User:Cbl62/College football notability

Unique status and popularity of college football

In connection with AfD discussions, many Wikipedians, especially those who are not sports followers and those who reside outside the United States, do not understand the unique status and popularity of American college football.

Many people do not realize that American football for its first 50 years was exclusively a college sport. The NFL was not formed until the 1920s and did not gain widespread popularity until much later. During the 19th Century and the first half of the 20th Century, football remained notable primarily as a college sport. Even in the early 1900s, college football was one of America's two or three most popular sports (along with Major League Baseball and boxing). The legends of the game before the 1950s gained fame not as pro players, but college players like Red Grange, Tom Harmon, George Gipp, Chic Harley, Eddie Mahan, and Notre Dame's Four Horsemen.

Of course, college football today has many levels of play from Division I FBS to Division I FCS to Division II and Division III. The six BCS Conferences in Division I FBS (along with a handful of other programs like Notre Dame and Boise State) represent the highest level ("Major College Football"). In every objective measure, Major College Football ranks among the top two or three sports in America. Here's some data on fan popularity, attendance, TV ratings, and revenue.

• Fan popularity. An annual Harris Poll has consistently shown that college football is the third most popular sport among Americans. The 2010 poll ranked the popularity levels of the top ten sports: (1) pro football (31%), (2) baseball (17%), (3) college football (12%), (4) auto racing (7%), (5) men’s pro basketball (6%), (6) hockey (5%), (7) men’s soccer (4%), (8) men’s college basketball (4%), (9) men’s golf (2%), and (10) track and field (2%).
• Attendance. The NCAA reports that the top 25 teams draw an average of more than 80,000 fans per game. Among the entirety of Division I FBS, the average is 46,632 fans per game. According to Professional sports attendance figures, these figures rank ahead of every American professional sports league except the NFL: (1) NFL (67,358 per game), (2) MLB (30,352 per game), (3) NBA (17,319 per game), (4) NHL (17,126 per game).
• TV ratings. Nielsen's publication "State of the Media: 2011 Year in Sports" shows average TV viewers by conference: SEC (4.4 million), Big 10 (3.2 million), ACC (2.6 million), Big 12 (2.3 million), Pac 12 (2.1 million) and Big East (1.9 million). The top viewed games in 2011 were: 2012 BCS Championship (24.2 million), LSU vs. Alabama Nov. 5 (20.0 million), 2012 Rose Bowl (17.5 million), 2012 Fiesta Bowl (13.7 million), 2012 Sugar Bowl (9.5 million), and Michigan vs. Notre Dame Sept 10 (7.5 million). Among the sports included in the report, only the NFL appears to have higher average ratings.
• Revenue. The top 20 college football programs generate $1.2 billion in revenue, an average of $60 million per team. The 68 teams that play in the six BCS conferences generated $2.2 billion in revenue in 2010.

Cbl62 preliminary thoughts

Despite this unique status and popularity, there is no separate notability standard for college football players. Instead, we are forced to rely on the generic WP:NCOLLATH that also governs all other forms of college athletes, including baseball, lacrosse, ice hockey, wrestling, track & field, tennis, gymnastics, etc.

While the strict standards of WP:NCOLLATH makes sense for most college athletics, college football should be governed by a separate set of standards tailored to its circumstances. The following are some possible categories to chew on:

1. Major awards - the existing WP:NCOLLATH standard presumes notability for players who have received one of the major awards listed on the College football award navbox. This is a good starting point.

2. College Football Hall of Fame -- This one is already built into NCOLLATH and should remain an automatic yes.

3. Consensus All-Americans - IMO a clear-cut, automatic yes. I think there's been resistance to this in the past out of concern that there would then be an argument that Consensus All-Americans in every sport should be deemed notable. That argument ignores the unique popularity of Major College Football. It is reasonable to assume that Consensus All-Americans have received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG (that's what sports specific standards are supposed to do). The same probably cannot be said about Consensus All-Americans in softball, baseball, gymnastics, wrestling, tennis, etc. This is why we need specific guidelines for college football.

4. First-team All-Americans - IMO yes so long as it's a first-team All-American as picked by one of the major selectors. The major selectors have changed over time, but the ones that are established today are Associated Press (AP), Football Writers Association of America (FWAA), American Football Coaches Association (AFCA), Walter Camp Foundation (WCFF), The Sporting News (TSN), Sports Illustrated (SI), Pro Football Weekly (PFW), ESPN, CBS Sports (CBS), College Football News (CFN), Rivals.com, and Scout.com. If you peruse the recent pages for the annual All-American teams, it's pretty clear that the players receiving this level of recognition pass the notability bar. Template with links to the annual teams below.

5. Academic All-Americans - I'd probably say no to an automatic inclusionary standard. They should be required to qualify under WP:GNG or another standard.

6. First-team All-Conference - I'd say yes, but probably only for the BCS conferences (SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12, ACC, and Big East).

7. FBS statistical leaders. So long as it is limited to the truly major statistical categories for backfield players (e.g., rushing yards, passing yards, receiving yards, total offense, and maybe QB rating), I'd say yes to an automatic inclusionary standard for players who finish a season ranked among the FBS leaders. Top 10 is clear-cut, but I'd argue that anyone finishing in the top 20 is pretty clearly notable.

8. FCS, Division II, and Division III players. I'd probably say no to an automatic inclusionary standard for lower level statistical leaders and All-Conference players. Players at the lower levels should be required to satisfy WP:GNG.

9. Team captains. I'm undecided on this. IMO opinion, team captains for the major teams should get a pass, but I'm not sure how/where to draw the line. Maybe the line could be drawn at captains for teams ranked among the top 25 in the year-end polls.

10. Team MVPs. I'd probably say yes, at least for the major teams. Maybe a line could be drawn at MVPs for teams ranked among the top 25 in the year-end polls.

11. Starting lineup for national champions. Teams selected as national champions have a special place in college football history. I'd support an automatic inclusionary standard for players who started the majority of games for national championship teams.

12. Starting quarterbacks. Quarterbacks get tons of press -- far more than players at other positions (running backs a close second). Based on my experience in AfDs, the level of press coverage for starting quarterbacks of BCS Conference teams is really extensive. To avoid ongoing debates, I'd support an automatic inclusionary standard for players who have started the majority of games played by a BCS Conference team (or, if that won't fly, for a teams ranked in the top 25).

These standards would by no means open the "flood gates" to lesser players, a concern some have expressed. There are 120 teams in Division I FBS and 122 in Division I FCS, each with about 100 players. That about 22,000 players just in Division I, and even larger numbers at the lower divisions. The standards proposed would remain highly selective, resulting in less than 1% of college football players getting a pass. Given the unique status and popularity of Major College Football, these proposed standards are fairly conservative.

13. NCAA current and former recordholders

Comments and suggestions

Major award winners

• Yes, with caveat. Presumption of notability for major national award recipients, with such "major" awards to be defined by a specific list maintained by WP:CFB. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, although as Dirtlawyer1 points out "major award" is difficult to define. For example, I'd be inclined to include division-level players of the year from lower divisions. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes with a standard of what is a "major award"--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. The existing WP:NCOLLATH standard presumes notability for players who have received one of the major awards listed on the College football award navbox (linked above). I'm fine with that list. Are there any of these awards that you guys think should be excluded? Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Although I am not sure where I stand on some of the new College Performance Awards and some of the conference awards listed on the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would say that those are not necessarily "major" awards. cmadler (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

College football Hall of Fame

College Football Hall of Fame – coach and player inductees

• Yes. Presumption of notability for all CFHOF inductees who were coaches and/or players. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes --Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes as to players and coaches. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes players, coaches, and most other contributors including announcers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus All-Americans

• Yes. Presumption of notability for all consensus first-team All-Americans as listed by the NCAA in its annual Division I Records Book. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Only "yes" for the top level at the time (currently FBS). cmadler (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes for Division I FBS All-Americans only.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes for Division I FBS only. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes FBS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

First-team All-Americans

First-team All-Americans – major All-American selectors

• Yes, with caveat. Presumption of notability for all first-team All-American selections by major selectors designated by the NCAA for any given season (currently, the Associated Press, American Football Coaches Association, Football Writers Association, The Sporting News, and the Walter Camp Foundation), plus other current well-established selectors such as CBS Sports, College Football News, ESPN, Pro Football Weekly and Sports Illustrated. The list will vary over time based on who the major selectors were in given seasons. WP:CFB will have to compile a season-by-season list, using the NCAA's list as a starting point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes; per Dirtlawyer1, this should be based on which selectors were considered major at the time. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Only "yes" for the top level at the time (currently FBS). cmadler (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes for NCAA Division I FBS only.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. So long as it's a first-team All-American as picked by one of the major selectors. The major selectors have changed over time. The ones we have recognized for today are Associated Press (AP), Football Writers Association of America (FWAA), American Football Coaches Association (AFCA), Walter Camp Foundation (WCFF), The Sporting News (TSN), Sports Illustrated (SI), Pro Football Weekly (PFW), ESPN, CBS Sports (CBS), College Football News (CFN), Rivals.com, and Scout.com. That's a pretty high bar. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Academic All-Americans

Academic All-Americans

• No. Impressive, and should always be included in infobox and text, but no presumption of notability. Fairly or unfairly, college athletes are notable for their athletic achievements, not their grade point averages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No this is an add-in to someone who should already be notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• This one seems pretty clear-cut. Probably no need to even present this one to the larger group. Cbl62 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• No Except for the Academic All-American of the Year, which is included above in major awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

First-team all-conference selections

First-team all-conference selections

• No. Impressive, and should always be included in infobox and text, but no presumption of notability. The same rule should also apply to other conference-level awards such as conference MVPs and recipients of the Jacobs Blocking Trophy, the Silver Football Award, or the Morris Trophy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No, though I would consider a conference POTY (including conferences that break it down to DPOTY and OPOTY) notable, even for FBS non-AQ conferences. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No agreed--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes as to the BCS conferences only. The six BCS conferences (with the possible exception of the Big East) are the elite of college football. Players who rise to the top of one of these conferences should qualify IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No Although for the power conferences, they will almost always pass GNG except for maybe OLs and Ps.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FBS statistical leaders

FBS statistical leaders - limited to the top 10 or 20 in the truly major statistical categories (e.g., rushing yards, passing yards, receiving yards, total offense, and maybe QB rating).

• No, with caveat. Impressive, and should always be included in infobox and text, but no presumption of notability—except for major FBS record setters. Usually, this is a moot point because major record setters will typically also be major award winners and All-Americans. This may catch a few random non-award-winners such as kickers of freakishly long field goals and punts. Criteria for this needs to be carefully considered, so that we don't open a real can of worms. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No, per Dirtlawyer1. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No but if it's impressive enough they may meet WP:GNG anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. In any given year, there are over 20,000 players competing in Division I football (220 teams x 100 players). A player who has finished in the top 10 or 20 of the major statistical categories is going to meet notability standards, and this bright line rule helps reduce the number of AfD discussions (which is a good thing). The standard for track athletes includes: "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships." This presumably means that the top 8 finishers in every event at the annual NCAA Track and Field Championship (i.e., the #8 finisher in the hammer throw and the #7 guy in the shotput) get a pass. College football is way more popular than college track. If the top collegiate hammer throwers and shot putters get a pass, the top rushers and passers in college football should certainly also get a pass. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes but we have to be careful on what counts as a major stat. These guys should have lots of highlights and press. They should pass GNG in general.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FCS, Division II, and Division III players

FCS, Division II, and Division III players

• No. No presumption of notability for awards, All-American honors, etc. Must satisfy general notability standards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Mostly no, but as indicated above, I think winners of major division-level POTY awards (e.g. Walter Payton Award and Harlon Hill Trophy) should get a presumption of notability. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No for automatic notability, but I could see the awards mentioned by Cmadler above. Also, I would include NAIA and NJCAA as a "no" just for clarification.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No with same caveat noted by Cmadler. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No Run them through WP:GNG, which will hurt the old guys, but that is the best we can do..--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Team captains

Team captains

• No. Impressive, and should always be included in infobox and text, but no presumption of notability. Truly memorable team captains who are not otherwise notable per Wikipedia standards should be included in team season articles and the team history sections of the main team articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely not. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No sometimes seniors who don't play are made "honorary team captains" for a game. This is really at the coach's whim.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• You guys are probably right on this. In the early days of football, the team captain was a much more significant role. The captain ran the team, directed practice, and was responsible for hiring the trainer and coach. A per se rule is probably impractical. I'd suggest withdrawing this one before we present it to the larger group. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a good point. I'd be willing to say that team captains before some semi-arbitrary year (1915, maybe?) are presumed notable, for the reasons you mentioned. cmadler (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Team MVPs

• No. Impressive, and should always be included in infobox and text, but no presumption of notability. Given the proliferation in recent years of team MVP awards for offense, defense and special teams, plus other similar-sounding awards, we cannot impart a presumption of notability to the recipients of these awards. Too many recipients would otherwise fail the GNG standard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes and no. No if it applied to every team. But yes for players selected as the MVP of a team that finished its season ranked in the top 25. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No (with exceptions) per Cbl62.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Starting lineups for national championship teams

• No. Membership on a BCS Championship team is impressive, and should always be included in infobox and text, but no presumption of notability. Even on the typical national championship team, it is unusual that most starters would satisfy the GNG standard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. I stand by my original comment. Teams selected as national champions at the FBS level have a special place in college football history. I'd support an automatic inclusionary standard but only for players who started the majority of games for national championship teams. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No Not every national champion has 24 or 25 notable players.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Starting quarterbacks

• No. No presumption of notability for starting quarterbacks. To impart a presumption of notability to every Division I FBS starting quarterback would open a real can of worms. Frankly, of the 120+ FBS starting quarterbacks in any given season, probably fewer than 10 or 15 of them are truly notable if we evaluate them on the basis of substantial regional and national media coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No, although I think that many will satisfy the GNG. cmadler (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No no presumption, but they would certainly be more likely to surpass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm Ok with there being no per se rule, but most starting QBs for BCS teams will get enough non-trivial coverage to pass WP:GNG. I suggest withdrawing this one before we present it to the larger group. Cbl62 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• No If a QB does not pass WP:GNG he should be deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Significant record-setters

There's another criteria from WP:NCOLLATH that I overlooked in the initial list. That criteria is a player who "established a major Division I (NCAA) record."

• Yes. And it should include not only the current record holder but anyone who has been the all-time record-holder at any time in the past. The harder part will be defining with some clarity what constitutes a "major" record. We could use the records included on this list: List of NCAA football records (limited to Division I FBS). Frankly, the list looks a little bloated to me. For example: "Most rushes, quarter." Or " Most yards passing, half." Really? I suggest we pare it back. Once we agree on the list, we might get volunteers who would compile record progression lists for the qualifying records. Thoughts? Cbl62 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, including past record-holders per Cbl62. cmadler (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes we can find a good list to agree on in good faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• Yes We need to establish a list of records.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Tightening general standards

Starting quarterbacks are an example where we need to tighten our standards for applicable media coverage used to establish notability. In 2012, virtually every starter gets coverage in the hometown newspaper where the university is located, but most do not get meaningful regional and national coverage in major media. The line needs to be drawn somewhere between regional and national coverage. When The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times or the Chicago Tribune give significant coverage to an SEC quarterback, he's probably notable; likewise, when The Washington Post, the Houston Chronicle or The Atlanta Journal-Constitution give significant coverage to a Big Ten quarterback. We also need to define what "routine coverage" is and is not for purposes of establishing notability, and provide linked examples of trivial coverage, routine coverage and substantial coverage to better inform future AfD discussions.

The presumption of notability guidelines above would create a "bright line" test to include consensus All-Americans and first-team All-Americans by major selectors, effectively adding them to College Football Hall of Fame inductees and major national award recipients. Other concerns should be addressed by more specifically defining the nature of meaningful media coverage necessary to establish notability for college football players specifically and college athletes generally. We should also look to tighten the rules applicable to high school athletes because we have far too many high school football players, college recruits and college players who are being accepted as "notable" when their only claim to fame is a four or five-start rating from one of the recruiting services. Too often, we have accepted routine and even trivial coverage for purposes of establishing notability, and that needs to be reduced. If anything, there should be a de facto negative presumption of no notability against the inclusion of high school athletes and college recruits. We already have too many stub-level garbage articles about college recruits and mid-tier college athletes, and we should tighten the standards to discourage the creation of such articles before the subject athletes become truly notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There's less we agree on than I expected. Most importantly, your proposed tightening of the general notability standards for college football players would result in the deletion of the vast majority of college football player articles (unless they go on to play in the pros). I would strongly oppose such an approach. Significant, non-trivial coverage in major metropolitan dailies has been and should be enough to meet WP:GNG, and that shouldn't be changed. I've always been opposed to efforts to impose higher notability standards on athletes than businessmen, local politicians, etc. If coverage in the Chicago Tribune establishes notability for an alderman or local TV personality, it should also do so for a football player. In the case of a DeWayne Lewis, coverage in The Spectrum is borderline, but non-trivial coverage in major metropolitan dailies (like those in Top 100 US newspapers) cannot be discounted. Cbl62 (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your more general point about major media vs. local coverage is a good one. One of the issues which presently colors my thinking is whether coverage in "hometown" newspapers – such as The Gainesville Sun – should receive the same weight in player notability discussions as coverage by major regional newspapers such as The Miami Herald, Tampa Bay Times (nee St. Petersburg Times) or Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I do not yet have an easy solution to the problem, nor a specific formula in mind. Generally, I think regional and national coverage should get more consideration than local coverage, and several of the notability standards for other sports specifically contemplate that. As we go through this exercise, it may be helpful for each of us to review the notability standards for each of the other sports for ideas and insights. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that, I think there's even a question of how to treat major regional newspapers that are also the hometown paper (or primary regional paper) for a program: for example, The Miami Herald for the University of Miami. cmadler (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that Dirtlawyer1's comment that "We also need to define what "routine coverage" is and is not for purposes of establishing notability, and provide linked examples of trivial coverage, routine coverage and substantial coverage to better inform future AfD discussions" gets right to the heart of the problem. If we can come to a better agreement as to what is and is not "routine coverage" with regard to all aspects of college football, I think deletion discussions would be easier, not just for players but also for things like single games. I think part of the problem is that if an editor takes "routine" to mean the normal level of coverage, that's so high in most cases that it can be hard to demonstrate more. cmadler (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Cmadler, if we can arrive at a common understanding of "routine" coverage in a college football context, and provide links to actual examples, I strongly believe that would go a long way toward making the CFB and college athlete notability standards more concrete and also making AfD discussions cleaner and easier. As things stand now, the word "routine" is completely subjective to every editor, the actual applied standard varies widely from discussion to discussion based on the participating editors, and, based on my personal observation, also depends on whether we are discussing routine coverage in the different contexts of players, games or rivalries. In fairness to all, we need defined standards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Specific examples for discussion

Florida examples

Concrete examples help sharpen the analysis. So, if you were making the call, would any of the following Florida Gators players be spared from deletion? Will Hill, John Brantley, Emmanuel Moody, Chris Rainey, Xavier Nixon, Jelani Jenkins, Cornelius Ingram, Jason Watkins, Carlton Medder, Jarred Fayson, Jemalle Cornelius, Avery Atkins, Earl Everett, Sharrif Floyd, Aubrey Hill, Cornelius Ingram, Jack Katz, Ronald Powell, Ryan Smith, Shannon Snell (no NFL games), Robby Stevenson, Jason Watkins (no NFL games). Cbl62 (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Cbl62, interestingly, you have accurately and precisely identified the weakest remaining notability links among the existing 250+ articles about current and former Florida Gators football players. I have personally considered every one of them, and whether they have the requisite notability for inclusion, and every one of them appears on one of my personal lists to be monitored or acted upon in the future. My future AfD nominations from among your list of Gators will depend, in part, on the outcome of these CFB notability discussions. When I have more time later today, I will provide a brief player-by-player analysis of each, as you suggest, so that I might provide more understanding of my thoughts on point. Please note that, in the past year, I have nominated six Gators for AfD, five of which were deleted after discussion. Suffice it to say, I have no problem whatsoever holding members of my favorite team to the same standards as those of the other 119 FBS programs.

One of the other problems your list points to is that of players whose "notability" (or perhaps "notoriety" is a better word) has resulted primarily from off-the-field problems such as Avery Atkins and Ryan Smith. A similar issue is that of players who get a lot of ink in the recruiting process, but never quite become truly notable for their on-the-field achievements. It's a bit like being famous for being famous. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Chris Rainey – Notable on the basis of coverage of college career. Will probably earn presumption of notability when he plays in a regular season NFL game in 2012. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Keep. Plenty of coverage of his college career even if he never plays in NFL. See Google news archive. Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Cornelius Ingram – Marginally notable based on coverage of college career. Will probably earn presumption of notability when he plays in a regular season NFL game in 2012. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Keep. Looks like enough non-trivial, non-routine coverage to me. See Google news archive. Cbl62 (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Shannon Snell – Marginally notable based on coverage of college career. Would gain a presumption of notability under new guidelines as a Sporting News first-team All-American. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Keep as first-team All-American and plenty of non-trivial coverage. See Google news archive. Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• John Brantley – Marginally notable based on coverage of college career. Possibility he could make NFL roster in 2012. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Keep. Passes muster under current WP:NCOLLATH based on extensive media coverage, including coverage in the national media (ESPN and USA Today). See Google news archive. Cbl62 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Jemalle Cornelius – Marginally notable based on coverage of college career. (BTW, Cbl, you're responsible for saving this one; I nominated it for AfD a year ago.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Keep. I stand by my keep vote in the AfD. Coverage is pretty extensive, and being the captain of Florida's 2006 national championship give him an extra boost IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Earl Everett – Marginally notable based on coverage of college career. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Keep. First-team All-SEC linebacker in the best defensive conference in the sport. That's enough for me. Given that accomplishment, I expected to see more coverage, but still enough to meet WP:GNG. See Google news archive. Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Jack Katz – Marginally notable based on coverage of college career, in particular coverage in several books chronicling the Gators football program. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Keep. When an elite program like Florida inducts a player into its Athletic Hall of Fame as one of its all-time legends, that's good enough for me. Looks like he also received Southeast All-American honors from the AP (not sure what that is but it sounds impressive). See here. Coverage is harder to find for player from this era (early 1960s), and requires a lot of work. But I've seen enough without doing that to satisfy myself he's a keep. Cbl62 (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ryan Smith – Marginally notable based on coverage of college career. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Keep but needs major cleanup. The article as it stands is unsourced except for his UF bio. The bio states that he was a second-team All-American by the AP and a first-team All-SEC by the AP while playing for a national championship team and leading the SEC with eight interceptions in a season. That's pretty impressive stuff. Also plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and national coverage to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. E.g., New York Times, ESPN, Miami Herald, Ft. Worth Star-Telegram and even Tuscaloosa. Cbl62 (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Robby Stevenson – Marginally notable based on coverage of college career. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sharrif Floyd – Premature article primarily based on recruiting services coverage. I expect he will be a candidate for All-American honors in 2012. Likely NFL draftee in 2013. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Keep. The article is currently source to articles on his recruitment, but that coverage includes two substantial articles about him in USA Today. That depth of that coverage in a major national media outlet is enough IMO. Also, and although none of it is presently referenced in the article, there's pretty extensive coverage of Floyd since he's been a player at Florida. See Google news archive. Cbl62 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Jelani Jenkins – Premature article primarily based on recruiting services coverage. I expect he will be a candidate for All-American honors in 2012. Likely NFL draftee in 2013. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Xavier Nixon – Premature article primarily based on recruiting services coverage. I expect he will be a candidate for All-American honors in 2012. Likely NFL draftee in 2013. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ronald Powell – Premature article primarily based on recruiting services coverage. I expect he will be a candidate for All-American honors in 2012 or 2013. Likely NFL draftee in 2014. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Will Hill – Marginally notable based on coverage, some good, some bad. I would delete the article if it were up to me because of marginal on-the-field achievements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Emmanuel Moody – Marginally notable based on coverage of his transfer to Florida and expected performances. I would delete the article if it were up to me because of marginal on-the-field achievements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Interesting case. Major hype that didn't materialize as expected on the field. I understand your point, and if the coverage was more limited I'd agree. But the level of coverage he received was huge. Cover of Sports Illustrated, multiple feature stories in ESPN and USA Today and the country's major metropolitan newspapers like LA Times, Orlando Sentinel, Dallas Morning News, Miami Herald, Minneapolis Star-Tribune and Chicago Tribune. Cbl62 (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Avery Atkins – Marginally notable based on coverage of his off-the-field problems. I would delete the article if it were up to me because of marginal on-the-field achievements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Jarred Fayson – Non-notable. Have not nominated it for AfD because I was waiting to see if he would play in a regular season NFL game in 2012. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Carlton Medder – Non-notable. Have not nominated it for AfD because I was waiting to see if he would play in a regular season CFL game in 2012. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Jason Watkins – Non-notable. Have not nominated it for AfD because I was waiting to see if he would play in a regular season NFL game in 2012. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Aubrey Hill – Non-notable as player and assistant coach; coverage overwhelmingly routine. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Keep. The sources currently in the article don't establish notability. But a quick search reveals a fair amount of coverage, mostly in the Miami Herald. E.g., here, here, here, here and here. See also Palm Beach, Orlando and Gainesville. Also stuff on a blood illness (?), injuries and an assault charge. E.g., this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, Cbl, how did you compile this list? In reviewing my notes, you only missed one of the current or former Gators on my own watch list or future AfD list. Almost like you were peeking at my notes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I just clicked through Category:Florida Gators football players and looked for the "iffier" ones. I think this is a useful exercise. If you'd like, I can scan the Florida guys and give you my input. Interested to hear what you think of the Michigan ones, too. Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please do if you have the time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Went through a bunch, but I'm too burned out to look at any more, at least today. My overall sense is that the folks working on Florida Gators articles run a pretty tight ship -- the ones I looked at were all keepers IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Michigan examples

To offer up a few examples from another program (Michigan), would you spare any of the following (all from Michigan's 2008-2011 teams) from deletion? Desmond Morgan, J. T. Floyd, Kenny Demens, Jake Ryan, Kevin Koger, Taylor Lewan, Roy Roundtree, Martavious Odoms, Jeremy Gallon, Vincent Smith, Devin Gardner, Blake Countess, Matt Wile, Michael Shaw, Fitzgerald Toussaint, Ricardo Miller, Craig Roh, Ryan Van Bergen, Mike Martin, Jordan Kovacs, Martell Webb, Obi Ezeh, Perry Dorrestein, Jonas Mouton, Brandon Minor, Carlos Brown, Greg Matthews, Donovan Warren, Mark Ortmann (American football), Terrance Taylor, Steven Threet, David Moosman?

Given my relative unfamiliarity with the specifics of Michigan players of "gray area" notability, it will take me a little longer to provide a player-by-player analysis of these Wolverines players. Bear with me, and I will take the time to do it over the next several days; I think it's a very worthwhile exercise, and the specific examples can and should guide the revisions of the more generalized notability guidelines for players. Unlike the Gators above, I will also be looking at each of these guys for the first time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Players from teams we follow sharpen the focus, because we know more about them. I'll go first. There are some in the above list that I think were created prematurely. Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

* Michael Shaw. Probably delete. A less experienced user created the article, and it was a piece of crap. A few people (myself included) tried to beef it up to save it, but in reality, Shaw never accomplished anything of note (1,000 rushing yards spread over four seasons). The article never should have been created. Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with probable delete. Looking at the substance of his college career, he averaged 250 yards and fewer than four touchdowns per season, primarily in a backup role, and his averages track his actual season performances. No NFL appearances. I reviewed the first four pages of a Google News Archive search. Disregarding blogs not written by professional journalists, I found dozens of mentions, but nothing more than routine coverage in pregame write-ups, post-game summaries, etc. Here's the problem in a nutshell: If Shaw is notable, so are half of the scholarship athletes on BCS teams, given the widespread coverage of college football. This is an example, together with our friend DeWayne Lewis, that really points to the need to tighten the standards applicable to meaningful coverage vs. routine coverage, as well requiring some quantity of meaningful coverage, not just one or two articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lewis is different in my mind, but we're in agreement on Shaw. He also just got released by the Redskins. I'd support an AfD on this one. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* Martell Webb is another likely delete. No notable accomplishments at the college level (he was principally a backup who caught only nine passes and scored one touchdown in his career). And no non-trivial, non-routine coverage is included in the article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Nine career receptions for 111 yards?? Seriously? This appears to be a classic example of a premature article originally created based on recruiting coverage. Still mentioned in 60+ news articles. Now we will probably have to fight like hell to delete an article that should never have been created. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* I didn't see any coverage that focused on him. Mostly passing mentions. I'd also support an AfD o this one. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* Carlos Brown looks like another delete candidate. Played parts of four years. In his best year, he rushed for 480 yards. No awards or major accomplishments. No non-trivial coverage cited in the article. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Probable delete. Another moderately successful running back with very similar college career stats to those of Michael Shaw above. Google News Archive search reveals 100s of mentions, virtually all of them routine game coverage. Again, points out the need to tighten definition of meaningful coverage, to avoid prolonged AfD debates over numbers vs. substance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* I agree that this one should be deleted. But I don't think that necessarily means standards have to be tightened. I suspect this, and the two above, would be pretty non-controversial AfDs. I'd support all three. Cbl62 (talk)

* Vincent Smith is a keep. Plenty of non-trivial coverage including national media. Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait and see, keep for now. Had better numbers in three seasons than Shaw or Webb had in four. Google News Archive shows 300+ mentions, virtually all routine game coverage. I would adopt a wait-and-see approach now – could have breakthrough senior senior year – but reserve the right to nominate for AfD in either January 2013 or September 2013. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* Beside game coverage, he's received a sufficient amount of non-trivial coverage (where he's the subject of the coverage) in respected mainstream media outlets. He's not likely to have a breakthrough year since Fitz Toussaint will be the lead running back. It's all a matter of degree on how much is enough. Smith has had a lot. Brown, Webb, and Shaw, on the other hand, don't get there in my mind. My focus isn't on raw Google News Archive mentions. I think you have to look at the depth and breadth of the coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* Mike Martin is a keep. Plenty of non-trivial coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Working my way through the article footnotes, I counted 5 or 6 substantial articles about Martin in independent sources. There's also a lot of recruiting "articles," a bunch of redundant player statistics profiles, and a surprisingly high number of off-line articles that look substantive from the titles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• The two major Detroit papers don't keep their articles on-line for more than a few months. Having worked on the Martin article, I can attest that he has received deep and broad coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* Jordan Kovacs is a keep. Plenty of coverage. TonyTheTiger has done a good job on this one, rated a GA. Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Sorting through the existing footnotes, there are three or four pretty solid articles about him, including in The New York Times, ESPN, and the Detroit News. Under current standards, that's enough; probably still enough under any tightened standards I can imagine, too. Successful walk-ons usually make good stories. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* Desmond Morgan is a weak keep, possibly premature. The coverage is mostly in newspapers from Ann Arbor and West Michigan. The Holland paper doesn't count as much but the lengthy article in the Grand Rapids paper is pretty solid. He was a starter as a freshman, which is pretty rare at Michigan. Cbl62 (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Premature. There are two or three substantial articles included in the footnotes, mostly about his recruitment, from local Michigan newspapers. Is that enough? Maybe it is under present CFB notability standards, but more should be required, otherwise we could qualify half of the Division I FBS recruits for Wikipedia articles. This guy looks like he will evolve into something notable, but who really knows? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* I think this one was prematurely created and is borderline. It would have been better if the article not have been created yet. These ones create difficult calls in my mind. I'd be inclined to take a "wait and see" approach. As a full-season starter this coming year, the coverage is likely to multiply by the end of the year. 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* Terrance Taylor. Article is in bad shape, so it's hard to evaluate. Not sure if his version of the AFL qualifies for notability or not. No NFL games. No sources currently in the article to show notability. But a quick google news archive turns up several including this and this, this, this and others. He's probably a keep but the article needs work. Cbl62 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Marginal keep, based on five articles linked by you. Best articles were in the local papers, with some decent coverage by the Detroit News. Arena Football League players do not get a presumption of notability, and most "AFL" teams don't get that much coverage. If you want a demonstrably notable article, you're probably going to have to make substantial additions about his college career with solid sources. (BTW, maybe I'm just old, but "AFL" means Joe Namath and the Jets to me.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, original Arena Football League players do get a presumption of notability under WP:NGRIDIRON, but I think Taylor played for a team in a later version of Arena league that doesn't qualify. I've never worked on the Taylor article. Time permitting, I'll put it on my long-term "to do" list to beef up. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

*David Moosman. College career is over, and he did not make it in the NFL. No major awards or all-conference honors. The article currently lacks non-trivial coverage in mainstream media, but a quick search turns up this, this, this and this. Would need closer analysis to make a call. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Marginal delete, based on absence of articles giving him any substantial or in-depth coverage in independent news media. Google News Archives shows 160+ mentions, heavy on blogs and student and local newspapers. He certainly was quotable; he gets a lot of one-liners amongst the routine coverage. Must have been one of the more articulate guys on the team. I did find a 2011 Italian newspaper article that indicated he was playing for an Italian team in 2011. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

* J. T. Floyd. The coverage currently in the article is marginal, but there's more out there. E.g., this and this. And he has another year at Michigan. I'd wait and evaluate in another year. Cbl62 (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Marginal delete. Gets almost 200 hits in Google News Archive search, but overwhelming majority of them are either blogs, non-independent sources or routine game coverage. Closest things to substantial coverage were short articles about his injury and likely return for 2012 season. Points to need to clarify meaning of "transactional coverage" in CFB context. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't worked on the Floyd article and haven't studied the coverage in enough detail to reach a conclusion. Since he'll likely be the No. 1 player in Michigan's secondary this year, the extent of his coverage will almost certainly multiply. That's why I'd be inclined to wait and see. Brown, Webb and Shaw are easier calls since their football careers are now over. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not been following this, but to my knowledge neither Kevin Koger (injured) nor Martavious Odoms participated in any rookie minicamps, and they have not been signed yet.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Routine/Too local

There is (and needs to be) a degree of subjectivity in WP:GNG, which means that we can't develop rules that make every AfD clean and easy. We can, however, come up with some guidelines. Here are some preliminary thoughts on "routine" and "too local."

Routine

Here are my preliminary thoughts on routine vs. not routine. Feel free to add yours.

• Statisitical compilations in newspapers and other sources: routine. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Routine. cmadler (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Passing references in game coverage: routine, but there's gray area in terms of what a "passing reference" is. It doesn't mean that doesn't mean that all game coverage is per se routine. One easy example of game coverage that would IMO count in showing the player's notability is this. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Passing references in game coverage are routine. Game coverage that focuses on a single player (as with the example above) is probably not routine with regard to that player. cmadler (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Feature stories about a player: not routine. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Not routine, with the exception of "hometown newspaper" stories, by which I mean both the player's original hometown and the town in which the team is located. For example, for a player originally from Dayton, Ohio, now playing at Ball State (Muncie, Indiana), I would consider a feature story from either the Dayton Daily News or the Ball State Daily News to be routine, but a feature story from, say, the Cleveland Plain Dealer non-routine. This is separate from any consideration of whether the source is reliable. cmadler (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Obituaries: It depends. On one end of the spectrum, paid death notices are clearly routine. On the other end of the spectrum, a full-blow obituary in The New York Times is not routine. There's a wide range in between. A short writeup in a hometown paper may be routine. A full-blown obituary in a major metropolitan daily newspaper is probably not routine. Don't think there can be an absolute rule. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Paid death notices are not suitable for establishing notability as they are not considered "reliable". Obituary articles, particularly in a non-hometown newspaper, are not routine. cmadler (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Recruiting web sites: routine. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Routine. cmadler (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fan blogs: routine and not reliable. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Not reliable, and that's a different discussion. cmadler (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Professional blogs: routine unless it satisfies the Wikipedia standards on blogs at WP:BLOGS (essentially a blog written by a recognized expert in the field to be considered reliable). Examples of reliable blogs would be Chris Lowe's SEC Blog on ESPN.com or Adam Rittenberg's Big 10 blog on ESPN.com. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Assuming the blog can be treated as reliable, this has to be taken on a case-by-case basis, considering the context and usual coverage of the blog. cmadler (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Signing, injury and release notices: It depends. On one end of the spectrum, there's the "Transactions" lists in newspapers listing the past day or week's signings, injuries, and releases with no little or no discussion. Those are routine. On the other end, there are often substantial stories published about a player in major media outlets that are triggered by a signing, injury or release that are not routine. There's gray area in between, and I think judgment necessarily comes into play in deciding the "in between" cases. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Transaction lists are routine. Articles in a player's hometown newspaper, triggered by a signing, injury, or release are usually routine. In-depth articles in a non-hometown (using a broad sense, to include the town where the player plays/ed) newspaper are generally non-routine. cmadler (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Too local/not independent

My preliminary views noted. Feel free to add yours.

• Student/university newspapers: No. They are not considered independent. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Such sources are often biased and factually inaccurate. Should be used with caution for Wikipedia article content only after notability is already established. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Press releases: No. Press releases and on-line articles by universities, athletic associations, sports information departments, teams, conferences, and even the NCAA, are not sufficiently independent of the subject to be considered sources for establishing notability. Once notability is established, however, such sources may be used for Wikipedia article content if they are deemed to be reliable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Press releases definitely can not be used to establish notability, and should be used sparingly to source content even after notability is established. Press releases should only be used subject to WP:SPS. cmadler (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with respect to press releases/articles published by the universities and their sports information departments. Those shouldn't be used to prove notability, but they can be good, reliable sources of information once notability is established. Not so sure about "athletic associations" (examples?). Also not sure about articles published by conferences and/or the NCAA. I think the NCAA is sufficiently independent. Conferences are a closer call, and I haven't seen a lot of those types of sources being used anyway. Cbl62 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Athletic association" = university athletic department. For example, the University of Florida does not have an athletic department per se; its intercollegiate sports teams are financed, managed and supervised by a nonprofilt corporation called the "University Athletic Association, Inc.," which the university controls. The athletic director is the COO of the athletic association, and the university president, several vice presidents, professors and alumni sit on the association's board of directors. The association funds the athlete's scholarships and pays the coaches' salaries, so the coaches are employees of the association, not state employees like faculty members. It's my understanding that this is a relatively common arrangement among Division I sports programs.
• I am a huge fan of conference and NCAA record books and media guides as reliable sources for article content, but I don't believe that they are proper independent sources for establishing notability, and are in much the same vein as team media guides. Apart from the independent source issue (especially with regard to NCAA records), they are also of very limited circulation. Do we really want to use the NCAA record book to establish the notability of an NCAA record? If it's a "major" record, we should be able to find multiple newspaper sources for it. John Reaves broke Jim Plunkett's NCAA career passing yardage record in 1971; a Google News Archive search turns up 802 related newspaper stories. I don't think finding independent sources for "major" NCAA records will be a problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Small town newspaper: Probably no. Coverage in a small town newspaper (a paper from a locale with a population of less than, say, 50,000) is probably not good enough, but there may be exceptions depending on the depth and breadth of coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agree and disagree. IMO, it's not a matter of yes or no. It's a matter of the weight to be accorded to local media relative to the weight accorded to regional and national media. Local newspapers may be every bit as accurate and reliable (and sometimes more so) than regional and national media, but national and regional media have far greater exposure and circulation. National media should count for more, local media count for less, when we are seeking to establish the notability of a player or game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm in agreement with you. The total picture has to be weighed. The small-town paper gets the least weight, but can factor into the totality. Cbl62 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• National media outlets: Clearly yes. This would include ESPN, CBS, NBC, Sports Illustrated, The Sporting News, NBC Sports, The New York Times, CNN, USA Today, Fox Sports. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, it's a matter of the weight to be accorded to regional and national media relative to the weight accorded to local media coverage. National media should count for more, local media count for less, when we are seeking to establish the notability of a player or game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Top 100 metropolitan dailies: Yes. These are the flagship outlets of American journalism. They have wide circulation and tight editorial control. The current group is listed here: List of newspapers in the United States by circulation. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Mid-level newspapers: It depends. This is the broad swath of newspapers below the Top 100 but published in locales with a population greater than 50,000. For coverage in these newspapers to meet notability, the coverage would have to have a greater depth and breadth of coverage than in the major metropolitan dailies. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, it's a matter of the weight to be accorded to regional and national media relative to the weight accorded to local media coverage. See my comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After thinking it over, I disagree with the premise of this section. The GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." We are considering the meaning of "significant" as it relates to this project with the discussion above about what constitues routine coverage for college football. But as long as the source can be deemed "reliable" and "independent of the subject", I think the source is acceptable. All of the above (yes, including most student newspapers) will be independent for our purposes, so it's the question of reliability that we need to consider, and that's where student and small-town newspapers may fail. But I don't know that we can make blanket statements that whole categories of newspaper/media are unsuitable; Munster, Indiana, is a town of about 23,000, but its home to The Times of Northwest Indiana, one of the largest US newspapers, and particularly known for its excellent sports coverage. cmadler (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Cmadler, I think you misunderstand us (or at least me). With the exception of non-independent sources, no one is ruling out entire classes of media. We are, however, saying that national media coverage is more significant for establishing notability than local media coverage. That's just common sense. Major media have greater circulation, exposure and impact. I grew up in a small town in Florida which had an award-winning local newspaper. Still does. But it has a daily paid circulation of about 15,000. That does not compare to paid circulation of 250,000 or more for regional newspapers, or more than a million for several national newspapers. IMO, it would not be improper to accord two or three times as much weight to an article in The New York Times vs. one in The Spectrum (St. George, Utah) in establishing notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.

As for disqaulifying press releases, student newspapers, athletic departments and university websites, etc., as non-independent sources for the purpose of establishing notability, that cow is already out of the barn. That standard is built into multiple parts of WP:N, WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. I just want to see it specifically included in the future WP:NCFB, so we don't have to cite multiple fragmented policies hither and yon, just as other sport-specific notability standards now do (read through the other sport-specific----there are a lot of wisdom and good ideas there). BTW, you really don't want to defend the proposition that the typical high school or undergraduate newspaper is the editorial equivalent of The Times of Northwest Indiana, do you? My undergraduate paper, the Independent Florida Alligator, was supposedly one of the three or four best university newspapers in the country, and it suffered from all of the problems one would expect a publication written and edited by 18 to 22-year-olds to have. OTH, I was the editor of my high school paper, so it was pretty good . . . .  ; ) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed college football notability standard

Based on the discussion above, we should consider creating a specific notability standard for college football players. Here's my proposal.Cbl62 (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

College football players and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of multiple published, non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, and independent of the subject. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:

1. Were inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame.
2. Have won a major national award such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards.
3. Currently or previously held a major Division I FBS record.
4. Have been selected as a first-team All-American at the Division I FBS level by at least one of the major selectors.

Notability of college football players and coaches may not be established by WP:ROUTINE coverage. Routine coverage for college football players and coaches includes statistical listings and databases (such as College Football Data Warehouse), mentions in game summaries, roster listings, and coverage in fan blogs or recruiting services.

In determining notability, the importance and reach of the media should be taken into consideration. For example, non-trivial coverage of a college football player or coach in national media outlets (e.g., ESPN.com, CBS, NBC, Sports Illustrated, The Sporting News, NBC Sports, The New York Times, CNN, USA Today, and Fox Sports) is entitled to the greatest weight. Coverage in small town media (especially the individual's home town newspaper or the newspaper in the local college town) may be considered in determining notability but is entitled to less weight. Coverage in regional media and major metropolitan newspapers should be given greater weight than local media but less weight than national media.

Comments on the proposed standard

• What is going on with this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)