayne Rettie played for Doncaster RLFC in 2009 in the Co-operative Championship (no comment on if he meets the WP:GNG). Codf1977 (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
He ticks all the boxes at the CNG after appearing for Jamaica and having that result reported on, detailing him and the team. It is becoming increasingly clear that the issue is FULL internationals and that internationally recognised matches that are given full international status would not be recognised here, removing the likes of Ireland, Scotland and the Lebanon even when caps is awarded every time you play for the team.The Infoboxer (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said he does meet the new guidelines but if you look at Google News I am unable to find ANY coverage of him appearing for Jamaica but rather it comes from playing for Doncaster RLFC which rather goes to prove my point. Codf1977 (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the issue is that he would not meet the proposed guidelines. I found 819 pages linked to him playing for Jamaica. I don't control what Doncaster put out on the internet that would supercede his international debut, and have no control over google news. His name is sometimes incorrected spelled as Riettie. I'm not sure what you're point is at this juncture.The Infoboxer (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong - he does meet the new guidelines, he has played for a Co-operative Championship side, recommend you re-read them. Please can you post a link to the search results. Codf1977 (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to add that if he had not played for the Dons, he would not meet the proposal for the new guidelines. [8] He has played a full international for a representative side who played in a ratified full international match. They are to feature in the RLIF sanctioned Atlantic Cup, are the RLIF to withdraw their support for the competition and remove it from the first-grade book of internationals throughout history.The Infoboxer (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

But the fact is he was playing for the Dons before he played in Jamaica's one and only match so the guidelines in this case worked. Neither of the two teams were made up solely of fully professional RL players which is what this whole page is about. Codf1977 (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're addition now would be that if a full international team contains someone who they drag out of retirement to play for the national side, that would be to the detriment of the team, but only here at wikipedia. The RLIF would still have it as an international match, but some weren't full time pro's and so regardless of the RLIF recognising it as a full international, we disregard that information and do not treat it as a full international.The Infoboxer (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not about who anyone would like to be notable, as I have said before it is about defining who is likely to meet the WP:GNG (have a read of the lead to the project page) The change to the guidelines is not intended to decided what a full international match is but to better define what a first grade rugby league match is. I have asked you repeatedly to list an examples where these new guidelines get it wrong, you have provided one person where the guidelines get it spot on, so unless you can show any more examples I think you are just wasting mine and your time debating a issue that has absolutely no actual effect. Also remember that in future these guidelines can be refinded to reflect the change in the game across the world, but as it stands at this time playing RL for Jamaica does not in and of itself indicate that you are likely to pass the WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case then a full international match is a first-grade fixture. Stevie Gibbons would not qualify under your proposed guidelines, despite maing in professional debut in 2004, but playing at club level no higher than the third-tier of English rugby league. Any international representative game would be considered a first-grade fixture, as long as it were recognised by the RLIF. At this juncture it would be best to refine the international line to something like "have appeared in at least one full international match for a recognised RLIF or RLEF member playing team (A "full international" is defined as a full member or associate member of either the RLIF or RLEF) (See Note 1).The Infoboxer (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Stevie Gibbons would be dependant on passing the WP:GNG (see Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) but your proposed change is just far to inclusive it would add to the list far two many players that don't come close to the WP:GNG, that are in no way professional players of the game, just to cover this example. How about change number 2 to "Have been named in final squad list for a Rugby League World Cup finals." the naming of the squad list is going to get coverage and this would cover Stevie Gibbons. Codf1977 (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That would open it up to players who may not have even played for their countries gaining eligibility whilst a guy like Stevie Gibbons who have appeared numerous times on tv representing their country of birth would be ineligible. This is a proposal on a new guideline that I believe is extremely exclusive, and my proposal which would eliminate players currently eligible for an article is described as "far to(o) inclusive." CNG would be passed unless international newspapers abandon reporting on international sports events. Reading through every aspect through the general notability guideline I am extremely confident that playing a full international match would satisfy this, unless the match failed to be reported upon and thus failing CNG. The assertion that international rugby league outside of the full-member group is to be considered second-grade is eroneous. Were it to be proved to be considered by the RLIF or RLEF to be a second-grade fixture then the guideline could and should be revised. At the minute I stand by my offer to cutting the list to member nations only, which is a considerable step away from where the current rules have us, and removes quite a few players from eligibility.The Infoboxer (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It is a possibility but highly unlikely a player would be named in a WC squad that has not played, please also consider that WP:ROUTINE is also an issue here, so what are the teams you would include ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Also these don't change anything - if a player is notable now, they will still be notable after the change - this is because these guidelines are only a guide to who is likely to meet the WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There were around 20 players at the soccer world cup that were uncapped going into the tournament. On the second reply I concur, we are ripping up the rules, over players who will still pass CNG. So surely the guideline is best to include international players, and remove those who do not play for the usual teams who consistently compete in full international games.The Infoboxer (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well who do you think we should include as "usual teams who consistently compete in full international games" ? Please name the teams as this is the problem with the existing guidelines there is no clarity to them. Codf1977 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


How about :

Codf1977 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to suggest the inclusion of:
"*New Zealand club competitions prior to 1994 and the Lion Red Cup (1994-1996) "
and
"*French domestic competitions prior to 2006."
Cheers, Mattlore (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem with adding the Lion Red Cup, however can you be more specific on what you mean by "New Zealand club competitions prior to 1994" ?, as for France, not so sure as the Elite One Championship is not even now fully professional so I think that should not be included. Codf1977 (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess the angle I've always looked at it from is that "first grade" rugby league should make you notable, ie the top level of domestic competition, instead of professional rugby league because fully professional competitions are a relatively new development. These are the competitions that representative teams are selected from. Before New Zealand had the Warriors, many players were selected from the domestic club competitions in New Zealand (Auckland club competition, Wellington club competition, Canterbury... etc) Indeed Kurt Sorenson was the first Kiwi selected from outside of New Zealand in 1979 I think, before this all Kiwis were selected straight from the domestic competitions. Teams such as Auckland also regularly defeating touring international teams so the standard was high (for the time). I think that merely including the two competitions that became the two professional leagues that stand out today doesn't give the full picture. (also, why would say a player who played club football in Sydney in 1931 be notable but not one who played in Brisbane? - this doesn't make sense to me, or does the BRL fall under "earlier iterations" before the Broncos joined the NSWRL competition?) Mattlore (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
These guidelines don't make someone notable or not, they just indicate who is likely to be notable and meet the WP:GNG, someone meeting them might not be notable if they have not received significant coverage then they fail the WP:GNG. My issue with the current wording is that it does not help as it leave two much open to interpretation.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we should not include pre Lion Red Cup NZ RL, I just think we need to be clear what is meant by that so someone coming along here can read it and say "Yes that person is likely to meet the WP:GNG". Codf1977 (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, fair enough. It just seems a bit of a double standard to include NSWRL pre WWII but not say the BRL or AucklandRL. Mattlore (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see them as not being included BRL players could be covered under both the GNG or the "earlier iterations" as for pre-Lion Red Cup NZ RL - what do you suggest ? Codf1977 (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I do see the argument you are making. Perhaps just to make it clearer where it says "Other Personalities surrounding the game..." change it to read "other personalities and players..." or personalities and older players or something. A change like this will just prevent people in deletion arguments saying things like "well he didnt play in the superleague or NRL so he is not notable" even if he was a ten time MVP in brisbane or something similar. Then you don't need to mention NZ or anywhere else because that loophole is made clearer. Mattlore (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair point how about

Codf1977 (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Should NRL have note 3 next to it? I think the international test match line might need a touch up. A test match can only occur between full members of the RLIF and even then a match between teams representing those members needs to be deemed to have 'test status' by either RLIF member or by the RLIF. I wonder if this line should be altered to talk about "competitive matches (tournaments, tests) between members and associate members of the RLIF and RLEF". LunarLander // talk // 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes - well spotted. I am happy with your proposed change (see below). Codf1977 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Some teams don't even want to give test caps out when you play France and they are a full member. The member thing is misleading as it is largely based on finances. It is development strength within a country rather than results on the pitch. The term "full international" was the one that I floated, this eliminates Guyana vs Haiti, but still allows Scotland vs Lebanon to have its value recognised.The Infoboxer (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
That won't work, as the term full international is open to interpretation and abuse with relation to up and coming teams. Codf1977 (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-worded following LunarLander's point :

Codf1977 (talk)

I'm pretty happy with this now, it's great to have such robust discussions. Mattlore (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems fine.--Jeff79 (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Been Bold and update page

I have been bold and updated the project page with the above version (with some minor copy edits). Codf1977 (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a few formatting changes, just for consistency with the rest of the page. It was not my intention to change anything substantive, so please do check that I didn't accidentally mess anything up. Thanks all. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I don't see how it has changed anything. Codf1977 (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks good guys, I've used it here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Wards in proposing the article for deletion. Mattlore (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ [http://www.rlif.co.uk/ rlif.co.uk
  2. ^ [http://www.rlif.co.uk/ rlif.co.uk
  3. ^ [http://www.rlif.co.uk/ rlif.co.uk
  4. ^ rlef.eu.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_5&oldid=1144605241"