Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Football/Notability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Notability of referees

I haven't been able to find any agreed standard for notability of referees. Am I missing something somewhere? If not, should there be an agreed standard? Omg † osh 09:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the football notability criteria at WP:NSPORTS, only referees who have officiated in "any officially sanctioned senior international competition" are notable. Presumably this includes Olympics, continental championships and World Cups. Hack (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it about national team competitions or club competitions as well? – Kosm1 fent 09:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International - refs aren't mentioned in the section regarding club football - this is the full text:

1.Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition (including the Olympics) are notable as they have achieved the status of participating at the highest level of football. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.

A strict reading of this also would mean a player representing their country in a friendly is not automatically notable if he/she was not already notable under WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Hack (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit ridiculous that someone like Phil Dowd, who has officiated for over ten years in the EPL, could fail WP:NSPORTS. Hack (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Dowd passes WP:GNG easily, but I think that referees that are fully professionnal (not WP:FPL) like in the Premier League, should be assumed notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very few referees are professional, the guideline should reflect that. Giant Snowman 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be about determining which referees are presumed to meet WP:GNG? Setting professionalism as a standard excludes the vast majority of elite referees outside England.Hack (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe presuming that FIFA referees meet WP:GNG would be a fair compromise. – Kosm1 fent 14:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but my point is that we shouldn't exclude the professional referees in England. But since most of the Premier League referees meets GNG anyways, I don't think we need to change what is written in WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brislington Ladies FC

Would anyone be able to comment on whether Brislington Ladies FC meets this notability guideline?— Rod ^talk 17:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Perera

Inquiring as to the notability of this potential Wikipedia article candidate. He's currently a soccer player with Milwaukee Wave and has seen time with San Diego Sockers and San Diego Fusion. As an indoor soccer player, does that make him notable in itself? In addition, he's represented the United States national futsal team as well as United States national beach soccer team. GauchoDude (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guideline

This discussion might interest some here, given the common issues of notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overhall per main project talk page

1st proposal: "A-list" clubs

I'll make one suggestion to get us started. I think part of the problem with FOOTYN is that is not detailed enough, and so we end up having to decide delicate matters of notability with a large, blunt tool, as opposed to a precise one. I think the current notability criteria causes imbalance, because not all professional clubs have similar inherent notabilities. For example, a club playing in the Venezuelan second division is a lot less notable than a big international club such as Manchester United or Real Madrid. I would propose that simply being assigned a first team squad number for United is a more notable sporting achievement (and in fact probably one that makes the subject more well known to the general international public) than playing a full season for a club in the Venezuelan second division, but at present FOOTYN doesn't reflect that.

What I propose is compiling a list of "A-list" clubs, players associated with which have a lower threshold for notability than those associated with other teams. What does everyone think? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, media coverage tends to focus on a particular league rather than a particular club (even Atlético Madrid received less weekly coverage after its relegation in 2000). Accordingly, I believe the proper focus is on particular leagues that generate enough media coverage of the players plying their trade in the league. Jogurney (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, that's kind of what I meant. "A-list" leagues could work in exactly the same way. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk - are you aware that the current agreed guideline relating to player notability lies at WP:NSPORT and not FOOTYN; the wording at the latter is effectively superseded. Therefore, it could be argued that discussion on changes to player notability should be made at Nsport, or at least, any wording changes talked about here should be aware that Nsport is the current guidance and thus the starting point. Eldumpo (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My limited experience suggests that current media coverage (English- or local-language sources) of football leagues is strongest for the following leagues: Premier League, La Liga, Fußball-Bundesliga, Serie A, Ligue 1, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Primera División de México and Primera División Argentina. There are several other leagues that appear to have strong coverage, but at a lower level, such as Eredivisie, Scottish Premier League, Russian Premier League, Portuguese Liga, Allsvenskan, Gambrinus liga, Superleague Greece, Süper Lig, Liga I, Ekstraklasa, A-League, Major League Soccer and J. League Division 1. I don't read Arabic, but I suspect that top-tier Moroccan, Algerian, Egyptian, Saudi, Emirati and Qatari leagues may have similar coverage. I'm sure I have missed some leagues which get a decent amount of coverage (possibly the Serbian SuperLiga) so please don't take offense. Jogurney (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason we have to be restricted to just two tiers. We could have a "top tier" consisting of the English, Spanish, Italian and German top-level leagues, for example, and several tiers below that. Alternatively we could keep it simple with two tiers, but the crux of what I'm trying to suggest is that I think the very top clubs (and thus their players) should be afforded special recognition in terms of notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this part of Basalisk's post: "I would propose that simply being assigned a first team squad number for United is a more notable sporting achievement (and in fact probably one that makes the subject more well known to the general international public) than playing a full season for a club in the Venezuelan second division" Are there any reliable sources to back this claim? If a non-debutant in a famous club is given a squad number and he gets "more well known to the general international public" as Basalisk says, that will certainly show in the amount of coverage this player gets and will ultimately help him pass WP:GNG, isn't that right? Simply assumining that fact without evidence is way inappropriate, as we'll get tons on articles on youth players who have never played in a fully professional league, with their only claim of notability being awarded a squad number. Please. I'm not saying that playing in the Venezuelan second division should be considered notable either, and I would totally support a redesign of WP:FPL with a two-tier system, similar to the one proposed by Basalisk, which would actually apply to players which have appeared in such leagues. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 18:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. This isn't about WP:GNG - every subject must pass GNG. The point of additional notability guidelines is to establish a set of conditions under which we presume that the subject passes GNG. That is what we are trying to do here. I would imagine any player in the United first team would be easy to verify using reliable sources, and simply having a first team squad number for such a club is a strong indication that the subject passes GNG. Conversely, I don't think that appearing for a team in the Venezuelan second league is a strong indication that the subject passes GNG, and yet under our current guidelines the latter player is deemed notable and the former not. I don't think this is logical. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second proposal: promotion and relegation

This has been well established in previous discussions and so is nothing new, but the project would still benefit from having it written into the proposed "constitution" that was discussed on the main topic page. Current consensus is that when a team is relegated from/promoted to a league, they do not officially change leagues until the current season ends (which is usually around June). We should establish a specific date for use on wikipedia for when clubs officially change leagues. Obviously exceptions will have to be made for leagues that run at different times of year to the European leagues and don't end anywhere near June. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was recently discussed at WT:FOOTY (here, and to me it looks like we have moved away from the fact that the season ends in June/July, since noone really knows this and the IP's are changing this right after the season ends. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. We could establish that the league should be changed after the club in question's final game in their old league is complete, or whatever else. I'm not trying to dictate what the standard should be, I'm just suggesting that we should have an established standard which is documented and easy to refer to. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought it would be more tidy to work off the date of the last match in the league in which the team is competing. It's probably a bit pedantic but it is a clearly defined line in the sand. Hack (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flag days don't work. Just accept that during periods of change, our coverage will be erratic. I should really write an essay on this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this free-n-easy approach is that players end up being quoted as playing in one league, and then actually play in another that weekend. This isn't erratic, it's plain old inaccurate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

I feel this essay needs major overhaul to bring it up to scratch. Giant Snowman 12:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, or at least, an overhaul/complete rewrite. I suggested this at NSport a few days ago and you seemed to think the wording was basically OK. Eldumpo (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Player notability

Our player notability should match WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's made clear in the intro that player notability is determined via Wp:Nsport. We could delete the old wording for completeness. Eldumpo (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording along the lines of "The relevant Wikipedia policies which focus on player notability is WP:NFOOTBALL, which says..." ? Giant Snowman 19:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit concerned about pre-professional footballers who didn't represent their country and NFOOTY doesn't mention anywhere – they didn't play in a fully professional league, but some would deserve inclusion. Or it's a matter of passing GNG? – Kosm1 fent 19:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should match NFOOTBALL 100%, and any changes should be made on that page - but it would be down to GNG, again. Giant Snowman 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Club notability

Perhaps here we should make it more clear that clubs articles, especially those about low division teams, should pass GNG? – Kosm1 fent 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should pass GNG ;) Giant Snowman 19:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the main one that needs sorting out. Different countries use different cup entry criteria so it just doesn't work to have a "rule" where cup entry indicates some kind of notability. At the moment there are too many non-notable clubs that just get a free pass because they played in a preliminary round of a cup sometime in the last 100 years, even though they don't receive any sort of independent coverage. Big Dom 13:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have now drawn attention to the Club Notability Tables (and Test) at WT:FOOTY. Kind regards. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I think don't true for old definition of WP:FOOTYN. It is fixed national cups such as Thai FA Cup, Chinese FA Cup, Emperor's Cup and etc. to determine Notability of Football club. It doesn't true because a lot of clubs don't join any national level of the league structure in countries can play national cups. especially knock-out national cups. You must fixed national league structure in countries and don't fixed national cups. Aquaelfin (talk) 4:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

League notability

I'm pretty happy with the wording there. – Kosm1 fent 19:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the wording should change to say 'the main national cup' rather than 'national cups', as in the case of England the FA Sunday Cup would otherwise confer notability on a lot of sunday leagues. Eldumpo (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, of course. – Kosm1 fent 08:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Player notability criterion 4

This is possibly the most badly written thing I have ever seen. When was the "pre-professional (amateur era)"? Which country are we talking about? Are countries that have never had professional football still in the amateur era, are players in the national divisions in those leagues notable? BigDom (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly referring to early British/European football (i.e. pre-1914?) Giant Snowman 09:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I know that (not sure about the 1914 date though, I would have said pre-1890-ish) but I doubt our more international editors would have been able to fathom that. Have you ever seen this criterion used as a rationale for deletion/keeping? Does it really serve any purpose? Surely these players would just have to come under the remit of GNG anyway. BigDom (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said 1914 purely because the criteria was probably written at the same time as this category was created. Giant Snowman 10:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Player notability clarification

I would like some clarification on point 1 of player notability, when it says that a player has played a game for a full-pro team does that include single testimonial games as well? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, point 2, "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable"? And no, that does not mean testimonials, that is just a friendly match. Giant Snowman 19:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't. Point 1 says "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure" and that is what I was asking about. Is the original point made still valid? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about WP:NFOOTBALL which is what we use nowadays. Nobody ever cites this essay, it's not fit for purpose. Giant Snowman 19:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Club notability criteria update

I would like to propose a change in club notability criteria by adding "If more then half of teams in a particular league are considered as notable (already have own articles), then all other teams in the league are automatically considered notable." It just makes sense that if majority of teams in the league (and league itself) are notable, then other teams as member of this league should be notable as well. As a result we won't have leagues like Canadian Soccer League, where all top division teams participating in last 9 seasons covered by Wikipedia have their separate articles except one - Burlington SC, their article is being rejected for "lack of sources", even the fact, that plenty of bookmakers have this league in their offer [1] isn't enough. I believe this needs to be changed. We should be able to create such articles, so other users may improve it not mentioning to make Wikipedia better and more complete. Yxifix (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of club notability criterion regarding national cups

I just had a {{db-corp}} on FK Borac Ostružnica overturned because it previously survived an AfD in 2011. The reason it survived is because the club was in the Round of 32 in the 2011 Serbian Cup (I have added this fact to the club article to prevent further CSD nominations). My question is "At what point do we draw the line regarding national cup competitions?" I can agree that the Round of 32 in any national cup competition is enough to meet WP:FOOTYN, as that level should include most (if not all) clubs from the top tier and those from lower tiers skilled enough (or lucky enough) to advance that far. Any other thoughts? — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in the tournament proper (i.e. not the qualifications) has always been deemed to be sufficient. Giant Snowman 09:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English County Cup seasons

Are they notable? I have just stumbled across this article - for the 2014–15 Cheshire Senior Cup - I'm pretty sure I had a season article for the Sheffield & Hallamshire Senior Cup deleted once Kivo (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English club notability

Is there any chance we could set definite paremeters for the notability of clubs in England? For years we've had discussions regarding whether clubs that have competed in the FA Vase are notable. (here, here and here amongst many others).

The semi-agreed consensus has always been that a club that has competed in the FA Cup, Trophy, Amateur Cup or Vase is worthy of an article.

There are thousands upon thousands of clubs who have competed in one of the above four competitions. Hundreds of these will have played fewer than a handful of games in front of fewer than a handful of fans - and these are supposed to be notable?

Personally, I believe only clubs that have competed in the FA Cup should be notable, as this is THE national cup (not sure why the Trophy, Amateur Cup and Vase qualify for this)

If we are going to continue to allow clubs that have played in the Trophy, Amateur Cup and Vase to be deemed notable, I think we should at least have a cut-off point to weed out those who only played a few games in the qualifying rounds.

My proposal would be for clubs to have made it to the First Round proper of the Trophy, Amateur Cup or Vase to be deemed notable.

Clubs that have played in the Trophy should have played in the FA Cup anyway. Clubs that haven't reached the 1st Round of the Amateur Cup or Vase, and have never played in the FA Cup, should not be eligible for an article in my opinion.

Are we up for reaching a consensus on this one?

As shown in the links I posted earlier, there seems to be an appetite to change the rules, but we never seem to actually get anywhere! Kivo (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with the current consensus, and certainly no reason why it needs to become more restrictive. I'm slightly bemused by the claim that there seems to be appetite to change the rules, as I don't see any. Number 5 7 13:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is a list of clubs who played just one game in the FA Amateur Cup -

1st Kings Dragoons Guards (1932)
1st Queens Royal Regiment (1926)
1st South Lancs Regiment (1900)
1st Welsh Guards (1924)
1st Yorkshire Regiment (1900)
2nd Royal Fusiliers (1904)
2nd Training Battalion RAOC (1951)
37th Company GRA (1910)
5th Company BB OB (1925)
12th London Regiment Rangers (1924)
16th Company RGA (1910)

As you can see, the above is an alphabetical list of clubs (before you even get to A...) that played just one game in the FA Amateur Cup. Are they notable? There are hundreds of these clubs in the Amateur Cup alone, before even starting with the Vase. I think a cut-off point of 1st Round proper would cut down on the amount of pointless articles. Kivo (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referee notability

Can we have a section on them? I an looking at Category:Association football referees and it's not pretty - most entries I checked are stubs, with next to no sources outside their homepages or tiny bios/profiles at their official organizations (FIFA and lesser ones). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be added - probably worth gaining consensus at the main WT:FOOTY page to decide what the guidelines are. Giant Snowman 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_98#Referee_notability, they have no inherent notability due to their position, so it's either meeting another NFOOTY/GNG req, or not-notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 19#Referees- criteria for notability led to the change at WP:NFOOTY. 04:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting Club Notability

Several current AfDs regarding clubs in the National Premier Soccer League have brought up questions regarding club notability. Since this essay has not really been updated in a while, I feel a review of notability guidelines is necessary.

I understand that in several European nations, especially in England, 4th-tier clubs are quite notable. Some editors try to translate that same 4th-tier notability to clubs in North America. However, outside of local coverage, most 2nd-tier and 3rd-tier clubs in the United States and Canada probably receive less visibility than 4th-tier and 5th-tier clubs in England, and thus are not as notable.

The current club notability guideline reads:

All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.

That language is definitely confusing, as clubs that are eligible for national cups but have not actually played in the national cup competition (e.g. a high number of USASA clubs) are left in a sort of limbo; they are not explicitly presumed to meet WP:N, but also are not stated as having to meet WP:N. This confusion was also highlighted in an AfD where the club participated in the preliminaries for the national cup, but did not make the final competition. There is also the situation with FC Montreal and Whitecaps FC 2; they are in the United Soccer League, which is recognized as a WP:FPL, but they are not presently eligible for the Canadian Championship. (I don't doubt they meet WP:GNG, but there was a time that they did not.)

I'd like to propose the following change to the club notability language:

A club is presumed to be notable if:
1. it has participated in the final tournament for the national cup,
2. it has played in a fully-professional league, or
3. it has played in the nation's highest league, regardless of professional status.
All other clubs must meet notability guidelines.

Comments? Questions? Concerns? — Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be completely opposed to the wording as proposed, particularly the first bullet point. We have a long-standing consensus via dozens of AfDs that playing at any stage of a (not just "the") national cup is enough to confer notability, even if it's in the preliminary or qualifying rounds or a competition like the FA Trophy or FA Vase (see e.g. here).

As a counter-proposal, I would say:

A club is presumed to be notable if:
1. it has participated in a national cup,
2. it has played in a fully-professional league, or
3. it has played in a national league, regardless of professional status.
All other clubs must meet notability guidelines.

I understand your concern, which is exactly why I have asked for comment. I haven't participated in many too club AfDs, but I do recall that FK Trudbenik Beograd was deleted because it hadn't made the final competition of the Kup Srbije. However, if every club that participates in qualification is to be considered notable, then why not just change the wording to "All clubs in notable leagues are considered notable," since the teams either take part in qualification tournaments, or the regular season results are used to determine qualifiers (thus all teams participated in qualification). — Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ("all clubs in notable leagues") would be going too far. We have many articles on leagues in England where the league is considered notable, but individual clubs not. That kind of qualifier could result in thousands more articles (on clubs that play on park pitches). Number 5 7 22:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be the national competition as opposed to a national competition. Number 57's concern that thousands more articles for clubs playing on park pitches is already an issue when it comes to clubs that have played in the FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup and FA Vase. In England, I think it should be FA Cup only.

I would say a club is worthy of an article if it has -

1. Played in the national competition (proper or qualifying rounds - with an exception for the Coupe de France where clubs need to have participated in the competition proper).
2. Played in the highest league level in their country.Kivo (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying rounds are counted, and not just first round proper, really? Step 6 (Level 10) in English male football, and Step W5 (Level 7) in English female football (the bottom level in half the country)... okay! -- KTC (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bulgarian Cup making you notable?

So, after a lot researches I didn't found a proper answere of this question, i'm going to search for help here. I notice that if player played for the national cup in countries like England, Germany, Spain, France ect, he is becoming notable and the player gets a article. Everything is ok, but i don't find any rule that allows this or seying these cup are making players notable and if this is correct, could I made an article for players who have played in the final turnament of Bulgarian Cup? If Final turnament in fully professional leagues is making you notable this should work and for others leagues. I wanted to be sure that i'm on the right way before making the articles. Chris Calvin (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of seasons

Two Eastbourne Borough season articles (2008–09 and 2009–10) are proposed for deletion, with the reason that seasons at this level are not notable, and links to AFD discussions. Another article, 2008–09 York City F.C. season is a "good article" - are the others potentially good articles similar to this and should be restored or does this also have to be deleted? Peter James (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be exceptions to the rules, and this is probably one of them. However, generally there is agreement that these shouldn't exist (I believe the consensus developed after the York City one reached GA standard). Number 5 7 10:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems a little arbitrary to delete some seasons but not others. I can understand the reasoning that seasons at sub-FL level could be deemed not notable, but can't quite understand why some would be kept and others not? The 2008-9 Conference season has 8 teams with season articles, for the 2009-10 season there are 12. Yet only the two mentioned above have been proposed for deletion. Surely this general consensus should be generally applied or not at all? BoroFan89 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this proposal has been raised before - back in 2008/9. I would recommend deferring deletion based on the argument that the general agreement lacks clarity and consistent application – therefore I find it not constructive to delete articles until there has been a proper debate and this becomes common practice. Further, it is worth mentioning that for the current season of the Conference National every single club has a season article. BoroFan89 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been numerous AfDs and the vast majority have resulted in deletion. Number 5 7 15:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on player notability page creation

I have had a few disputes with other users regarding whether players meet notability criteria. Can someone clarify whether a player who has only featured in a domestic cup competition for a professional club versus another professional club (but NOT featured in the domestic league) would be considered notable and thereby acceptable for a new page creation for that player?

Example: Ben Tilney featured tonight for MK Dons versus Peterborough United in an EFL Trophy game - both obviously professional clubs. He has yet to make his league debut. He does not have a page as yet, but would him featuring in the cup game tonight make him 'notable'? FilthyDon (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that something like this does meet the spirit of the criteria, as long as the match is between two clubs in fully professional leagues, as in this case. I see that since the question the Tilney article has been (re)created without any problems. Jellyman (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - playing for a FPL team against another FPL team in a competitive match is enough for NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to tighten our notability guidelines

After having read just somewhere into the Bs at least at glancing level of every article in the 1988 births (which has just shy of 15,000 articles), I have seen way to many one line articles on footballers sourced only to their club website. I am beginning to wonder if we have the resources to reasonable have even minimal quality articles on everyone currently considered notable under our guidelines. I am thinking that maybe there needs to be a revision of the guidelines to exclude from notability people who played in very few games and maybe some others who for whatever reason have not gotten much notice. I am not sure exactly how this would be worded, and I am not even sure if this is the best place to make the suggestion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current guidelines are clearly the best reasonable option. Introducing a cut off point for the amount of matches would be ridiculous, why would a player with 50 games be notable but not someone with 49 for example? This seems more like an attempt to move the goalposts because your recent failed AfDs have landed you at ANI. Kosack (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naples United FC

This is my first AfD regarding a soccer/football club/league, and I'd like you guys to come and comment on it because yall will know all about the notability guidelines and precedence and what-we-agreed-on-for-other-articles. Thanks L3X1 (distant write) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Futsal Notability question

Item 1 in WP:NFOOTBALL says any player who has played in a Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, The reference behind that clause, in reference to tier 1 internationals says: These regulations apply equally to association football, futsal and beach soccer.. Does that mean all international futsallers pass NFOOTBALL once they play a match? Like These Kids come September? ClubOranje^T 12:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, NFOOTBALL guidelines apply to association football players only. Giant Snowman 19:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote for club section linking to the actual SNG section on team notability

I have twice been reverted by Number 57([2][3]) for adding the following supplemental hatnote to the club notability section at WP:WikiProject_Football/Notability:

Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, teams are required to meet the general notability guideline. The following guidance may indicate at what level teams generally meet the GNG, but should never be used as an argument of inherent notability. When the notability of a topic is challenged, adequate sourcing should be demonstrated.

This essay makes claims about the notability of clubs, and is generally useful at identifying what clubs should be targeted for creation. However, it is commonly used directly as an argument for keeping or deleting in AfD discussions (active example). This is of course inappropriate, as notability in AfD discussions should be related to sources per the GNG, or the relevant SNG (in this case WP:NTEAM points at the GNG). I had previously softened the wording to 'generally' hoping to forestall this, but given recent examples, this has been ineffective. A similar comment already exists for the 'player' section. A comment on the club section discussing how this page should/should not be used now seems necessary. Please discuss. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's simply no need for this text as this page is clearly an essay. In particular, the "should never be used" part is unacceptable. Editors can refer to essays during discussions if they wish. If someone is unhappy with them referring to it, they can point out that it is only an essay. This addition just seems to be a point-making exercise. Number 5 7 23:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using it as an argument for notability as if this page is an SNG is unacceptable. Please stop saying I am being pointy, the issue is one of inappropriate usage, therefore a warning against such usage is warranted. Having an ambiguous link like WP:FOOTYN (the link looks very similar to WP:NFOOTY) redirect to this page is a problem if it is not apparent that the actual SNG related to Teams (WP:NTEAM) says something totally different. Without comment as to the differing content of NTEAM, the FOOTYN redirect is the real problem here. I'm trying to address the issues without having to take the FOOTYN redirect to MfD, but that might be necessary if this page continues to be mistaken as an SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: If you have any suggestions for alternative wording, I would be happy to hear them. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the essay tag at the top of the page covers it all; this is the general opinion of the football WikiProject but is not a formal policy or guideline. Also, NTEAM is not an SNG; it's a note regarding the absence of an SNG. I don't believe anyone is mistaking this page for an SNG – people are aware it's an essay. Number 5 7 13:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is continually coming up as an argument to retain in AFDs. That's not acceptable. Sure, maybe people are missing that this is an essay, or what the point of an essay is, but it is muddying the waters at AFD. Either the section about team notability needs to be removed, or this whole essay deprecated in favor of the consensus-vetter NSPORT. --Masem (t) 14:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe an essay can be deprecated, as it has no official standing anyway. I also don't believe removing the section is an acceptable solution. People quote essays all the time at AfD (e.g. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); if it's pointed out that this is an essay, then any decent closing admin will take this into account. Number 5 7 15:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These actions of removing this important information by @Number 57: is going to unnecessarily cause confusion in debates/ argument to retain in AFDs. Whilst there is merit with the points about being an essay, the theoretical stance of Number does not sufficiently take into account the practicalities of the AfD process. Matilda Maniac (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that essays should not be used in any formal discussion. In the midst of a discussion where editors are linking policies and guidelines with too many shortcuts, it becomes hard to distinguish between a valid link and an essay. Essays have not gained community consensus and have no weight whatsoever. --Gonnym (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Number 57 is the only one opposed, and comments seem to have died down, I have restored the notice. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Four days is not enough time for discussion. I just saw this a few minutes ago, only after it was supposedly decided. I've reverted it back for now, we can discuss more and come to a consensus. But four days isn't enough time to do that. As for the matter at hand, I agree with Number 57 that the text at the top is adequate - that it represents general consensus of the Project but is not actually a policy or guideline. There's no need for anything more, and to say something never ever applies is a bit extreme for me. What we have now is sufficient. If people have a problem with it being used at AfD, they can take it up there and establish consensus that it should not be used and the article should therefore be deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: Note that my comment above wasn't closing the discussion, and that there had not been any comments for several days. To address your comment, the issue is that people are still citing this page as if it were an SNG, which directly counters the statement that "the text at the top is adequate". "If you have a problem with it, get consensus that it can't be used." is backwards; guidelines establishing notability rules should have community consensus BEFORE they are used as a presumption of notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Smartyllama raises a good point here though – this page is supposed to represent the views of the WikiProject and this additional statement would not appear to be doing that. And again, you can't stop people quoting an essay just because you disagree with its contents. Number 5 7 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's consensus. I wouldn't mind a change to the wording, but I think we should have a presumption for clubs in the same way we have a presumption for players. I've created a few African football club stubs and I want the presence of mind to know these will be kept at AfD, as many newly promoted clubs, especially in non-English speaking countries, may not pass WP:GNG in English-language sources upon their first promotion. I'd also want to see guidelines for interpreting WP:GNG for clubs, as often routine sources will be discounted even if the club has been consistently covered in the media. Presumably notable clubs shouldn't have WP:PROMO concerns. SportingFlyer talk 17:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: This comment has nothing to do with the notice I put up, and if you want to discuss creating an SNG for teams this is not the place to do it; that is the entire point of the notice, to point out that this page is not an SNG. As for "I want the presence of mind to know these will be kept at AfD, as many newly promoted clubs, especially in non-English speaking countries, may not pass WP:GNG in English-language sources upon their first promotion." First of all, 'english language sources' are not and have never been required to meet the GNG. Second of all, if the sources don't exist, the topics are not notable, period. Why would we ever create an SNG for teams that presumes notability of teams at a level where they aren't likely to have sufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines? That doesn't make sense and is contrary to WP:5P: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources.". If we can't cite "reliable, authoritative sources" then we shouldn't be making articles about things. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: A couple things - you were right about me not commenting directly on the hatnote, apart from the lack of consensus. However, I still don't think it's necessary - it reflects how the project views club notability, and if you look at some of the non-notable clubs that have come through recently, leaving it the way it is actually serves as a reason for deletion. In any case, I'm going to keep quoting WP:FOOTYN in club articles as I think it best demonstrates community consensus on what should or should not be kept.
Also, in terms of sourcing being available, earlier this year I created a stub for Vihiga United who had been promoted to the Kenya Premier League. The sources in the article are basically placeholders, but there's a lot of coverage on the club for someone who wants to flesh out the article - but that coverage didn't necessarily exist until they began play. I'm also a little concerned because of the way recent AfDs in non-English language speaking countries have gone, WP:GNG isn't difficult to meet but there are differing interpretations on how to apply it to football organisation articles. SportingFlyer talk 05:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get it at all SportingFlyer. your comment: "if you look at some of the non-notable clubs that have come through recently, leaving it the way it is actually serves as a reason for deletion" is terrible, and exactly the opposite of what we want. A team can very easily qualify for GNG without meeting the criteria on this page and vice versa. Encouraging users to use FOOTYN criteria as a reason to take a team to AFD (or not take a team to AFD) is exactly contrary to the actual advice about teams to use the GNG. Users should be doing a BEFORE search before tagging anything for deletion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get it. My point is taking a sports article to AfD purely on GNG grounds often leads to confusion and inconsistency. If NFOOTY is met, GNG is likely met as well, but not always. If NFOOTY isn't met, GNG can still be met, but it's less likely than not. It's a benchmark. SportingFlyer talk 21:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no downside to adding a note to make sure that this essay is used appropriately. The essay box at the top is easy to miss while scrolling down to the "club" or "league" section. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing more examples of editors mistaking this page as an SNG, See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiangmai Dream F.C. and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prachinburi City F.C.. This demonstrates need for a hatnote on the club section that indicates what the actual NTEAM advice is. I'll drop the bit about "never to be used as an argument", but as Ahecht says, there is no downside to a note on the club section as the essay box at the top is easy to miss. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think don't true for old definition of WP:FOOTYN. It is fixed national cups such as Thai FA Cup, Chinese FA Cup, Emperor's Cup and etc. to determine Notability of Football club. It doesn't true because a lot of clubs don't join any national level of the league structure in countries can play national cups. especially knock-out national cups. You must fixed national league structure in countries and don't fixed national cups. Aquaelfin (talk) 4:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Old definition of WP:FOOTYN is don't true

I think don't true for old definition of WP:FOOTYN. It is fixed national cups such as Thai FA Cup, Chinese FA Cup, Emperor's Cup and etc. to determine Notability of Football club. It doesn't true because a lot of clubs don't join any national level of the league structure in countries can play national cups. especially knock-out national cups. You must fixed national league structure in countries and don't fixed national cups. Aquaelfin (talk) 4:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong on this. It's been long established via AfDs that clubs don't have to play in a nationwide league to be considered notable. Number 5 7 14:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia notability is wrong defination. It is fixed national cups more than team in national level of the league structure. knock-out national cups such as FA Cup is joined by non-Amateur and non-Professional teams. It's call Out of league teams such as Traill International School in 2018 Thai FA Cup. Do you think this team has wiki article more than Amateur team ? Aquaelfin (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's long-established that non fully-professional clubs playing in the FA Cup are deemed notable. There will always be a few exceptions to the rule, and a school team playing in a cup competition might be one of them – as the school itself has an article, the football team could be covered there. Number 5 7 18:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why Pualand F.C. articles pass ? This teams don't appeared in national public news but join in 2018 Thai FA Cup. This teams has wiki articles !!!!!!! It doesn't make sent and fail Ameteur club standard which can or cannot wiki articles. Thailand Amateur League started after Thai FA Cup. I don't know each team which join or don't join Thailand Amateur League. I think to changes WP:FOOTYN defination teams which has wiki articles to must play in national level of the league structure. It prevents to create teams don't join Thailand Amateur League and more. Teams in Thailand Amateur League which have wiki articles must appeared team history in National public news. Aquaelfin (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, it's been well established that clubs do not need to play at the nationwide league to be deemed notable, so you're not going to get this changed. And it makes no sense to have such a rule as different countries regionalise their leagues at different levels – some countries (e.g. the Faroes) have national levels all the way from top to bottom; some regionalise at a very high level. Number 5 7 19:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57 is right, it hasd long been established to apply that same rule for cups to all cases equally. FkpCascais (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but it doesn't true if you fix national cups to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles. You see teams which isn't Amateur teams in national leagues but this teams have wiki articles ? Why do you fix Amateur teams in national leagues to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles ? For Amateur teams in national leagues which have wiki articles standard. I introduce see history teams of Amateur teams in national leagues to get standard. If you choose any way to Amateur teams in national leagues which have wiki articles standard, I don't problem. I would like to fix Amateur teams in national leagues to base for determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles.

such as *England: Clubs that play or have played at step 6 (level 10), or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup or FA Vase generally meet WP:GNG criteria. I accept this example.

for *Thailand: Clubs that don't play or haven't played T1 to T5 generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Aquaelfin (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need country specific guidelines, where a guideline is not clear we can look to WP:GNG. What we're seeing at AfD recently is fifth or sixth division Thai clubs do not meet GNG, especially when they are brand new organisations. Amateur status isn't relevant here, though a professional team almost certainly will generally pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 15:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't aganist clear. It isn't true and haven't standard to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles. We must decide new Amateur teams which have wiki articles definition. SportingFlyer. Aquaelfin (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, I may not agree with Aquaelfin on much, but in the need for country specific guidelines I absolutely agree 100%.

Which step/level is sufficient to satisfy the criteria in each country, Category:Football league systems by continent?
Is the Tajikistan Second League a truly national league or a bunch of regional leagues operating under a national label?
Is participation in the FA Cup what it says, or is participation in a qualifying round sufficient? The implementation of this differs from the wording, and you reverted my previous effort to clarify without offering any better clarification yourself.
What about Australian teams in the years when there was no national level cup, Template:National soccer cup competitions in Australia?

Without the country specifics the guidelines as they currently stand aren't so much a useful guideline as the brief for a research project. As such they're not fit-for-purpose. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just worth noting that Cabayi's edit to include qualifying rounds was correct – this is how the guideline is interpreted. Number 5 7 13:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guideline is interpreted that way - for England. Other countries have different cup formats. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essendon_Royals_SC which was a keep, but notes every single FFA affiliated team is eligible for the FFA Cup qualifying rounds. In New Zealand it's the same if you pay a fee. Does this mean every football team there is notable? In Croatia there is a "preliminary round" which is clearly distinct from a "qualifying round" since teams win their county cups to qualify. The U.S. Open Cup has a qualifying tournament. Do teams participating in the county cups or in the qualifying tournament qualify for the SNG?

Also, I disagree in terms of country-specific guidelines. The test I've been using is: does the league level receive secondary press coverage? For instance, every team participating in the Croatian Treća HNL should pass WP:GNG since that league is covered by the press, and every African top division I've seen is also covered locally (I've been improving a number of these articles recentl), whereas teams in the 4.HNL or a second division in Africa may well pass WP:GNG – but not necessarily. To answer the questions above: *The top division, a division in a national structure of the league, or a division which receives continuous and comprehensive press coverage; *A bunch of regional leagues; *The lower level press coverage in England exceeds any other country, as far as I can tell, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to require teams who have only played in the qualifying rounds to meet WP:GNG; *I'd say an Aussie team who played in a non-national cup and isn't otherwise notable would need to pass WP:GNG. WP:GNG is not a difficult hurdle to pass, either... SportingFlyer talk 23:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for goodness sake folks, stop calling it a guideline. It isn't, and if you want it to be, you need to get support at WP:NSPORT. The simple thing to ask is, do all the other teams at this level usually pass the GNG? if so Then it might be ok to state that generally teams at that level pass the GNG. But again... not a guideline. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://mgronline.com/sport/detail/9610000064108, http://www.siamsport.co.th/football/thai-fa-cup/view/72173 They are sample news of T5-club has played in the FA-cup. A lot of news are draw or results of Thai FA Cup only. don't have clubs webpage. don't have history of clubs. don't have any national news report clubs to scoop. while some T5-club only has played in T5 but have clubs webpage, history of clubs scoop, catching up with the national news feed. Do you think what team have wiki article ? Aquaelfin (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources wouldn't qualify any club for an article per WP:GNG. WP:GNG requires significant coverage of the team, that is coverage of the competition. SportingFlyer talk 22:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, Which one do you think pass WP:GNG in the above passage ? Aquaelfin (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No team passes WP:GNG in the above passage but the competition does or is well on its way. SportingFlyer talk 17:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Archer of Bury (currently on loan at Southport)

Hello. A couple of questions here. This guy has not yet played in an EFL match but he did play as a sub (for Southport) in two FA Cup matches this season, one against Tranmere and the other against a non-league team, Borehamwood. Does that qualify him for an article? If he does qualify, what should the article be called given that he was born in 1993 and so was Jordan Archer of Millwall? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: - yes, his FA Cup game for a league club against another league club confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. I actually have a draft article ready for us to move into mainspace.

Article location is another question. Soccerway has his DOB as 1995, while Bury have 1993. If the 1995 date is correct then have him at Jordan Archer (footballer, born 1995). If the 1993 date is correct, then his article should be located at either Jordan Archer (forward, born 1993) or Jordan Archer (footballer, born November 1993). Whatever happens the Millwall keeper article should also be moved similarly. I'll ask at WT:FOOTBALL for input here. Giant Snowman 13:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerbase also has 1993 and I'm inclined to go with that. I suggest the articles are moved to Jordan Archer (forward, born 1993) and Jordan Archer (goalkeeper, born 1993) because the positions are more likely to set them apart for a reader than month of birth, and nationality is ambiguous given that the 'Scottish' Archer is English born and bred... Giant Snowman 14:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm going to be bold and make the moves...) Giant Snowman 14:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, shouldn't Jordan Archer (goalie) stay where it is per WP:2DABS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? He's clearly more notable than a guy who's played one game of note. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARYTOPIC applies if "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". I don't think that applies here. Giant Snowman 14:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Primary Topic does apply here and the goalie should be at Jordan Archer with a hatnote to the forward. The international player has far more mentions / incoming links than the non-league player. Spike 'em (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: you're way ahead of me. Thanks very much for your help. From my knowledge of the players at Bury, I'm sure that our Jordan Archer is more than 23 and I think the club is right about his date of birth, making him 25. As Soccerbase agrees, then I'd say that's adequate confirmation. I don't know what to say about the primary topic but I doubt if Jordan Archer of Millwall can be the subject of many searches, so I agree with you that the titles should be Jordan Archer (forward, born 1993) and Jordan Archer (goalkeeper, born 1993). Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a bit of research on Jordan Archer. The FA player registration bulletin for July 2018 states his name is Jordan McFarlane-Archer. A search on Findmypast gives one result with a year of birth of 1993. I would therefore be inclined to go with 1993. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike 'em, LTFC 95, and No Great Shaker: - comments on the page names should be made here please. Giant Snowman 19:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Hang on a minute - "This guy has not yet played in an EFL match but he did play as a sub (for Southport) in two FA Cup matches this season, one against Tranmere and the other against a non-league team, Borehamwood. Does that qualify him for an article? [....] yes, his FA Cup game for a league club against another league club confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. I actually have a draft article ready for us to move into mainspace." - but he hasn't played an FA Cup game for a league team!! Both his FA Cup games were for Southport, a non-League team (as the OP in fact specifically states). So he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL at all!!! Unless I'm missing something really obvious...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think a mistake by me has caused some confusion. When I originally submitted my questions, I said he had played the two FA Cup matches for Bury but, as I well know, he did not. I realised my mistake when I wrote my second post and corrected it. I can only apologise. Should the article be cancelled, then? No Great Shaker (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given this, I've AfDed him. Spike 'em (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help at DRV?

Hi folks, there is a Thailand football club that I at least am having problems evaluating the notability of. If any of you who know Thailand football (and ideally speak the language...) could take a look, it would be quite welcome. [4]. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for national cups

Hello. I have a question. What round does it have to be for a match to be considered a "professional" match in a cup competition? For example, is a round of 64 match in the Coupe de France considered a professional match? Because one team may be fully professional and the other may be a team of amateurs playing in semi-professional football. I am just curious to know at what stage a match becomes professional in a national cup competition. Thanks and best regards. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Vaurie: The round is irrelevant; in order to confer notability on a player, the match they play in must be between two clubs from fully-professional leagues (the occasional meeting of two non-league clubs in the third round of the FA Cup would not make the players notable). Number 5 7 17:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: What if a non-professional team is playing against a professional team in the final of the cup? The final surely has to be considered notable... The same thing must go for the semi-finals, no? I'm just a bit curious about this. Because for example, FC Saarbrucken made the semi-finals of the DFB Pokal last year, and lost to Bayer Leverkusen. Would the players who played for FCS in that match be considered notable enough to create Wikipedia pages about them? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Vaurie: They wouldn't be notable under WP:NFOOTBALL, which specifically states the game must be between two teams from fully-professional leagues. They might pass the WP:GNG, but I think WP:BLP1E might apply. Number 5 7 18:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would make sure you have found reliable sources for the players in the match which directly discuss those players that pass WP:GNG, but I do know we have articles for players who played for Quevilly in that cup final, so there will likely be some coverage, especially for the more prominent players. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]