Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability

I checked this out when looking into the above section about danish players. I was disapointed to find that there was no criterea at all, so I made an attempt. As usual I ran out of steam and ended up with half an article. I've left the draft here so feel free to expand/hack/translate the the page so that we can put something decent on the page. josh (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that you want former players to have played 100 games. One game and you're in, regardless of if it was in 1984 or 2008. matt91486 (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Scanning over this, I believe that statement is referring to the inclusion of players in club articles under "Notable former players". If this is so, then the 100 game criteria is the most oft used one for both this section and in "List of X F.C. players". As Josh said, it's a half-article/draft so feel free to amend it. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
My thinking was that any player that is currently playing professional football can be considered notetable with AFD considered after his career. However, a player who managed one appearence for X F.C. in the third divison 50 years ago should be excluded. The actual number is up for debate. The important thing to remember is that none of the ideas are absolute. There will always be debate over notability but player/clubs/staff meeting the criterea can be generally considered notable. josh (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
To put it a bit more clearer I don't think that the guidelines should ever be used to say X is not notable because he doesn't meet Y. The arguement should be X is not considered notable because of Y now prove why (s)he/it is. josh (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think putting people up for AfD once they retire is a clear violation of notability is not temporary; once they've played a professional game, they are thereafter notable. This is pretty standard across other sports WikiProjects as far as I can tell. I know sourcing for footballers articles can be troublesome, especially compared with baseball ones, where you have easy, complete databases so articles about players from the 1920s can be created and verified in about five minutes of work, but if the general consensus is that playing a professional game makes them notable, then it shouldn't matter at all when that happened. Notability is not temporary. matt91486 (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that strongly about it then change it. Its only a first draft. josh (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, notability remains, historically, in football articles, and player notability is gained when the criteria is met through playing just one game to that exact criteria. Why is a change being discussed here, when it should be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability? And inclusion into sections called "Notable former players" is not judged by numbers of games - it is judged (as the title suggests) by notability, measured by how much the player is mentioned in reliable sources connected with or referenced to the club he is being judged as notable for, and through sourceable major achievements with that club. Not a bunch of figures or statistics. Could this thread be transferred to the correct discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability? Ref (chew)(do) 16:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not temporary. The criteria should be the same for current or former players. Peanut4 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an equally valid location for the discussion at hand. This is sufficiently important and wide-ranging to talk about it here at the main project talk page (which a lot of people may have on watch lists) rather than on a subpage. - fchd (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah; the discussion will probably be easier to have here where everyone can see it and then it could be moved to the notability sub page afterward. I'll go modify the draft now, if it hasn't been done already. matt91486 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I Agree that the discussion should be held here where people will see it on their watchlist, but Novembers discussion about the subject took place on this page and just fizzled out without any apparent consensus. King of the NorthEast 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
As per my comment above I am going to attempt to revive discussion on creating a set of formal criteria (probably futile, but I'm still going to try). I have added 1 more suggestion about youth football as the subject needs discussion. Perhaps we can state whether we support each suggested criteria on an individual basis, so as to formalise the ones that everyone supports ASAP and further discuss the more controversial proposals.

Suggested Criteria

1) Has played for a fully professional club at a national level (FPNL club) of the league structure.

2) has played for a "FPNL club" in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) or a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition.

3) Has played senior international football or football at the Olympic games.

4) Has played at the highest level of continental youth football (U-21 international Europe, U-20 elsewhere, or at the U-20 World Cup)

5) Has been included in a squad (squad number) at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League, Copa Libertadores) or the World Club Championships.

6) Has been included in a squad (squad number) for a senior international team in a World Cup/Continental Cup qualifier or the final stages of such tourmaments.

Reasoning

1) Playing for a professional club at the national level allows articles on players for important teams such as Anderlecht who play in a league containing Semi-Pro teams, and helps to avoid the difficult task of establishing whether every team in the Peruvian, Guatemalan, Albanian, Taiwanese.... top flight is professional. It also removes the dependence on the status of other teams in the league when considering whether at player is notable and reduces the (admittedly unlikely) scenario of a semi-pro team gaining promotion to league 2 in England, necessitating the deletion of every player never to have played higher than that level.

2) To allow articles on players who make their debut for a notable enough club, in a competitive game other than the league itself.

3) Already accepted criteria

4) As per several cases like Daniel Parslow who survived AfD on the basis of having played for Wales U-21.

5) As per several cases where the closing admin kept non-playing players despite going against the prior notability standard of actually having played. These articles would provide info on top level squad players who have yet to make their competitive debut and avoid redlinks in Champions League navboxes.

6) To allow articles for international players in important international tournaments who have yet to play for their country and may play for a semi-pro team or at a regional level of club football.

Discussion

  • 1)Agree, 2)Agree, 3)Agree, 4)Unsure, would we only allow players who have played at the U-20 World Cup, and continental tournaments, or allow any player to have represented their country at the highest agegroup of youth football 5)Oppose- I strongly believe that footballers must have played at least 1 game before they become notable. 6)Unsure King of the NorthEast 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1,2,3) Agree 4,5,6) I don't think these can be set in stone, I think that many of these players are notable, and many aren't. Remember a footballer can be notable before playing a pro game (see Freddy Adu) I think in these cases it needs to be seen if their notability can be established by other means, if it can keep them, if it can't delete them. John Hayestalk 12:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1, 2, 3) Agree; 4) Oppose I don't think Faroese/Andorran U-21 internationals are notable; 5, 6) Oppose I'll stick with actually playing a game before notability is conferred.
I would also like to add a (1a) qualifier: Has played in the top division of a country that has played at the World Cup. This would allow players who have played in the top division in Ireland and Northern Ireland to have articles, which under the current criteria, they are currently denied (technically, but not in reality) as the leagues are not fully professional. This also gets around the fact that it is very difficult to tell which clubs are professional or not (as we have seen past Conference debates). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As far as I see it, under the suggested criteria players at any professional clubs in the Irish leagues would be allowed without the caveat, being professional clubs that play at the national level. King of the NorthEast 13:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

*1–6 Agree. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • 1) Agree; 2) Weak agree (I'd rather to make clear the competitive game must feature two fully professional clubs). 4) Oppose per Number 57; 5 and 6) Strong oppose (notability is not inherited by a simple squad number, there must be at least a competitive game with that team). --Angelo (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My thoughts:
    • 1) Now Agree Oppose:
      • It's much harder to tell whether or not particular club is professional in comparison with whether or not there are only professional clubs in the league.
      • I don't think that Irish/Northern Irish/English Conference/etc players are generally notable
      • If you really want to allow articles on players for teams such as Anderlecht, try "Has played for a club which played at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League)" or something similar
    • 2) Now Agree Oppose as per 1), would Agree with "has played for a team that competed in a fully professional league in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) or a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition"
    • 3) Agree
    • 4) Oppose, would Agree with "Has played in the final stage of the highest level of continental youth football (U-21 international Europe, U-20 elsewhere, or at the U-20 World Cup)", and I also think that players of continental U-17 winning teams are notable
    • 5) Agree, I think that say Liverpool or Arsenal youngsters became notable before their professional debut. However, I would also Agree with "Has been included in a squad (squad number) during the play-off stage of the highest level of continental club football (Champions League, Copa Libertadores)" or something similar as a compromise
    • 6) Agree, same as 5), would also Agree with "Has been included in a squad (squad number) for a senior international team in the final stages of World Cup/Continental Cup" or something similar as a compromise  Jhony   15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"# If you really want to allow articles on players for teams such as Anderlecht, try "Has played for a club which played at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League)" or something similar" - Why on earth wouldn't Anderlecht players warrant an article? matt91486 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I've never said that they wouldn't. I just said that for me 1) is not a good criteria for "legalizing" players from major teams who play in a not fully professional league, so I proposed another criteria that I think will fulfil this "legalizing".  Jhony   17:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. The you phrased it made it sound like you were included in the you, so I just assumed. My bad. matt91486 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"Has played for a club which played at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League)" There are a few problems with this proposal, 1 being that it would allow player articles on fallen giants now residing in regional leagues such as 1. FC Magdeburg. It also creates the situation where a players notability may rely on the achievements of his team before he was even born, rather than the clubs current league status. Another is that it does not resolve the problem of trying to establish whether a team plays in a league with no semi-professional teams when a player comes up for AfD from a club with no Copa Libertadores, UEFA Champions League experience. King of the NorthEast 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It does not resolve that problem, right, but as I pointed out above, to determine whether or not particular club is professional is even more complicated problem in general. To solve the Magdeburg problem, wording should be changed to "Has played for a club which played at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League) in the same season" or "... in the same, previous or next season" or even "Has played for important teams such as Anderlecht who play in a league containing Semi-Pro teams" (with a "use common sense" note) :)  Jhony   19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I see there are going to be disparities regarding fully professional leagues, etc. Would this not end up easier defining country by country which leagues will be counted to avoid any arguments? Or would that become a very unwieldy list? Peanut4 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I would support country by country definition.  Jhony   20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In principle I could support country by country definition, its the system we should have evolved already under the current setup, but the problem is that in the case of a Templetonian premier league footballer up for AfD, it seems that the burden of AfD defenders is to prove that all 20 templetonian premier league teams are professional, rather than that the players team is professional and that the league is highly notable by playing at the national level. If we are serious about collecting and maintaining information on the professional status of all clubs in a vast number of leagues, then it can be done, but even with my passable Spanish I wouldn't know where to find all of the information on the professional status 10 CONMEBOL countries leagues (top flight and possibly 2nd division) and the 13? Spanish speaking members of CONCACAF, never mind the Taiwanese or Kuwaiti leagues. King of the NorthEast 23:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree on 1-3 & 6, disagree, verging to strongly disagree on 4-5. The current criteria are surely wide enough that several thousands of current players are notable, let alone all those from the past. I do not support the idea that youth internationals or players merely granted a club squad number gain sufficient notability. - fchd (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with 1-4. Not yet convinced about 5 and 6. Notability is not temporary - are we suggesting that a player will always be notable if they pass 5 and 6, but end up never playing a professional game? Peanut4 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This 5&6 issue can be seen from both points of view, notability must not be seen as transitory as it conflicts with general wikipedia policy, but non-inclusion in some cases detracts from wikipedia as a source of information as people would be made to look elsewhere for information on potential champions league opponents in the case of youngsters in the squad or even on the bench. For non-players the options seem to be a) not at all, b) keeping them for ever even if they don't make it or c) the compromise option of allowing a temporary "stay of execution". I not sure of how option c could fit in with general wiki policy, but I do know that many non-players have received unofficial stays of execution for many months because they were not spotted, or perhaps spotted but not sent to AfD. King of the NorthEast 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with 1-4, unsure about 5 & 6. However, re:point 4, Number57's argument that Andorran Under-21 players are not notable is very valid; perhaps we should limit the notability of Under-21 players to the top 50/75/100 nation's players. GiantSnowman (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The other option is to limit them by appearance in the World Youth Cup or the most senior continental championship (not qualifiers). This would mean that the criteria relied less on the transitory top 50/100 rankings and that junior players from the weaker nations would be excluded.by non-appearance. King of the NorthEast 23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Good points, both of you, very good points. I would change it to appearances in U-21 championship finals (or U-20 where appropriate) - again as my points above, it may be listing to be specific, e.g. Euro U-21 Championships, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Another good point. But what about players from 'big' nations which never qualify for regional competitions but have proven themselves at Under-21 level? GiantSnowman (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • OK making a list of the specific tournaments shouldn't be too hard, there arn't many: World U-20, Asia U-20, Africa U-20, S. America U-20, N&C America U-20, Euro U-21. The only problem being Oceania, their highest seems to be World Youth Qualifiers (correct me if I'm wrong). As for big nations never to qualify, I'm not sure what you (GS) mean by proving themselves at youth level, perhaps you could give us some examples and how they proved themselves outside of the major youth tournaments? King of the NorthEast 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Teams who played in continental U-20 competitions include Netherlands Antilles, Bermuda and Bangladesh. Personally I don't think U-20 players from countries like these are notable, since they are likely to fail the general notability guide. --Angelo (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So as a general idea, we're looking for some way to phrase that we'd like players who play in fully professional divisions as well as the first division of notable footballing countries to be notable? That's at least how I'm reading it, and it seems like a logical definition. Then we're not creating articles for all of the players in the Andorran league, but it does not exclude countries like Ireland. Of course, my way doesn't work for phrasing because notable footballing countries lacks a definitive parameter (countries who have appeared in their sponsored tournament, Euro, African Cup of Nations, etc? that would rule out the minnows). matt91486 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So far I know one NPOV way to determine notable European football league - UEFA club ranking. Similarly for notable football national team - FIFA ranking.  Jhony   01:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Where the league is not fully professional, I say stick to players from the top division of nations which have qualified for the world cup - rankings change dramatically over the years (Northern Ireland recently) and "qualified for the world cup" remains constant and is very easily defined. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree using rankings is too POV, and rankings will always change. Another yardstick is required and Number57's is potentially the best one. Peanut4 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • It looks like "qualified for the world cup" have been drawn up to allow Irish, Northern Irish and Welsh leagues. Because it makes no sense to draw a conclusion about current strength of the league on the basis of all-time achievements of the national team. I have nothing against Irish, Northern Irish and Welsh leagues, but in such case be honest and allow say Slovak, Bosnian and Makedonian leagues as these are stronger. For the record, Indonesian, Salvadoran, Honduran and Haitian leagues all will pass "qualified for the world cup" criteria.  Jhony   13:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I also agree that rankings are unsuitable due to their transitory nature, what happens with teams/leagues that drop out of the top 50/100? what happens when they re-enter? I'm also not convinced by the world cup qualification criteria, I can't see what this has to do with club football. How can the notability of a club player rely on the achievements of national team players rather than the quality of their own club or the league they play in. Take Wales for example, they played in the 1958 World Cup, how can the achievements of John Charles, Ivor Allchurch & co have more relevance to the notability of a current TNS player than the club's professional status, position in the national league structure and appearances in Champions League Qualifiers? The same goes for Indonesia and Cuba (World Cup 1938). Another problem is that in the case of Senegal in the World Cup in 2002, 21 of the 22 man squad played outside the Senegalese league structure, telling us more about the quality of Ligue 2 in France than the Senegal Premier League. I still think were better off with something simple and unambiguous like the proposed criteria 1) "professional team at national level of the league structure" or sticking with the current definition of fully professional league, but actually creating and maintaining a database of the hundreds(?) of leagues that qualify as fully professional.King of the NorthEast 14:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I'd endorse "professional team at national level of the league structure" as long as in the case of disputes it can be backed up by something more concrete than "I know that Footown F.C. are professional because I read it somewhere......" ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
              • So, in case we know it for sure, the team won't be considered professional, right?  Jhony   14:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, maybe a reference from a reliable source showing the teams professional status on the team article could be the requirement. King of the NorthEast 14:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • That's what I was about to say (before I was edit conflicted!). As an aside, I was not defining the criteria to deliberately include Irish/N Irish league players in the notable section (I don't believe Northern Irish or Welsh league players are notable), but merely suggesting it as an alternative to the whole professional club thing. As I said before, if we have a well-defined way of saying which clubs are professional or not, that would be my preferred approach. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to King of the NorthEast (23:49, 4 February 2008) - by saying "players from 'big' nations which never qualify for regional competitions but have proven themselves at Under-21 level", I meant players who are a constant prescence in the Under-21 side, with multiple caps, but who have never appeared in a major youth tournament. In response to Number57 (10:11, 5 February 2008) - what about an Argentine youth player who has 20 Under-20 caps and 20 Under-20 goals but never plays in a fully-professional league and who never makes the transition to senior international football? GiantSnowman (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • TBH, it is highly likely that a prolific U-20 player would also have played in a professional league at club level. However, if they hadn't then no, I wouldn't give them an article. It might be harsh, but we have to make the cut off point very clear, or we will get all kinds of wikilawyering about whether someone deserves an article. Aside from this, I take it that we are assuming non-playing players from the MLS draft as not notable (as they are not specifically mentioned in the criteria)? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough my example was a very extreme one, but it's interesting to hear you say that you wouldn't give such a player an article. And as for MLS, I think that non-players are not notable, as in any other professional league, unless like Adu or someone they've had significant press coverage. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Therein lies the problem. There are one or two players who really are notable before ever playing like Adu or Sonny Pike. However, various editors will see the existence of their articles and claim that their particular player is a similar situation... пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Is there a problem? WP:BIO has a basic criteria: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources should be shown, otherwise an article will be deleted. Irrespective of claims.  Jhony   14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, there is a problem. For instance, if a non-professional non-league team reaches the third round, and then a player scores against, say, Liverpool, he would command significant coverage in reliable sources. However, he would fail WP:BIO as he hasn't played in a fully pro league. I would still say delete such an article, but editors could claim otherwise based on coverage. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Please take a closer look at WP:BIO. This player would not fail WP:BIO. Any person who has received significant coverage in reliable sources is notable (basic criteria). Besides if the person is a footballer, he is notable if he has competed in a fully professional league (additional criteria).  Jhony   15:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Yeah, that's what the debate on the MLS draftees notability was about. They met WP:BIO but failed the WikiProject's standards. matt91486 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • This is what's so tedious in the debate on notability when defending the professional league football requirement (and is the reason why I brought up the issue below). The arguments made always boils down to the following circular argument: 1) There is no reason to ammend the criteria to include youth players who haven't actually played a league game yet since they aren't notable. 2) The reason why they aren't notable is because they haven't debuted yet i.e. don't fulfill the current criteria. By this way of reasoning there will never be a reason to change the current criteria since expanding it will only add players wich per definition don't meet the current criteria thus being not notable and with no reason to be included. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Eaxctly my point. This projects rules should enhance not overrule WP:BIO. If a player is notable by WP:BIO then these rules aren't needed anyway. John Hayestalk 16:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Professionality?

I'm sorry, but I have to question the requirement that the league has to be professional. Why is notability dependent on the form of contract of it's players and not it's actual notability in the general sense of the word? The PL is notable because of it's press coverage, being the 1st tier league in an important footballing country and so on, not because the players have a lot of spare time when the´re not playing football... I assume this requirement came to place to separate the professional English league system from the amateur leagues, but it's not very well suited for the rest of the footballing world. For some examples; Is really 4th tier English football (League 2) more notable than Spanish third division (Segunda B) just because L2 is fully professional?, was Swedish Allsvenskan not notable in 2007 because IF Brommapojkarna wasn't a fully professional club? Was the Brazilian league not notable before the full introduction of professionalism in the 30'ies (a majority of the Brazilian squad for the '34 WC came from Botafogo, still an amateur club at the time)?

The professionality requirement is a seemingly objective way of asserting notability, without having to determine the actual "subjective" general notability of the league, but I don't think it's easier to determine if a league is fully professional than if it's (generally) notable, and as I've shown above it can lead to odd conclusions. I'm sorry to say, but we can't get around the fact that we have to find another way of determining notability of a league. I think that user:ArtVandelay13 has a good idea in separate "notability thresholds" (the nice table in the middle of the last discussion.

I also think we have to differentiate the number of league appearences required for different leagues. Why is one league 2 game notable, but not 300 conference games? Sure, both of my suggestions would take some (if not a lot) of work to agree upon, but I think it's unavoidable if we don't want to have this discussion every other month all over again. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the criteria we have decided upon ("Has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure") does not depend on the league being professional at all. It is completely dependent on the clubs' status. Plus the Brazilian players you talk about would be notable under point 3 of the criteria. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That's true, and the current suggestion is a step forward, but I don't think you're addressing my point on the Botafogo players. Botafogo was a major club in Brazil, even in the '30ies, so I would suggest that also their players who didn't made it into the WC squad were notable, regardless of if their club was professional or not. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a good point, in Argentina professionalisation of the game occurred in 1931, I believe that a Racing Club player who was part of the 1913-1919 championship winning teams, but never played for Argentina warrants an article. I'm fairly sure that he could be considered to have played club football at the highest level therefore meeting WP:BIO "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Since there was no professional club football to supercede itKing of the NorthEast 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Concluding arguments concerning the requirement of professional league football

To conclude my position; I think the requirement of professional league football is crude, and might lead to some problems since professionality doesn't exactly correlate perfectly with notability. The thing is, no matter wich notability criteria we decide upon it's always going to be subjective, arbitrary and crude, since we will always have to draw the line somewhere. This will inevitably lead to problems around the boundary between notable - not notable. If we keep the professionality requirement, there will always be editors who (rightly so) don't understand why incredibly-promising-and-much-hyped youth player X or 500-games-conference-veteran Y are not notable, when one-League-2-game has-been player Z is. One could ask oneself why certain youth internationals always pops up before they have debuted. It might even be because they're actually notable in the general sense of the word.

I often see editors almost bragging about how tough they are on youth internationals and how they want to get rid of non-players, sounding like they were republican presidential candidates discussing the war on terror. I, for one, don't think there is a real concern that WP will be over-flowed with articles on Maltese or American Samoan U-20 players, and even if was, it would only be a nice balance to all the articles on talentless single-digit league 2-game players that no one will ever have heard of in five years. Sticking with the professional league football requirement will always favor English league system players over players with other nationalities since England is the country with most professional clubs (down to 5th or even lower tiers), while a league system like the Spanish, of arguably the same standard as the English, in reality only have two professional tiers. So, the way I see it, the professional League game requirement is not being tough on non-notable footballers, it's picking English League 2 players (or even lower) over actually notable "non-players".

The concerns I've raised should have pointed out that it is a clear danger that a requirement of professional football could contradict the general WP:N guidelines. Having said that, I acknowledge that coming up with an alternative that everyone could agree on would be difficult, and since we're coming so close on agreeing on a requisite, wich in my mind is a vast improvement over the old, I'm not going to stand in the way over the issue of professionality. I still maintain, however, that league appearences should not always be mandatory for notability, and would also like to point out that WP:N superceedes our general criteria anyway. Sebisthlm (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree 2 and 3; Oppose 1 (as written), 4, 5 and 6. As written 1 would allow Conference national players in which is too low a level. Opposing 4, 5 and 6 because someone should have played for a club at sufficiently high level or for an international team. The argument against squad members is that if they get a career wrecking injury before they have played we are left forever with an article on a nn person. TerriersFan (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment On criterion 1, how exactly do we know which clubs are professional? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I would assume a reliable source to be either the club's official website or BBC Sports. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • As an example this BBC article states that Grays Athletic are fully pro (or at least they were in 2006)....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That's another query I have. We know that Grays were pro in 2006, but does that necessarily mean they are now? Or can they have just been stated as being pro at any time and it confers notabiliy to their players still? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I dunno, it's a tricky one. We don't want to get into the situation where someone argues that because, for example, Altrincham are FPNL in 2008 that an article could then be created for someone who played for them in the Alliance Premier League in 1979..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
            • And is there some sort of collection of sources for FPNL clubs? This would be pretty important for a player to be back in an AfD, so it could be verified that their club is infact professional... Mattythewhite (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
              • I think this discussion somewhat proves my point above, the professionality requirement is supposed to be the easy verifiable and objective requirement. Let me add this question to the discussion; what's objective about deeming Grays notable and not a semi-pro club in, say, the Belgian top division? Sebisthlm (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Formalisation

Right, a quick count shows that all 9 editors to !vote so far, support 1-3 in this type of form.

1) Has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure (FPNL club). (supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional)

2a) has played for a "FPNL club" in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) or a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition.

or

2b) has played in a fixture between two "FPNL clubs" in the FA Cup or League Cup (or non-English equivalent) or a Continental (or Intercontinental) club competition.

3) Has played senior international football or football at the Olympic games.

Perhaps we could move towards officially formalising them, not sure how this is done, but consensus now definitely seems to be in favour.

Another suggestion is, that once formalised, AfD closures which ignore/bypass these criteria cannot be used as precedents and that any future changes to the criteria must be proposed and debated at WP:FOOTY.

We can then move on to discuss the more controversial proposals 4-6 and see if there is any possible consensus. King of the NorthEast 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-players can still be notable if they are contracted to a notable team (in a major league?) and

  • has played for any of the "big" youth international teams or in a big youth international finals competition for a smaller country. or
  • has been transfered to the club for a "substantial" sum or leading to "substantial" independent publicity or
  • has been named in a continental club competition squad (e.g. CL) (and sat on the bench?) or
  • has recieved substantial independent publicity.

(I came up with these suggestions on the top of my head when posting on the last discussion so they probably need some tweaking...) Sebisthlm (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree The criteria you've listed ("big" country - Sudan is a big country, "substantial publicity/sum" how much is substantial?) are completely dependent upon WP:OR. Sticking to actually playing a game is by far the simplest and most definite notability criterion we can have. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my suggestion lost some clarity when broken out of the context of the previous discussion. By 'big' country I was referring to a prior discussion on setting up a different standard for the 'big' leagues (if you missed the prior discussion you can find it here. I'm actually a bit surprised that you thought by 'big' country I meant big to the surface or population (like Greenland opr Sudan). If I didn't know better, I would think you're deliberatly trying to miss-interpret my point. I agree that sticking with one game for any professional team is easier to determine, but that that (because of the above said) also is the reason why the same discussion pops up all the time. Most people just don't think that notability is based on one appearence for any professional club regardless of the notability of the club, but rather the amount of press coverage, etc, of the player. Sebisthlm (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I was being deliberately facetious to illustrate my point that we can't define "big" countries. TBH, I think the only reason why this discussion pops up from time to time is that the notability criteria page was always blank. пﮟოьεԻ 57
No hard feelings, i assure you. I also understand your concern of WP:OR, but I think differentiating leagues by notability could be done in some objective way (using a ranking as a base for example). The point is that using professionalism as an "objective" translation of the "subjective" notability is perhaps easier, but it just don't mean the same thing - there might be leagues that are notable but not professional and vice versa. After all, the notability criteria is always going to be "subjective" or OR; it's not god-given that professional club football, of all possible requirements, is the only "objective" one. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But as noted elsewhere, the rankings change constantly. The only definite is "qualified for a world cup". TBH I am quite happy to be harsh and not give articles unless they play for the first/full team. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What's harsh about keeping a player who made one appearence in League 2 ten years ago? Sebisthlm (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Caveats - I have no problem with #1 as long as we add further caveats to it. For example, if a semi-professional club gets to the first division of, say, the Belgian League or the Swiss League, I think that the players on that club during that season should gain notability regardless of their clubs' professional standing. Also, Copa Libertedores matches need to be included along with Intertoto, etc.; we can't have bias towards European leagues only. matt91486 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This might sound like a frivolous concern...but in my mind any of the leagues in FIFA 2008/whatever the current versions will be down the line are obvious concerns for this. Players actually in the game are going to be natural candidates to be looked up; so if a team from the Irish first division and Belgian first division happens to not be professional, but is given the notoriety of inclusion in a fairly widespread video game, it's going to be reaching a level of conflict between the two. Obviously, leagues this applies for shouldn't solely be based on something like FIFA, but it's a real concern. Being in the first division and receiving first division coverage in a case like this should confer notability on the players. matt91486 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical aspects

I have been following this discussion with interest, but have not commented up to now partly because of my workload and partly out of inertia. I personally prefer to create articles about players from the early days of football, rather than the present era. To me, a player from 1908 is just as worthy as one from 2008. My problem with the criteria as proposed is the requirement for the player to have "played for a fully professional club at a national level". In the early days of football, clubs were not professional and most footballers were amateur. If you look at the article on the 1876 FA Cup Final, this was between two amateur clubs. Most of the players in that match for whom articles have been created also played for England and are therefore notable on those grounds. But what about John Hawley-Edwards or Thomas Hughes; although they both scored in the FA Cup Final they have not played for a "fully professional club" and do not therefore meet the required criteria. If I were to create articles about these players would they fail an AfD?

There is an article about Jarvis Kenrick - he also fails the proposed criteria, although scoring the first ever FA Cup goal and winning the Cup three times would probably prevent him being deleted on an AfD.

Moving forward half a century - Max Woosnam was an amateur player throughout his career, but he played for England in 1922 and captained Manchester City. This means that at that time City was not a "fully professional club", neither was the Football League fully professional. Does this mean that there should be no articles about club players from that era, unless they played at international level?

I have only looked at this from an English perspective; many leagues elsewhere in the world only became fully professional quite late on. Where does this leave them? I must go now to as I'm watching the England u-21s this evening. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good points. Perhaps we could have different criteria for pre-League days (i.e. playing in the FA Cup final). The Woosnam comment may still be relevant today (I seem to recall reading that one of Dag & Red's players is still only semi-pro as he still works as a teacher). However, I would guess that the club would probably still be described as fully-professional in reliable sources despite the presence of one or two amateurs. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Precisely my point (one of them anyway)! Even if the English league system was very early with professionalism, large and important parts of the world (like Brazil) were actually working fiercely against professionalism for as long as they could. As late as in the '50ies Swedish players turned pro was banned from the National team for example. To me the obsession with professional football is the result of a exclusively English view-point. Sebisthlm (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
How about changing it to include the caveat "played for a club that was in a top division which is today fully-professional" or something similar? пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I have answered this point above but I'll repeat myself here; I'm fairly sure that a , since there were no professional club football tournaments to supercede them, King of the NorthEast 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point, but wouldn't that allow articles on footballers currently playing in top divisions which are not fully pro? пﮟოьεԻ 5<;font color="blue">7 19:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be inclined to say no because the vast majority of successful footballers now play the professional game, travelling abroad to do it if their national league is mainly amateur or semi-pro. The highest level of Andorran/American Samoan football isn't the pinacle of the club game with global transfers a regular feature of the modern world game. In the 1920-1940s many South American amateur footballers joined professional clubs in Italy & Spain, but relatively few compared to the vast majority of South American footballers who competed at the top level of Brazilian & Argentine football as amateurs. I hope you see what I'm getting atKing of the NorthEast 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If notability is not temporary, shouldn't most of the same leagues that are notable now be notable before they turned pro? I don't understand what made Serie B notable over night when it turned pro? Sebisthlm (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The new criteria make no mention of fully professional leagues, they concern professional clubs at national level. As for change in notability with the change in professional status I would say that notability cannot be applied retrospectively a Wimbledon Old Centrals F.C. amateur player from the 1890s doesn't become notable because Wimbledon F.C. eventually reached the professional level of the game in the late 1970s. Only players who represented the club at professional level should qualify. (Sorry for the example from English football). King of the NorthEast 20:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That's OK. I know both of us should probably throw around a lot of Argentinian examples, but I'm inclined to make a lot of Swedish examples... OK, so Botafogo would be notable in the '30ies because they played in a top division, but what about a player playing for a second division team wich one day is amateur, and the next day turns professional. What exactly is it that makes the player notable day two and not day one? My point is that notability means fame, wich has more to do with the level of football and amount of press coverage, than with the nature of the contract. Sebisthlm (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but I believe the proposed criteria 1) is a much more simple and unambiguous test of notability, I know we can come up with potential problems, such as South American 2nd division footballers in the 1920s or current clubs that may or may not be professional, but these are issues that were not dealt with by the previously accepted norm either. King of the NorthEast 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, God forbid we'd get problems with all the bio's of '20ies Argentinian second division players we're both about to start on, eh? Sebisthlm (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

These are criteria 4-6 and the issue of pre-professional players

I propose that we include:

7) Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played top level league or cup football are considered to meet WP:BIO "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports".

the other previusly discussed criteria leave us with options.

4a)Youth players to have represented their country at the World U-20, or the highest level of continental youth football (Asia U-20, Africa U-20, S. America U-20, N&C America U-20, Euro U-21).

4b) Youth players to have represented their country at the World U-20

c) Experience of International youth football does not confer notability.

5 & 6) Personally I am opposed to the inclusion of non-playing footballers, perhaps it would be better if someone who supports their inclusion could draft some compromise proposals covering criteria 5 & 6.

-King of the NorthEast 22:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

7) Agree but only if the subject does not fail WP:N; 4a&b) Oppose per my previous comments (I just noticed even Qatar played in the World U-20, and I doubt Qatar U-20 players are notable to deserve an article here); 4c) Agree; about 5 and 6, non-playing footballers are notable if and only if the subject clearly and undoubtedly fits the general notability guideline described in WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
7) I would go as far as for the pre-professional days, to assume the leagues as they are now. Just because our (warning WP:POV soming up) current over-paid nancies are professional doesn't mean they any more worthy of an entry than good old honest pros from yesteryear. Peanut4 (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My personal view now is agree with 1-3, as well as 4b and amended version of 7 as per last KOTN suggestion. Peanut4 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree 1, 2, 3, 4a and 7: I think we need to establish whether WP:BIO#ATHLETES would hereby be considered redundant for footballers, and to assert that, apart from the circumstances in 7, no level of amateur football of itself (including US college soccer) confers notability. Kevin McE (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BIO supersedes any WikiProject's definition of notability. If anyone, regardless of not meeting a projects definition meets the primary definitions of WP:BIO, then they meet notability regardless. matt91486 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I was suggesting that this comprise a WP:BIO#Footballers, which would render wp:bio#athletes as inappropriate for footballers only. There is no challenge here to "primary definitions" of WP:BIO. Kevin McE (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • General Comment - I think it's gotten passed over as the debate has progressed, but I was wondering if some people could look at my comments at the end of the formalisation section before this gets too far along into setting the opinion in stone. Thanks. matt91486 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You're right. I'd overlooked it because a lot of discussion had gone on since I last logged in. I see and partly agree with your problem. To me, some top divisions, though not fully professional, are almost certainly notable for all players in them. How best to define these are exceptions is going to be difficult to sum up. Peanut4 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • To me, I feel like we need to make some sort of exception in these first division cases. The problem is determining which countries would qualify. We can probably all in large part agree on which ones should, it's just a matter of are we willing to make a list of the countries who qualify for this exemption or is it better to try to figure out some more general way of stating it. At this point, I'd be in favor of a list, but it sounded like earlier in the debate that was not preferable for some people. matt91486 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • My problem with a list is it's totally POV. Though I'm sure we could agree on just a few to immediately add to it. I'd add half of the European leagues, but am I saying that because I'm European and follow said leagues (even if just through the CL), or because they really are worthy of addition? Peanut4 (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • That's completely true. Perhaps we could come up with a caveat based on percentage of a first division that is professional? If a certain threshold of professional teams in a first division is reached, then the entire division would be considered notable? matt91486 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Another option could be conferring it on players on any teams participating in any leagues with automatic bids for Champions League, Copa Libertadores, etc. matt91486 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure. What gives player from F.C. Verbroedering Dender E.H., last season's winners of the Belgian second league, notability just because the Belgian league has a higher coefficient rating than Serbia. Peanut4 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Valid points, both. I don't know what parameter should be used. I know before the FIFA world rankings were ruled out in discussion as well. We can always go back to countries that have qualified for the World Cup, but then people have pointed out this opens the door to Indonesian and Haitian leagues. Perhaps teams that have qualified for the World Cup and are in the Top 100 FIFA rankings? A combination of the two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Let me get this right, what you're aiming at is a further amendment to the criteria which would allow players for semi-pro teams from the Belgian or Swiss top flight, but not semi-pro players for the Welsh or Jamaican top flight. I'm not sure that allowing any semi-pro players is desirable, and the methodology of picking particular clubs we would like to see included/excluded and then stretching the criteria to fit probably isn't conducive to creating clear, simple and unambiguous guidelines. King of the NorthEast 08:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • Belgian and Swiss just happened to be the examples I picked. It's not aimed specifically at those cases by any means. I just feel generally speaking, there should be a provision for national top flights for relatively important leagues. I realize there's no particularly good way to phrase that, otherwise I'd be able to come up with some option. I'm not sure if there is a situation about to happen or if it's not likely to happen at all, but it just seems like by being in the top flight of a relatively significant league, notability would be conferred on those players regardless of their professional status. matt91486 (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • I can see your point, I don't think that setting the cut-off point at professional status for now will prejudice against the inclusion of a well worded caveat in the future, its just that it's extremely difficult to come up with anything that includes semi-pro's from the large nations and excludes semi-pro teams from the minnows without going back to the transient world ranking figures or some irrational link to the country's international team achievements, the achievements of professional teams in the league in reaching the latter stages of Continental tournaments or some other WP:OR criteria. Recourse to any of these type of criteria would take us back to a similar position to the "fully professional league" definition, where a players notability is determined by factors outside of his own club's level of play.King of the NorthEast 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • Yeah, I agree that there's no good way to do it. I guess if such a situation comes up, we can all just logically look the other way to the criteria and not AfD it; that's the best solution, probably, to avoid discussing it in the parameters altogether. matt91486 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would also go along with 4c regarding youth. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, I'd support 4a for youth football, but would find 4b preferable to 4c. matt91486 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I support 4 b). I have explained my sentiments regarding the requirement of professional league football above (under Professionality?). I think that playing for the Uzbeki U-20 is perhaps not that notable, even if they would play in a U-20 world cup. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere and with the requirements of the current criteria a player with one League 2 game is deemed notable. Now, either you actually think that one League 2 game (or a Ryman league app for a professional club) is more notable than a U-20 WC game (wich I find quite ridiculous) or you think that both are non-notable but you are more concerned that WP is going to be over-flowed with articles on n-n Uzbeki U-20 players than of n-n League 2 players (wich I find equally ridiculous). Category:Uzbekistani footballers contains 43 articles so I would question if the concern of suddenly wading around in thousands of articles on non-notable Uzbeki U-20 players is a legitimate one. In any case I'm willing to take that risk. Sebisthlm (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just have realised that fully professional Russian Second Division (level 3) is not a national level too since it is divided into 5 geographical zones.  Jhony   11:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We should think about league which are managed by a regional committee (all Italian amateur leagues), rather than leagues whose teams are divided on a regional basis (such as Serie C1, the third-highest Italian division). --Angelo (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The Russian Second Division is still a a league which still covers the whole country, though, even if the teams are grouped regionally - it's kinda like the old Division Three North and South in England or the NFL in American Football. In contrast, the Ryman League only covers the South East of England, therefore it's a regional league...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lower league players

In a radical departure for the above I would suggest that there is a threshold put in for players who participate in division below the English Championship and/or the Scottish premiership and/or European equivalents. What I suggest is that they must have say 10 or 20 games under their belt prior to gaining notability. The reason I propose this is because I find it ridiculous that some guy who has played ten minutes as a substitute against Macclesfield (no disrespect to Macc Town) gains automatic notability. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This would seem to require some sort of rule being put into place specifying which leagues this would apply to for every country in the world - how do you envisage this being constructed.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just the ideas guy! No seriously I understand that it could be hard to work but a simple approach could be the only the players top league in each country gets automatic notabilty after one appearence but players in leagues below that would need to a certain amount be the 10, 20, 30 games. If additional leagues from some countries were to be allowed drop into the "one game" rule then this would be specifically outlined - but I would envisage that that would probably be limited to Spain, England, Italy and Germany. Thoughts?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that changing the criteria for the notablity of players would be a bad idea. At the moment the criteria is pretty simple in that if you have played for a pro club you are notable after one game. This is simple for people to understand. If you add things like if at certain tier of a certain country's league system they would have to play a certain amount of games it would make it more difficult

Potential probelms of system if I have thought of. There may be more added later.

1. Mass deletion of articles that do not fulfill the criteria. This would be a large amount of articles.

2. Due to point 1 people may not be very happy that a number of articles they have created have been deleted even though at the time they were notable. This may mean that we lose a number of good editors.

3. I really like the idea that we may in the future (distant) have artciles for everyone that has played for certain clubs like Manchester United, Liverpool, chelsea and also for teams like gillingham and lincoln city who maybe do not have the success of the previous ( no disrespect intended on previous clubs mentioned). No other internet site offers this and it would good that wikipedia would be the first to do this or at least try. It would give the category of players from certain clubs some kinds of completeness as they would be able to find all the players that have ever played for their club and they do not have BUT on the top of the category.

4. If a number of articles were deleted and then the community decided to reinstate the previous criteria a good number of articles would be lost and may never be created again

5. if it is not broke then do not fix it. There is nothing wrong with the current system. I understand that the criteria is changing but the fact that one game criteria has not been put forward for change could help show that people are happy with the system.

6. What would happen if for example gillingham got promoted from league one to the premiership. What would happen if someone played 1 game for gillingham while in the premiership then was injured and could never play football again. It would lead to really bad results due to the fact that when people look in the category of gillingham players that someone who has played one game for gillingham is allowed but someone else who played 10 - 15 is not all be it in league one. It does not seem fair and may lead to people unfamiliar to the criteria to become confused on why certain people are on wikipedia and why some people are not.

If possible could people please comment on what I have said above. Thanks. 02blythed (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree with what you have said, but points 1&2 could be used as defence for keeping non-playing footballers like Paul Rodgers and Gavin Hoyte who both somehow survived AfD. I don't think that possible deletion of articles and editors going off in a huff over it can be used as a reason for not allowing any change in notability criteria. I still think that actually having featured in one professional or international game is the simplest workable criteria, and setting different parameters for different leagues would leave us with an unneccessarily complicated system. King of the NorthEast 21:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking from criteria on the football notablity page am I right in saying that conference players are now deemed notable as long as you can prove that the club is pro. 02blythed (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary

My reading of the situation after several days of debate, is that everyone broadly supports 1-3, & 7, and 4b seems to be a popular compromise for youth footballers. Perhaps we could formally adopt these criteria here in order to move on to formally define notability criteria for other football related topics such as managers, clubs, leagues etc. King of the NorthEast 14:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you about (4b). We were clearly debating about it, as it would allows U-20 players from countries like Uzbekistan to stay here, and I don't really agree with it. --Angelo (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I agree with you (I would also like to see 4c), it seems that some editors are at the other end of the scale, so 4b looks like a likely compromise. TBH the problem has never been Uzbek U-21 internationals, but mostly articles on U-16 and U-18 England internationals which people claim are notable. We need to nail something down so we can mark such articles as clear delete (I'm still sulking about all those non-notable Americans being kept as no consensus...). пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think the approval of a new notability guideline is gonna be a magic medicine. You can easily note the "keep" voters in the cases you mentioned are not WikiProject Football members, so they can always say this guideline is not what they really feel as being right. I am adapting my own notability opinions as well (personally, I would be much more restrictive than WP:BIO for footballers, but I know this is a minority opinion among the members of this WikiProject). I just want to make you note notability is not cumulative, you can see it instead as a boolean thing (that is, either Yes or No), and it's widely clear a very large majority of players who took part at the World Cup U-20s are actually fully professional, and often playing in a top flight division, so they would be all recognized as notable in any case. However, a slight minority of these players (especially ones from minor football nations, such as Uzbekistan and North Korea) are not professional and will never be, and they obviously fail the general notability guideline due to absolute lack of sources covering the subject in detail. Keep this in mind. --Angelo (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
OK if we skip 4 for now, as most of the players to have played in the latter stages of the World Youth Cup level football have gone on to play professional football and gain notability with their club teams see Spain 2007 squad and my main area of activity Argentina 2007 squad. Is there any opposition to adopting 1-3 &7. In order to move on to other areas of concern. King of the NorthEast 16:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if we skip 4 at the moment, does it actually change the existing policy at all? That looked to be the biggest change to what we have going now. matt91486 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I just came to the same conclusion. This seems to be an all or nothing deal. Passing only 1-3 and 7 don't really change the criteria. Moreover, if these parts are passed and no concensus is reached over 4-6, point 1 could be used against any arguments supporting 4-6 or all the precedents that supports them. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the point of the excersise was to change the criteria per se, it was to get something written on this page which remained completely blank between January 2006 & February 2007. Enforcing notability by pointing to a blank piece of paper has just allowed people to create notability criteria by precedent, (well Gavin Hoyte survived AfD, so all non-players should have their own articles, Daniel Parslow survived on his under 21 caps for Wales so all youth footballers are notable and all those MLS draftees survived having never played a professional game between them, so all american trainees are notable) if we allow notability by precedent then we'll end up with an extremely anglo-centric set of criteria aimed allowing the inclusion of all kinds of non-notable players. I can see people's frustration at other editors seeming intransigence, I would personally say a few games in the WYC infront of a global TV audience probably trumps 1 5 minutes substitute appearance for my local club Darlington F.C. but we can't force people to change their minds so we should move on and formulate official criteria for other areas and try to come back to the WYC before the next edition in 2009. King of the NorthEast 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we share the same concerns, but from different view-points. Off course you're right that the goal of this discussion isn't necessarily to change the criteria. What I meant was that, at least to me, one goal of settling this subject is to transform the rejection of the old criteria that AfD:Paul Rodgers meant, into a workable objective principle. I'm now taking a Wikibreak until sunday evening (CET) and hope for some progress in the meantime. Have a good weekend guys and gals. Sebisthlm (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we still debating? I thought I was speaking to deaf ears. Angelo, if you're still debating, how come you haven't answered any of my arguments? I've written smaller essays above that neither you or no57 have even addressed. To me, the only one actually debating "us on the other side of the table" is King of the NE. And I don't understand your point of notability as a "boolian thing" at all. Of course notability is cumulative! Do you really think that Cristiano Ronaldo is equally notable as Robert Grant (that they both are)? And I would have thought a person interested in boolian algebra would be interested in answering concerns that he is using circular arguments. Sebisthlm (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As WP:N says, "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If this is true, then the topic passes the notability test, otherwise it does not. This is the boolean thing I mentioned. Don't mistake notability with importance: Cristiano Ronaldo has surely a higher grade than Robert Grant in the importance scale, but both of them pass the notability test the same way. --Angelo (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
i actually have a couple of credits in philosophical logic, but I'm not sure it adds anything to the discussion. I think everyone would agree that a player by necessity have to be either notable or not notable, and never neither or both. The problem is that we haven't agreed on a definition of notability. Yes, a player is either notable or not, but since we don't know what notability means we can't say if he is or isn't. Sebisthlm (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, like November the discussion is in danger of fizzling out without conclusion once again. So can we agree that points 1-3 & 7 are suitable, point 4 will be discussed again before the commencement of the next U-20 world cup in 2009. Common-sense tells us that in certain cases WP:N and WP:BIO can overrule these criteria, but in doing so don't create precedents to be cited in AfD debates, and finally any changes to these criteria must be discussed at WP:FOOTY. King of the NorthEast 12:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support - GiantSnowman (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. I would also support point 4b). – PeeJay 12:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. Haven't contributed but have kept in touch with the above. Gets my support. Bigmike (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. I suggest either we badger other WP:FOOTY members to vote on this, or pass 1-3 and 7 and start a new section to discuss 4-6 fully. Peanut4 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to move on to start a discussion on the notability of clubs, which seems pertinent becuase of the wording of this AfD. Perhaps if we focus on adopting some less controversial guidelines (rather than precedents) we could come back to discuss 4-6. I am also going to propose this downstairs. King of the NorthEast 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support. I support 1-3 & 7. However, since no consensus is reached on 4-6, the passing of this criteria should not, and does not:
  • Preclude a widening of the criteria in line with points 4-6, or
  • Overrule precedents in line with 4-6 (AfD:Paul Rodgers and others)
I'm making these conditions so that editors opposed to any inclusions of points 4-6 not deliberately refuse to discuss these points in order to get a more narrow criteria, wich can be used to attack the precedents that points 4-6 are based on. I think we have to come to some sort of agreement concerning these points, and I think those who oppose points 4-6 and are refusing to compromise on (or even discuss) the issue have a responsibility to move this forward. Until a consensus is reached on 4-6, this criteria (if passed) don't concern notability of youth internationals, continental club competition squad members or semi-professional internationals. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I see your point over point 4, and that we shouldn't formally disbar youth internationals until consensus is reached, but the majority seem to strongly oppose 5-6, the opposition to 6 is not opposition to Semi-Pro international footballers, we have agreed that all FIFA recognised international footballers are notable in point 3, it is opposition to conferring notability for simply being in a squad. I drafted the compromise proposals for 4, but as I am personally opposed to the inclusion of non-playing players I requested that someone who supports it drafts some alternatives for discussion. It would have been impossible for me, or anyone else who opposes 5&6 to do it in good faith. No-one did it so the subject got less discussion than point 4. Perhaps if someone who supports the inclusion of non-players could draft some alternatives, one of them may achieve more support than they do in their current form. I can't see how oposers of 5&6 can be expected to compromise without someone offering us something to compromise on, rather than say accepting criteria we disagree with, or allowing notability by precedent, which as we have seen many times can be affected by meatpuppetry, pile ons !votes and closures by admins with little idea about footy notability criteria (no suprise - since the notability page reamined blank for over a year) King of the NorthEast 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
My criticism of lack of discussion was concerning point 4. Conversely, You're quite right that the responsibility to come up with a compromise on 5 and 6 lies on those advocating these points. I'm not sure of the origin of point 6, or what it's aiming at, but point 5 seem to be some sort of translation of AfD:Paul Rodgers, wich after a quite thorough and lengthy debate (more thorough than over point 5 above) voted to keep (11-6) the player despite the lack of first team appearances. I'm willing to examine AfD:Paul Rodgers and try to summarize the discussion into a suggestion of a point 5. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we ought to try to move this to a conclusion, but we must be clear about the status we intend for this set of criteria. Are we looking to make a WP:BIO#FOOTBALLERS, or a sub-section of WP:BIO#Athletes, or are we simply establishing the arguments that members of this forum will use in prodded articles? Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Very good question, I can't see whats wrong with making it an actual part of WP:BIO. The exercise was simply intended to formalise some clear guidelines on footballers. Once this discussion is concluded I was hoping to clarify and formalise the guidelines on other (much less controversial) stuff such as teams, stadiums, referees etc.King of the NorthEast 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it fair to summarise that no-one objects to the adoption of 1-3 & 7 with a commitment to further discuss 4 at a later date other than Sebisthlm who wishes to defend the inclusion of non-players? At some point we are going to have to conclude this discussion, in order to determine guidelines for clubs, leagues, managers, referees, individual games etc. Since the majority seem to support I am going to move 7 over to the notability page. King of the NorthEast 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability are in function and currently stand? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tentative Support - sorry, I spaced out on the discussion for a few days. I still have concerns about national first division eligibility, but I realize that's not going to get formalized and will hopefully get decided logically should a situation arise. I'm also wary of the MLS Draft Pick conflict, especially if you plan on trying to fully incorporate it into WP:BIO. As long as we keep these situations in mind and come back and discuss point 4 later and don't completely blow it off, I'm in favor of the formalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, the hypothetical in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhodri Giggs: if he had appeared in a European match for Bangor City, why shouldn't that confer notability despite the side not being professional? Things like this are still not completely resolved by these parameters. I know I seem to be in the minority for worrying about it, but it's a genuine concern of mine, I'm not just trying to be difficult. matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I guess as I read point 2 again, it does seem to confer notability. But the discussion in that AfD implied that Giggs would be non-notable even if he had because of his clubs professional status. So which is actually the case? matt91486 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability/Archive_2&oldid=1142516072"