Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

There is disagreement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Duncan (which I started) about the NSPORTS rule in WP:SPORTSBASIC: "[...] sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." about whether this "(such as the Olympics)" includes the Youth Olympics. All input and opinions are welcome (here or at the AfD) to help make this clearer. Fram (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say definitely not. A huge difference in standard. It's like saying the boys singles winner at Wimbledon is a Wimbledon champion or playing in the Junior Ryder Cup is like playing in the Ryder Cup itself. Nigej (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, too. Exceptions, IMO, would be for people winning individual golds, which they would probably pass WP:GNG with coverage of that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say a huge no. But, using Nigej's example, participating in professional Wimbledon is notable, while participating in boys Wimbledon is definitely not. However, winning the boys or girls Wimbledon championship is notable. But you have to win it to be notable, participation only does not remotely make the cut in jr tennis. Perhaps it's the same in youth Olympics, but to be honest, though I watch 100s of different sports I'm not sure I've even heard of the youth Olympics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I pointed out in the aforementioned AfD discussion, even Youth Olympic medal winners have had their pages deleted because of a lack of significant coverage and an inability to duplicate their success as juniors in adult competitions. WP:NSPORT refers to competing at the highest level of competition, with no qualifying modifiers (such as in their age group), and clearly the Youth Olympics is not the highest level of competition in any sport. There's a reason junior events are discounted, or even ignored, in the notability criteria for all sports. Papaursa (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the key words are at the highest level, youth in most instances are allowed to compete at the regular Olympics as well which means that is the highest level. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the reasoning above. The Youth Olympics, while organized by the IOC, are not the Olympic Games and have completely different eligibility criteria, not to mention monumental differences in media coverage. The reason that (real) Olympic competitors are given special consideration at NSPORT is in large part because their participation in those events almost guarantees that at least some reliable sources have taken significant notice of their participation, and therefore they have a strong possibility of passing our general notability guidelines. Competitors at lesser senior events must have placed highly or won their event to qualify. IMO the Youth Olympics ranks alongside the IAAF World Junior Championships and Youth World Championships, which require the competitor to have won an individual gold medal to qualify under NSPORT (point #4 for track & field athletes). CThomas³ (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even winning a Youth Olympics gold medal may not be enough to show notability in every sport. Several gold medal winners had their articles deleted because they failed to generate coverage outside of (or even including) that accomplishment and did nothing as adult competitors in their sport. I'd say this sidebar boils down to whether or not a youth/junior world championship normally shows notability in that sport. It seems reasonable to equate the two. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, but I was merely stating that NSPORT already recognizes two major youth events and establishes gold medal winners as the relevant hurdle (no pun intended) to pass; I personally would consider the Youth Olympics to be no less prestigious, and thus require the same threshold. However, if we wish to revisit notability across youth sporting events in general, I am definitely open to that. CThomas³ (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which two you are referring to. Nigej (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTRACK, point 4: Have won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, or Youth World Championships. CThomas³ (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have considered the suggestions in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_30#Orienteering and propose the following. I structure it in subsections so the discussion can take place there. Per W (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Athletes

An athlete who competes in the field of orienteering is presumed notable if he/she meets any of the criteria below

1. Has finished top 3 in the World Orienteering Championships or the European Orienteering Championships.
2. Finished top 3 in any other major senior level individual international competition according to the criterion below. Presently that means the three medalists in H21E and D21E in O-Ringen, except for the competition until 1968, when there was not so many runners.
3. Has won an individual gold medal at the Junior World Orienteering Championships, in a World Ranking Event (Swedish League etc)
4. Has won a senior national championship in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships, presently Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, the Soviet Union, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine.

Any thoughts? Per W (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would scrap the list of countries. The definition is enough, since there is a list at World Orienteering Championships#Medal table. Nigej (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You are right. Per W (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose #4, which is too broad and does not indicate likelihood of passing GNG. There are not even articles about those events themselves so one cannot inherit notability from that. Oppose #3: see the above discussion Youth Olympics; this does not create a presumption of notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clubs

An orienteering club is presumed notable if it meets any of the criteria below

1. has got a medal in a major relay (according to the criteria below, which mean presently Tiomila (both the Tiomila relay and the women’s relay, since 1970 when the number of team became so large that it could not anymore be organized from point A to point B) and the Jukola relay (both Jukola, from 1972, and Venla).
2. has been represented by ten runners who fulfill the criteria above.

Any thoughts? Per W (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think these work. I would leave clubs to GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Events

The notability of an event is determined by meeting all the following criteria

1. It has an international elite field.
2. It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors.
3. It has been held over a period of 25 years.

Presently that means O-Ringen, Tiomila and the Jukola relay .

Any thoughts? Per W (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much the same as above, this sort of thing is better left to GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTRACK repeatedly talks of "senior level" competitions or "senior national championship". What is meant by that? "Senior" as in "not junior", ie competitions for regular adults? Or as in "senior citizens",e.g. a competition for those aged 60 and older? Or as in "the oldest/most prestigious/whatever national championship"? A Google search seems to indicate that "for senior citizens" is the most commonly used meaning, but that doesn't make much sense in our context. Huon (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In sports Senior is used to indicate non-Junior players or as you indicate regular open competition where there is no age restriction. Where the cut off line is can vary depending on sports but is usually around 20 in most competitions. However, in senior competitions, those of junior age can usually still compete if they are of high enough skill whereas those over a given age can't drop down into junior competition. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Track and field use the terms Senior and then Masters (or Veteran in the UK) for those over a certain age (typically 35 or 40) . However Category:Senior sport has a sub-cat Category:Masters athletics (track and field), so the term Senior is somewhat confusing. Nigej (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So then senior should be defined in an own article. In orienteering it is 21-34 years old. Per W (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modified proposal

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

• Support modifying NFOOTY2 by changing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top-Flight *Preliminary* Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently, the guideline says:

Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924

That is in direct conflict with Wikipedia is not a directory, a policy that dates back over 14 years] and is itself a clarification of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".

See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Soto the arguments are about what the subject has done, not about what sources exist. That is a violation of WP:V (as supported by WP:RS).

This is a perfect illustration of how local consensus of fans of a specific subject can lead to a guideline that not only encourages articles that are not compliant with policy, but also leads people to make arguments for retention which argue to the guideline not to the policy. Guidelines are supposed to illuminate, not supplant policy. At the top of this guideline it says an article must meet GNG or the sport specific criteria. That is wrong. if it doesn't meet GNG, especially since it is very likely to be a WP:BLP, then we cannot have an article, because we cannot verify neutrality.

I propose we add the following at the top of this guideline article instead:

Subject-specific guidelines are indications of the type of person who is likely to have sufficient sources to qualify for an article (the general notability guideline), and for whom notability is likely to be assumed provided non-trivial sources exist. This article is a guideline, not a policy. Wikipedia is not a directory

all Wikipedia articles require non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources so that content can be properly verified.

Anything else appears to be an assertion that local agreement of sports fans supplants policy. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long-standing consensus on this page is that it does not override the general notability guideline. This is noted in the FAQ and in the third paragraph: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. I've previously opened discussion on the second sentence, and failed to gain consensus to change it. The consensus view is that the sentence is needed to specify that the article must cite sources to back up whatever presumption of notability is being asserted, and it does not mean that the sports-specific notability guidelines take precedence. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph of the guideline says The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Then, lower, we have "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924". That frames competing in the Olympics as a bright line inclusion criterion regardless of sourcing. That is unacceptable per policy. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I discussed this sentence, and you can see my views in the linked discussion, and the one that one in turn links to. Regarding framing, closers of deletion discussions really must read the entire guideline and understand its context. Otherwise, they are misapplying it and substituting their own opinions for the consensus agreement that this guideline does not supersede the general notability guideline and only serves to provide some buffer time to find appropriate sources. isaacl (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: The text of the part of WP:NOLY that you are contesting is missing in your post.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It should definitely be changed to clarify that it is only the Summer and Winter games. There have been attempts to justify biographies on the basis of playing the youth olympics. "including" is a strange word to use, implying incompleteness. We can just remove the word. (And the dates too, which are pointless) Nigej (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence you are saying is wrong, is actually being interpreted by you wrong. That sentence is meant to show that if you are saying it meets the GNG or that it meets the SNG that you need to have sources to proove either. You aren't the first to come along and complain about that sentence. It has been the subject of many RfCs both here and at wider viewed community forums. While most don't believe this SNG overrides the GNG (as we make clear in the FAQ) there have been RfCs on WP:N where it does actually say the SNGs are on equal footing with GNG. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING, with the AfD not going the way the OP wanted. And the individual at the AfD has done other things outside the Olympics, including captaining the national team. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a misaplication of WP:NOTDIR, Third party works would and do include such persons. Agathoclea (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are third-party directories, like sports almanacs. We (WP) is not trying to replicate that. The issue about NOTDIR more specifically about not being a "who's who" is spot on. --Masem (t) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at the AFD in question, but JzG's point is right on, given how many of the !votes there are saying, effectively "notable because meets NOLY". Regurgitating an SNG at an AFD is specifically an argument to avoid. JzG has presented a sourcing challenge against the presumed notability that NOLY gives (the allowance to create a standalone article), so now it the onus is on those wanting to keep to show appropriate independent secondary sourcing with in-depth coverage exists. --Masem (t) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This all seems rather WP:POINT-y and blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The guideline is fine, we've got longstanding consensus, and this is a giant waste of our time. And there's going to be sources to back up just about anyone's participation in the Olympics, given how well-documented they are. In the highly unlikely event there isn't, which was clearly not the case at that AfD, sure, you can delete it, but that's not going to happen. Smartyllama (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the guideline is not fine. The guideline repudiates WP:V/WP:RS/WP:NOTDIR. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • While I certainly do not question the ability to find a source to confirm someone participated in the Olympics, that's not the same as a independent secondary source that has in-depth coverage of the person. A reader should be asking "Why should I care about this person?" which is going to be answered by that type of coverage. Having an article where largest extent we can do is document that someone played at the Olympics is not an appropriate WP article. JzG is definitely asking pertitent questions based on how that specific AFD is going in how NOLY (and other NSPORTS) are being missed as AFD arguments. --Masem (t) 15:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you actually read the WP:ATA article you claim proves you right? There's absolutely nothing wrong with citing an SNG at an AfD as long as you actually explain why it applies. In this case, it's fairly obvious - WP:OLY applies because the subject has competed at the Olympics. Likewise, claiming it should be deleted "per WP:GNG" or "per WP:V" without elaborating further is also an argument to avoid per that page. Smartyllama (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just saying that an SNG applies is not a useful !vote, unless it is specifically challenging the nom's opposition that the SNG doesn't apply. But in the specific case, it's pretty clear JzG knows NOLY applies, the challenge is beyond that. And in terms of JzG's nominate, they spelled out why they think there's problems with lack of soruces, and didn't just repeat alphabet soup. It's a valid AFD challenge. --Masem (t) 15:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Genuine question. Is it true that the onus is on those wanting to keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talk • contribs)
  • Those wanting to keep this either needs to 1) explain how they feel that JzG's source evaluation is flawed against the types of expectations given in WP:BEFORE, or, failing that 2) demonstrate that quality sources exist that can be used to expand the article. Editors wanting to include Olmypians get the benefit of doubt to start with the presumed notability NOLY allows, so when it comes to deletion, the onus falls on them if there's a valid challenge to that presumption. --Masem (t) 15:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the whole point of the discussion was to determine whether the challenge was "valid", not to assume it before-hand. Nigej (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the onus is always on those who introduce content changes to provide adequate citations for those changes, including citations to illustrate that a subject meets English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. However as noted in the FAQ, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which does raise the issue related to source-finding due to the time period this person was active. A person in the 2000 Olympics, just at the cusp of wide-spread internet use, should be easy to find online but one might argue there needs to be offline searching so the DEADLINE consideration is valid (and whether JzG attmtped this before nom) In contrast, if this was a 1960s Olmypian, I would expect a nom to document their off-line efforts to find sources (extending that DEADLINE), while a 2016 Olmypian better clearly have articles about them online, shortening that DEADLINE. --Masem (t) 16:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that anyone making the case that they've made a thorough search to refute the reasonable expectation that appropriate sources can be found should be including their efforts to examine harder-to-locate sources. Note, though, that major periodicals and newspapers are available in online archives through libraries and a certain search engine dating back for a long time now. isaacl (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I spent many hours trying to source an article on a former swimming teacher who was a multiple medal-winning paralympian in swimming and wheelchair basketball, with an MBE. Not even the local paper's microfiche had anything. My issue is that the guideline makes a leap from we are likely to be able to get sources for this kind of person, to this kind of person is inherently sourceable even if there's no evidence the supposed sources actually exist and nobody can find them. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But notability is nothing to do with content: WP:NEXIST. "Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." Nigej (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not necessary to review the notability of an article solely on the basis of the sources included within it at a given snapshot in time. Also, as I said, if a reasonable expectation of the availability of suitable sources can be established, editors are typically liberal in allowing for time to find them. But nonetheless the onus is on those who wish to have an article to make the case for its meeting the appropriate standards for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you tell me where it says that? Nigej (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your link is right in the middle of the relevant section: "Notability requires verifiable evidence". (In the very subsection to which you linked, it says If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.) However more to the point, Wikipedia guidelines and policies aren't a set of codified laws where discussions can only apply specific lines of reasoning that have been described in those pages. With few exceptions, the English Wikipedia community has agreed that subjects don't inherently meet its standards for having an article. On this basis, editors who want to introduce an article, upon being challenged on its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia, have to provide the necessary sources or a reasonable expectation that the necessary verifiable evidence can be found eventually. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know all that. But suppose the person who created the article (many years ago, without adequate sources) is now dead. He may have had sources, he may not. Someone challenges the notability. It says that the proposer is "strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search", implying that the first stage is for the proposer to make genuine attempts to look for sources and "and consider the possibility of existent sources". If the proposer doesn't do that, it seems to me that it is a fair point to say "you proposed it, you look for sources". Nigej (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • As has been discussed, if there's a reasonable expectation that appropriate sources can be found, then editors wishing to convince others that an article should be deleted is well-advised to demonstrate what they have done to look for sources. But as described in the passage I quoted, if an article is being challenged repeatedly, and over time no sources have been found, then it will likely be easier to convince editors that suitable sources do not exist. The first time an article is nominated for deletion, "You look for them" might suffice to convince others; the third time, it might not be enough. isaacl (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • And 100 years from now, we'll all be dead, but the 1 million+ stubs will (probably) still be here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm not sure what commentary you are making; are you suggesting that articles for deletion discussions are too lenient in allowing for time to find adequate sources to demonstrate that the standards for having an article are met? Or that editors are not being sufficiently diligent in expanding articles beyond stub status? Or that we really should be working on that immortality elixir in order to complete Wikipedia? isaacl (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • There is a valid concern that a loose guideline like NOLY or NFOOTY allow the creation of so many stubs continually over time but there are few too editors working to bring those stubs to quality articles. --Masem (t) 21:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sure, but I was wondering what Lugnuts was thinking about with his comment. isaacl (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Isaac: There is also an obligation on the person creating the article to establish that it can be sourced, especially for a WP:BLP. In this case I waded through pages of Google hits and found results tables and other people with the same name. It's not reasonable to expect that someone can create a directory entry and then insist that others use advanced Google searches and specific knowledge of the person's name and history in order to try to do their job for them. Source it or lose it is a requirement for a BLP - and in fact for any Wikipedia article. But the cause of the problem here is a guideline which explicitly states that any directory entry showing that X competed in an Olympics inherently meets the requirements for inclusion. That guidance is incorrect per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTDIR and WP:BLP, all of which have much wider consensus than this SNG. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, I've already said the onus is on the article creator, so we agree. As I alluded to above, you can't cherry pick one line out of this guideline and say the entire guidance is wrong. The guidance clearly states that meeting one of the sports-specific notability guidelines does not mean an article must be kept, and that meeting one of them means that it is likely the general notability guideline is met. The first section, "Applicable policies and guidelines", says ...standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. The FAQ says The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them.. Naturally as with any guideline, there could be improvements in the wording. But the consensus view since the inception of this guideline has been affirmed many times since, and it completely agrees with you that the sports-specific notability criteria do not define inherent notability and that the general notability guideline must be met. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the AfD in question, I managed to find five indepth sources in Spanish pretty quickly, with little or no ability to speak da' lingo myself. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD proposer should have attempted "to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search" but said that "I cannot find any biographical sources about this subject." Nigej (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find that hard to believe from someone who has been an editor on here for more than 14 years, and an admin for 13 of those years. But maybe that's just me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it is fair at an AFD to critique the nominator's BEFORE tests. Even just peaking at the first two sources with google translate, but not checking the RS nature of those sites, there's clearly something, but it did require searching non-English sources. The fact they have been shown (and that there is agreement they are the GNG-type of sources) means the AFD nom was flawed. That's fine, and nominators may make such mistakes. --Masem (t) 19:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Whereas if you're four pages in and have still only found results tables and other people, that's a good indication that the article fails. Which is what happened with the most recent one I nominated. In the end, the person creating an article bears the primary responsibility for demonstrating notability. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this Afd pretty much proved why this SNG needs to exist. It exists to show when articles probably have sources but that they may be harder to find than just a simple couple page google search. In essence you showed exactly why we need this SNG to prevent over zealous deletion from people who didn't look harder than a couple pages of google results. In the case of some older athletes that might even require looking in hard copy archives. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing here about this particular AFD is that while NOLY can exist and can be used as the basis of an article, it cannot be used to defend an article at AFD, it becomes a circular argument. You can challenge what the nominator said by questioning what they searched or showing that some other sources exist, but you cannot sit there at afd and say "notable because NOLY", SNGs allow the article to be created but they are not arguments against deletion. --Masem (t) 13:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. However they can "consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search", even without finding sources themselves, and argue for its retention on that basis. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is going to be dependent on how well the nominator has demonstrated what they searched. If the nom had done a rather thorough search, arguing that sources might exist without showing any is not going to fly. On the other hand, a non-thorough search by the nominator can be argued this way, but you still make a better case if you can actually show a source or two. --Masem (t) 16:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true too. If someone came along saying he spoke Korean and had access to Korean newspapers and could find nothing on some Korean golfer from the 1960s say, then I'd be inclined to believe him. However, if someone simply looked for on-line English language sources (as I would myself) I'd be very unconvinced, given the lack of coverage of Korean events in English language sources at that time or, perhaps, in contemporary on-line Korean language sources. Nigej (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "four pages in and nothing but tables" argument doesn't make sense me. A lot of the time, especially with people whose notability will primarily come in a foreign language, English-language directory sites will be prioritised by the search engines over non-English feature articles. SportingFlyer T·C 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution is to source the article properly and not create directory entrioes, and to ensure that the guideline says not to create directory entries. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: If SNG's were not to be used in AfDs, then they are no better than an essay. That is not the common practice, and I'd be suprised if it was the intent of creating all these guidelines. I'd understand your stance more in a hypothetical case where no sources were identified, the article was kept per an SNG, but then was renominated some time later after the nominator failed to find offline sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs can be used if the nomination begs something "This person doesn't appear notable per the GNG.", in which case stating that the SNG is met is sufficient. But when the nom is "While this person meets the SNG, I was unable to find additional sources to expand beyond that.", then rehashing the SNG doesn't make any sense. The SNG is more an article creation allowance to avoid rapid deletion like CSD or AFD before anyone has had a chance to really look for sources. --Masem (t) 15:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your two nomination examples semantically read the same to me. Both of them say "I looked for sources, and failed." The SNG camps reaction would be "You didn't look hard enough or in the right places." I have yet to see a nomination state explicitly that they knew the topic should generally be considered notable because of an SNG, did a through search of online archives (paid would be even more convincing) and offline sources with the mentality that they were out there somewhere, but still found nothing significant. I'll concede that there might be a few AfDs like that, but they would be rare. And then you have this recent one where sources were found after the nomination. Unless we get domain-experts that are willing to clean up SNGs that are suspect, or engage enough non-experts to agree that it doesn't make sense and is only a local consensus, things will never change.—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4#RfC: Promote Notability .28sports.29 to a guideline for the discussion that resulted in these guidelines being enacted. All supporters acknowledged that they do not replace the general notability guideline. There was also consensus agreement that they did not set a higher bar than the general notability guideline for having an article. Meeting a sports-specific notability guideline establishes a reasonable expectation by default that suitable sources can be found, and so one can be referenced for this purpose. But if editors perform an extensive search for significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources and fail to find it, then the reasonable expectation no longer exists for the specific subject in question. It is of course not easy to make a sufficiently extensive search, and a consensus of editors at an article for deletion discussion will have to agree on its sufficiency. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there's distrust because of the number of bad nominations of SNG-meeting subjects that end up having coverage found. So when a legit nomination comes, it's dismissed as another case of a poor WP:BEFORE. There's the steps recommended in the WP:FAILN guideline, but I rarely see those followed; that should either be enforced or removed from guideline status.—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]