Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Association football

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please try and stick to the organisation of this discussion page - discuss the proposed guidelines at #Guideline discussion and the proposed leagues at #League discussion. For leagues, please try and discuss each league or country separately.

Guideline discussion[edit]

As I state in my introduction, the purpose of this new guideline is balance and compromise on both sides of the debate. It acknowledges that playing football at a certain level can confer notability (or at least the presumption of notability), but that the level that is needs to be much higher, and that ultimately individual players need to meet WP:NBASIC. GiantSnowman 12:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support the attempt to detach the football notability guidelines from the nebulous 'fully-professional concept', but would prefer a more objective way of defining this list - some of the exclusions from this list (Belarus, Peru, Nigeria) seem quite arbitrary and this opens it up to more bias. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to present evidence that these leagues/their players regularly receive significant coverage, and that playing in them therefore confers a presumption of notability. GiantSnowman 13:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with Microwave Anarchist. Would you be able to explain what was the thought process to decide which leagues to include and which not in this list GiantSnowman? --SuperJew (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say in my introduction - it is based on my my experience, looking at what leagues regularly see players nominated for AfD due to failing GNG or regularly have poorly sourced players that don't seem to be able to be improved. If you think leagues have been missed out (or included when it shouldn't be), start a discussion under #League discussion. GiantSnowman 13:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find the proposal quite biased and would like to see some explanation. From the leagues I follow more closely I am especially surprised about Belarus missing with its considerable strenght and quality sources like sports newspaper Прессбол, general newspapers with good sports coverage like Советская Белоруссия and Минский курьер, websites like football.by, by.tribuna.com/football, pressball.by etc. Belarus has 10 million people, football is very popular there and even second level is fully professional. I sincerely hope that this league missing is not a result of the current geopolitical situation. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to prove that it is correctly included, then pick a set of players at random (or you could pick one team, if that's simpler) and see if they all have articles and if those articles appear to show the existence of SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, like RC says, feel free to justify why leagues should be added through evidence of significant coverage. GiantSnowman 13:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Right now I haven't even gone over the leagues yet, but am saying in general that such a list needs very clear inclusion criteria (the inclusion criteria at FPL weren't clear enough), and definately should not be based off one user's experience, with all my respect to your experience and time spent contributing to the FOOTY project. --SuperJew (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I implore you, actually read the page before commenting. I make it clear this is just a start only, which is more than anybody else has tried to do. Perhaps if you spent more time helping rather than moaning or picking holes, we'd all be happier? GiantSnowman 14:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have time to do a statistical analysis, but I do know that cherry-picking a few leagues by a handful of editors isn't a good place as start, middle, or finish. I would suggest going down the direction of average crowds and/or tv viewerships for leagues as a measure of notability. --SuperJew (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to suggest something more tangible if you think you can do better. GiantSnowman 15:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperJew: Average attendance sounds like a good idea to me. I think I started putting this together when you proposed this somewhere else. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Average attendance is heavily influenced by country population though. This should be about coverage because that is what drives notability. Rikster2 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point Rikster2. Perhaps attendance per population to normalise it? The question is how do we measure and estimate coverage on a league basis? WP:FPL was based on the assumption that pay is an estimate of coverage. Does attendance make more sense? Viewership (including TV ratings)? Maybe number of articles in the papers (though that could be close to OR)? --SuperJew (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperJew With attendance per population, the Faroe Islands Premier League would rank higher than the Chinese Super League so thats probably not the best way to estimate notability. Unless you are from the Faroe Islands, then it is probably a great way. Alvaldi (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvaldi: Well if a higher percentage of the Faroe Islanders watch football than the percentage of the Chinese, sounds that football is relatively more popular in Faroe Islands than in China. We could also have two criteria - one above a percentage of the population and the other over a fixed number. --SuperJew (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again - WP:COMMONSENSE here please SuperJew. In your Faroes-China example, it is not that football is more popular, it is that in a small location there is nothing else to do. GiantSnowman 19:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the reason for the popularity is relevant, as we don't analyse the reason articles are written when assessing them for SIGCOV. --SuperJew (talk) 20:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well no, it is - and does the 'popularity' result in significant coverage of players? GiantSnowman 09:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think media coverage (independent, reliable press) would be best since that is what drives notability (availability of sources), but I don't see how you can really get at that at the league level. television/streaming viewership may be a good metric. Would a league that has no national tv/streaming contract likely be in a position where 100% of players are notable? I wouldn't think so, but am I being unfair? Rikster2 (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bolded text is a bit too long, and should use the "SIGCOV is likely to exist" wording now used by all the others. Also still have issues with some bits of it, as discussed at footy and elsewhere: "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or coming on as a substitute., due to the highlighted bit (does coming on as a sub for a few minutes, maybe in a dead rubber, really count?);
  • "Tier 1 International Match" is jargon [essentially, after reading through it, a tier 1 match is any match between the top sides representing their country: I don't have a football example of a lower tier match, but in essence it's a bit of the same distinction as Test cricket (between international teams, ex. [1]) and tour matches, for ex. [2])
  • On top of that, the international match criteria doesn't address the fact that not all international teams are equal (see the example I was giving with the Seychelles at NFOOTY - [3]).
Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Tier 1' is basically 'official match between FIFA teams' - and there is no hierarchy of national teams like there is with domestic leagues. GiantSnowman 13:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RandomCanadian that we should use SIGCOV instead of presumed notability. To implement the RfC consensus (which already represents the compromise we're looking for), I would also suggest that we go with achievements/medals won instead of participation. –dlthewave ☎ 15:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and what 'achievements' would that be? If you're saying only Premier League players who have won a trophy are notable, you're talking utter tosh. GiantSnowman 15:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only players who have with SIGCOV are notable, and my thought was that they're more likely to receive that coverage if they've won a trophy etc. We also need to remove participation-based criteria in order to follow the RfC consensus. However, I'm not overly concerned about it if we use the "likely to have significant coverage" language and make it clear that SIGCOV sourcing must be provided. –dlthewave ☎ 21:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which is what I have tried to do... GiantSnowman 09:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't considered this in detail yet, but I will note that I'm not opposed in theory to participation based criteria. However, if we do reimplement such a criteria, it needs to be more restrictive than the previous criteria of "played for like 9 minutes in one game". I will also note that a date restriction is required; players from the early 20th century did not receive the same level of coverage as players from the late 20th century. BilledMammal (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really - have you reviewed newspaper archives from each year for each country/league then? GiantSnowman 15:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No - instead see examples like John Charlton (footballer), who fails to meet GNG despite extensive effort by dozens of editors to find significant coverage. Have you reviewed the archives, to prove your claim that players from each country/league are notable regardless of era? BilledMammal (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't have the access - but I am aware of the archives, of the coverage that players got (for example as detailed in a book about the club I support), and think the blanket statement "players from the early 20th century did not receive the same level of coverage as players from the late 20th century" in some attempt to state that 'players from the early 20th century are not notable' is nonsense. GiantSnowman 16:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nonsense to claim that all players from the early 20th century are not notable, but that is not the statement I made. BilledMammal (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of interest I have just come across Frank Gower - handful of appearances in the 1930s, signifiant amount of coverage (majority offline). GiantSnowman 15:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion for leagues is important in establishing consensus for what will more often than not result in notability, but I'd just like to confirm that footballers who have not appeared in any of these leagues during their career will still be eligible for articles so long as they meet GNG. I've had a few articles taken to AfD in the past for young players who comprehensively met GNG, even before they had made their professional debut. The result in all cases was !keep, but I'd just like a community-wide understanding that some players will be notable, even without passing WP:NFOOTY. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, GNG is the ultimate notability test. A player can fail NFOOTBALL but pass GNG and therefore would be notable. That has always been the case. GiantSnowman 15:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question I see is whether there isn't something else we can do than "one game in leagues from a certain list". Players who have played a dozen seasons in one of the FPL leagues that are no longer on the new list probably have more SIGCOV than a one-game substitute in 3. Liga. I don't feel comfortable with claiming that people who haven't even played 90 minutes will attract SIGCOV. Team captains are probably notable a few leagues further down than suggested here, but "fails NFOOTY" will unnecessarily make it an uphill battle at AFD to keep them. —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think the statement "The notability of association football (soccer) figures is assessed on the basis that the level that they compete at is the subject of significant coverage" is a bad start. Notability is not inherited, and this says exactly "we assume everyone who plays for a notable team is individually notable". I think that is the wrong approach to team sports, where the stadium announcer is more likely to have a lasting impact and become covered in relevant publications than a ten-minute substitute youth player. —Kusma (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm definitely in full support of where this is going and a trim was definitely needed. As long as footballers with only a handful of appearances are still required to meet GNG then I fully support. For example, Balázs Bergmann would still meet this new version of NFOOTBALL but, in my view, should still be deleted on the common sense basis that he only trivially meets NFOOTBALL but comprehensively fails GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly - GNG still needs to be met. GiantSnowman 19:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline should attempt to do a very good job at predicting whether a football player meets GNG, though, and not just say "football players are probably notable, unless they do not meet the GNG". —Kusma (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I did not include in my initial list certain 'fully professional' leagues where, in my experience, players do not meet GNG. GiantSnowman 09:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Players with 200 games in those leagues are still more likely to meet GNG than players who were substituted in the last 5 minutes of a 2. Bundesliga game in 1976. —Kusma (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but assigning a magic number to each individual league/country/decade is impossible. Also, I think people are forgetting that GNG is and will remain the ultimate test - so whilst a player who played 5 minutes in 1976 might meet NFOOTBALL, if they fail GNG, they are not notable. GiantSnowman 10:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one who is proposing a magic number (one game). Also, if we decide whether a player should have an article or not purely on the basis of GNG, we should not have a football specific guideline. —Kusma (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One game is a clear demarcation between 'no appearances' and 'appearances', and therefore a clear indication of notability. In relation to your comments about GNG, why not abolish every single SNG? GiantSnowman 13:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a clear demarcation that has no connection with notability. My other argument is not that SNGs should be abolished, but it is that "GNG trumps it anyway" is a poor excuse to have flawed SNGs. I'd perhaps be a little happier if the SNG were either weaker or stronger than GNG, not much weaker in some leagues and much stronger in others, bringing in lots of extra bias on top of the GNG-inherent (probably unavoidable) bias we already have. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it does. No appearance = no coverage (why would there be?). One appearance = coverage (or so the presumption goes). There is logic behind a player who has made their debut receiving coverage - journalists however are not waiting until somebody has made X appearances before starting to write about them. GiantSnowman 14:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The practical problem is that some people will still !vote "keep" at AfDs with this kind of guideline even if there is no coverage (since, while it is likely that there will be some, there is no guarantee) and none has been found despite best efforts. As shown by some recent cases, even playing for an actual national team in the modern era is not guaranteed to actually get you SIGCOV (although here one might argue it's more the case of a few exceptions, in general from the same kind of low-population countries); so there's no reason to needlessly make this too large. The standard should be at least 95% of players in this league are notable [i.e. have an article with actual SIGCOV and not just the usual "Lugnuts" formula], if not even more than 95% [given the sheer number of football players]. If we have a standard where, I don't know, it's frequent that more than one or two players per team may be not notable, then it simply is overly permissive and the issues with AfD and articles which lack proper content will not have been resolved. As has been pointed out, even if the standards are a bit stricter than necessary, the remaining notable players can still be included by virtue of meeting GNG. The opposite is the situation we have all come to love and adore, on which I'll spare further comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus should be on whoever is closing the AFD to assess the !votes and arguments properly. GiantSnowman 14:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, but X=1. Journalists are writing about overhyped promising youth players all the time, and it does not matter too much whether they get substituted in for five minutes or not. —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So if journalists are regularly writing in detail about people (whether that's a 16 year old who hasn't played yet, or a 35 year old with a 15 year career), are you saying they are not notable? I'm confused by your position. GiantSnowman 14:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what I said. I'm saying that journalists however are not waiting until somebody has made 1 appearances before starting to write about them. I'm saying that "one" isn't actually all that much better as a magic number than "twenty", and may be worse in other ways. —Kusma (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, by and large they are though - you have merely demonstrated the exception that proves the rule - and this is something you would know if you edited in this area. There's a horrible tendency of certain members of the wider community to dismiss those who actively edit football articles. GiantSnowman 15:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What if we just write "Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from a 'notable' league". That leaves it a bit more open to interpretation and the argument if you had a one or two game cup of coffee in the league you weren't really a 'player' in the league and removes that he played 2 minutes, so he passes WP:NFOOTBALL argument. I get that it makes it makes the rule a bit more ambiguous, but I feel that this is one of those rare cases where a bit more ambiguity might be better than a weak minimum. RedPatch (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing about the 'one game rule' that people often overlook is that it actually provides really helpful guidance in preventing articles being created. If it is not present, then Joe Bloggs might presume that any kind of footballer is notable, and create numerous non-notable articles in good faith. However, with 'one game in these leagues', they have a benchmark, and know the bare minimum that is required. GiantSnowman 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The list of leagues proposed is too small to make "one game in these leagues" necessary for inclusion (we don't need to prevent creation of articles about any Frauen-Bundesliga players who haven't played in one of the other women's leagues on the list). On the other hand, it is too large to make "one game in these leagues" sufficient for inclusion; for that, you'd need to cull more of the second and third tier.
    It seems to me that exclusion criteria and inclusion criteria should be at separate levels if this guideline is supposed to represent "the bare minimum". —Kusma (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think a new SNG would be very helpful to editors trying to decide whether articles are likely to be notable, doesn't this version run afoul of the RfC consensus (i.e., the SNG should not be based on "participation")? Assuming I'm wrong, I worry that we cannot reasonably expect SIGCOV for footballers who've only participated in some of these leagues because few of us (or perhaps none of us) have access to the relevant online sources. For example, there are no online sources I'm aware of covering footballers in the Yugoslav First League (the only thing I've ever run across is the Almanah YU Fudbal - some seasons are randomly uploaded to the internet). I agree that it was a high-profile league (based on the European cup successes of Red Star and Partizan as well as the domestic players on the Yugoslavia national team), but how can we demonstrate SIGCOV if the players never left for other leagues (e.g., England, Germany, Spain, etc.)? Jogurney (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ultimately if we cannot demonstrate significant coverage of the league/players (although surely there is offline stuff!) it should not be included in the list. GiantSnowman 15:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jogurney, sources do not have to be online and if you cannot access them that is basically your poroblem. Quality sources for Yugoslavia exist and that is the only thing that matters. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ludost Mlačani, I believe you that there are offline newspaper archives in Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo, etc. that may be able to establish SIGCOV for footballers who only played in the Yugoslav First League during its professional era. However, with very few Wikipedia editors able to access those archives, is it really wise to encourage creation of articles on such footballers? Jogurney (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think sports editors should first demonstrate that offline sources actually do generally provide SIGCOV of individual players before GNG coverage is ever presumed for a league. It's absolutely ridiculous to claim some unnamed newspaper(s) in a particular time/region is/are 95% likely to contain SIGCOV of any player in the corresponding league if not a single positive example has been produced. Even when a specific newspaper is identified, without someone at some point having accessed and utilized it to demonstrate multiple instances of SIGCOV of a subject, we just cannot claim GNG must exist. And even when a couple examples do exist, coverage should only be extrapolated to other players if the examples were only covered in the inaccessible source. And even then it's no guarantee that an unremarkable single-game appearance also garners sufficient coverage unless we have examples. If empirical evidence cannot be produced for the leagues in question, then any "presumption" of all its players meeting GNG is completely fallacious. If you can't access the sources needed to show a subject is notable, then you shouldn't be creating the article and should instead take it to the relevant sports project TP to ask for help. That's how it works at WiR and at various history and humanities projects, that's how it should work for sports. JoelleJay (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously missed the Frank Gower example already given then. When I Geta round to unpacking my boxes of books after moving (12 months and counting) I'll also be able to provide you with a list of players who have significant coverage in the Terry Frost Bradford City book (but from memory includes the likes of Jimmy Speirs, Robert Campbell (footballer, born 1882), Frank O'Rourke (Scottish footballer))..."Not a single positive example has been produced" indeed! GiantSnowman 15:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And this book covers all players in all leagues, and also somehow functions as multiple sources? Read my comment again, I'm obviously not saying that empirical evidence doesn't exist for any leagues. JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it covers some players for one club in a few leagues - but books do exist covering all players in e.g. the EFL, such as Hugman. GiantSnowman 07:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In practical terms, the proposal here just swaps out the previous "FPL" list for a new list of leagues where one-game participation is deemed to show notability. As this is fundamentally incompatible with the RfC consensus, discussing which leagues should be included is pointless unless the RfC decision is overturned. —Kusma (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kusma, that is exactly what I fear. I'll wait to contribute here until we learn otherwise. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From the RFC close on sub-proposal 3 (which is being challenged in any event) - "The argument is that a single professional match does not seem to guarantee that sufficient sources will exist to write a well-sourced article". The point of this proposal its to try and win that argument, by having a much reduced list of leagues so that playing in a single match should guarantee sufficient sources. In the absence of any other workable proposal for a new SNG, it is the best that has been proposed so far (if I do say so myself). GiantSnowman 16:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you reduce the list of leagues to those where there is little argument that five minute appearances mean SIGCOV, there won't be many leagues left. If the bar for leagues is so high that notability is guaranteed from a single game, that means the guideline won't tell us much useful about players with long careers in leagues failing this bar. A good notability guideline should give some guidance both for inclusion and for exclusion. —Kusma (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to suggest something then... GiantSnowman 16:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it possibly be worth having three tiers in terms of FPLs, instead of the current two? In the first tier, we could have guaranteed notability based off one appearance (i.e. Premier League, Bundesliga, La Liga, etc.). I'm struggling to imagine any player at a Premier League club would not meet GNG after one appearance, seeing as a lot of young players or relatively unknown foreign imports would most likely meet it before one appearance anyway.
    Then in the second tier, we could have the presumed notability, in which it is most likely that there will be SIGCOV for any player making an appearance in one of those leagues (i.e. Uruguayan Premier Division, Austrian Bundesliga, Liga MX, etc.). In the third tier, we could leave the door open to any article being created for a player who meets GNG guidelines, but have no automatic assumption that players in this league will be notable? This third tier could be beneficial for a lot of the nations which are not included on the original FPL, for example, I imagine there are a few Icelandic and Jamaican footballers who would meet GNG but fail NFOOTY.
    I think this proposal is pretty much what we already have, but cementing the top tier as a definite for GNG being met would remove a bit of ambiguity. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what does the notable league mean? I did not see a note about this Hhkohh (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    just the league passes WP:GNG? Hhkohh (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, please read the introduction - that the players in the league receive significant coverage. GiantSnowman 16:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This wording probably needs to be improved as 'notable' league will cause confusion. "League passes GNG" (or "has article") is likely to be the common understanding of this phrase rather than what (I think) is actually meant, i.e. the defined list of leagues. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, I admit I struggled with how to describe the leagues... GiantSnowman 16:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Nothing simple, accurate and unambiguous immediately came to mind, hence my lack of an alternative suggestion! wjematherplease leave a message... 17:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the leagues were defo way too broad. with this being english wikipedia, we should focus on english speaking leagues as well as relevant non english leagues (la liga, bundesliga, etc. I would prob limit non english speaking to first tier only though I guess that could feel iffy if someone from the german 2nd tier goes on loan to the english second tier etc, but still thats prob pretty rare). english leagues would be PL to league two.Muur (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the language of the league relevant to notability? --SuperJew (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    its relevant to this being an english wiki. itd cut down on pages where a guy appears in the 3rd tier in spain and there's no english sources about said player etc.Muur (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NONENG exists for this exact reason. The language of the sources does not matter - if the player is notable in their own country, there are going to be more sources available in the language of that country. I see no problem with having an article with sources solely in a foreign language, so long as those sources are appropriately translated to the best of the user’s ability, and confer notability. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this to the maximum, just because the English Wikipedia is in the English language doesn't mean we restrict ourself to the anglosphere for allowable leagues. Else, why have articles about towns in Turkey, rivers in India, politicians in Mexico? Wikipedia was a great place to learn about the international footballing community, and I'd hope it doesn't keep changing further and further. All notable players should be allowed, not just the 20 players in the forthcoming Super League and Premier League. Ortizesp (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should require at least three games in a fully professional league. One game is a ludicrously low standard, and there are too many people who played in one or two games without every getting GNG level coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    why three - why not 2 or 4 or 5 or 10? GiantSnowman 21:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The number does should depend from the league he's played. It's the reason I'd be for a tiered guideline Dr Salvus 21:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all much more honest than pretending 'fully professionalism' maps to notability, and it's a difficult conversation we should have been having years ago. I can't pretend I'm sorry to see WP:FPL consigned to the dustbin of history, but rather than gloat or point fingers over all the stupidity, bias and wasted time I'll try to keep things positive. If we are really going to build a new NFOOTY from the ground up (rather than relying on WP:GNG) then I'm pleased to see that some women's leagues are already in the discussion, rather than being treated as an afterthought or excluded on dubious pretexts, like they often were at WP:FPL. Concretely, I'd like to see multiple appearances in the final stages of the UEFA Women's Champions League and the Copa Libertadores Femenina given consideration. More generally I'm a long-time admirer of the .fr-style tiered approach. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think GiantSnowman has made a good proposal that keeps things simple. The only thing I would change in it is to specify the list of notable/professional leagues when that is agreed. Otherwise, it's fine. It's impractical to try and insist on a number of games > 1, but I agree we can't count non-playing subs. As for quality of league, as far as we can possibly ascertain, the standard must be at least the equivalent of EFL League Two. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this as a replacement for NFOOTY. I believe it addresses the concerns raised in the RFC at NSPORTS and provides editors with clarity over what that means in practice. It makes things simpler as well by reducing the number of leagues within the scope of the guideline. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

League discussion[edit]

EFL Trophy[edit]

Based on recent AFD outcomes and my own experience, I am inclined to suggest that playing in the EFL Trophy (which, for those that do not know, is the fourth cup competition in England and is only for English Football League senior teams and Premier League under-21/under-23 teams) should not confer notability, and that this should be detailed as a clear exception. GiantSnowman 12:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the existing guidelines, no league should have actually conferred notability, but rather asserted a rebbutable presumption of notability. Per the recent RFC, these guidelines should only assert a likelihood of existence of significant coverage.Tv

x1 13:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, Potentially Asserting a Rebuttable Presumption ("PARP"). "This league PARPs for me". Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potato, potato. GiantSnowman 13:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would confer notability up until 2016, when Premier League teams youth teams were admitted?--EchetusXe 14:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a good break point, if we can show they received significant coverage...any examples? GiantSnowman 15:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll struggle to find examples of players who made one or two appearances in the EFL Trophy prior to 2016 who didn't go on to either debut with their respective team in the EFL itself, or go on to form a steady career in non-league football (and probably pick up notability on the way). My point being that, it's hard to determine whether it was the appearance in the EFL Trophy that conferred notability, or the fact that other things happened in their later careers which accumulated to a significant level of notability.
If a 16 year old debuted in the EFL Trophy in 2015, they'd likely only pick up coverage for this appearance if they scored or did something notable during the game. If they then promptly retired, this would surely be a case of WP:BLP1E. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any examples of Port Vale players whose only experience in professional competition was in the EFL Trophy before 2016. There is Eden Bailey from this season, and that's it.--EchetusXe 16:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Port Vale have never been relegated from the football league as of this, meaning they have always competed at professional level. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread your reply. But Eden Bailey appeared in the EFL Cup, not EFL Trophy. The EFL Cup is not open to under-23 teams, and remains notable. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the efl trophy is fine as it is, we already dont count it notable if a player plays in it against an U23 team. there were a few bolton players (who i support, so easier to know off the top of my head) who played against U23 teams only and didnt get an article until years later when they made their "real" debut against a proper team. so a bolton player playing against man city u23 counts as his debut, but isnt enough for wikipedia until he plays against insert real team here in any other match.Muur (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J2/J3 Leagues[edit]

I would like to make a case for the J2 League at least, if not the J3 League too. All three fully professional leagues, J1, J2 and J3, are seen with relative prestige in Japan. There are a number of teams in the J2 this year with a rich history in Japanese football, and the players often pick up a decent amount of coverage in Japanese media, even going down to J3 level. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many lower league Japanese players up at AFD. Where is the evidence they get significant coverage? GiantSnowman 13:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's my personal experience on Wikipedia vs yours in this case. Personally, I haven't seen many articles for Japanese players who played in any of the three J Leagues taken to AfD - off the top of my head, I can recall a couple of articles where the player made one appearance in the Japanese national cup two or three years ago, and has since been released or dropped down to regional leagues. However, I feel this is the same as any country. If someone played a couple minutes in an EFL Cup tie between two EFL League Two teams, then was released and never continued football at a professional level, their article would likely be deleted too.
I think my request is valid, and there are a lot of Japanese sources specifically regarding football, with a good amount of coverage at all levels, even university football (i.e. web.gekisaka.jp, yahoo.co.jp, soccer-king.jp, nikkansports.com, etc.). Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is a random selection of J2 and J3 players - Daigo Araki, Ibuki Fujita, Jiro Yabe, Shoto Ashino, Junya Nodake, Shogo Yoshikawa - please demonstrate GNG for each. Oh and if you don't think EFL Cup players are notable, please feel free to start a separate discussion on excluding them, like I have with EFL Trophy. GiantSnowman 14:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daigo Araki:
Ibuki Fujita:
Jiro Yabe:
Shoto Ashino:
I couldn't find any examples of significant coverage. But, to be fair, he only made ten appearances in two years in J3 League.
Junya Nodake:
Shogo Yoshikawa:
Unfortunately, there look to be more sources that have not been archived, and the links have now rotted.
And to clarify, I believe the EFL Cup is absolutely notable. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then there might be a case for including J2 and/or J3 is that is the kind of coverage that has been found relatively quickly. Let's see what other things. I have no bias or agenda here, I am not looking to include or exclude certain leagues. GiantSnowman 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no worries. I think your proposed list is pretty good, and if people want to add/remove leagues, I think there's absolutely a discussion to be had, hence my proposal to include J2 and J3. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China Super League/China League One[edit]

I understand not including the China League Two, as statistics from this league can be hard to come by, let alone coverage, but I think the Super League definitely gets enough coverage, as well as almost all players in it. I think the level of coverage drops down in the China League One, but it still definitely exists in a lot of cases. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with China Super League - it was removed in error. I will add. GiantSnowman 13:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I can tell, almost no media report China League Two. These players only in China League Two hardly passes WP:GNG. China League One has some foreign players and the League is fully-professional. Hhkohh (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are some cases that some teams originally promoted to China League One but failed license in the past because the licenses requirement is different. Hhkohh (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
some rules in China League One is similar to Chinese Super League, such as [4]. So I think Chinese Super League, China League One is notable while China League Two is not Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also some media opened a news topic about China League One like [5] [6] Hhkohh (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USL Championship[edit]

I have said this in SSG discussions before, but I don’t believe you can say that anyone appearing in one match in this league would meet GNG (or BASIC or whatever). As an American sports fan (who previously had a team in this league in his hometown for awhile), this league is decidedly “minor league” and probably covered less than the similar Triple-A (baseball) and NBA G League (as soccer is a less popular spectator sport in the US than either of those sports). I would like to see that league tested in order to include it. Perhaps taking the 5-6 worst teams over the last few seasons and looking at their 2-3 players with the fewest games played. These leagues may have local beat writers because they are generally in towns that don’t have top level pro sports, but that’s about it for independent coverage. And even those beat writers aren’t covering the reserves in depth as individuals. Rikster2 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I was in two minds about whether to include this league in my initial list, and won't lose sleep if it ends up coming out... GiantSnowman 14:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, could we remove it and if someone wants to add it back they can do the research? Rikster2 (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if nobody pipes up in support of the league in the next 12-24 hours, let's remove it, obviously without prejudice to it being re-added if evidence can be found in support. While WP:NORUSH applies, a new guideline will need to be finalised in the coming days/weeks. GiantSnowman 15:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, only reason I suggest it is you said yourself you were on the fence about including it in the first place. It seems like most of the action on this is going to be to add leagues so maybe taking a questionable one out is a way to be appropriately conservative. Rikster2 (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The non-reserve squads always seemed to be notable - at least in the day. It was also the top Canadian league for some time, and those teams were very well covered - all have now "moved" to MLS or the CPL. 12-24 hours? What's the rush - this proposal is only about 8 hours old; on a Sunday! Nfitz (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What would be lost? If someone wants to keep it they are going to need to research and prove it anyway. This way you just move the burden to someone who feels strongly it should be in to back up that assertion. You guys would be best served starting conservatively. Rikster2 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Start? We've been honing the list for years. We finally got Honduras added, despite having never seen a Honduran AFD where there wasn't significant coverage in the football-mad Honduran media, and strong Champions League performance by Honduran teams. The bigger issue is the time to find sources. Easy enough for some countries for current players. But I'd be pressed to even know where to find sources for 1920s Brazilian players who'd be unquestionably notable in their day, but didn't play for the national team. I question though the gender assumption. Nfitz (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are they unquestionably notable? We have players from top tier English football in the 1930's that fail GNG; it seems likely that the situation will be the same in 1920's Brazil. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, start. This is building a notability guideline from scratch. Rikster2 (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove USL Championship then I think A-League (1995–2004) will also have to go. GiantSnowman 12:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it. Same issues there (and in some cases the same teams). There are many countries where second division football generates a high level of interest. The US really is not one of them. Rikster2 (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I think a lot of people outside Europe/UK are baffled by the English 4th division being notable... GiantSnowman 14:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, I used to work in England and understand. In the US, "soccer" is a pretty distant fifth or so in terms of team sport popularity and there is no relegation/promotion concept in this country's sports systems so a team that is "minor league" stays that way. I also get many baffled Brits who can't imagine that top division American college football and basketball are covered more than many professional leagues (probably more than MLS to be honest). Rikster2 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one is an interesting one. I get the 'minor league' view in terms of how sports are viewed in North America with the fact that promotion to MLS is impossible. I know that it does get coverage in the areas it is in (apart from the MLS Reserve teams) and some teams are fairly prominent (ie. Phoenix Rising). How much I don't know since I don't really follow it, since teams in my country aren't in it. With the launch of MLS Next Pro all the MLS reserve teams are leaving the league, which could improve the league's coverage (I recall reading that a 'regular team's' matches against MLS reserve teams would get less coverage. This is probably one of those leagues where the upper echelon of teams would get significant coverage/interest compared to against other regular teams, but the lower end less so. RedPatch (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) How good a team is is not necessarily an indication of how much coverage they get. Las Vegas Lights got more coverage than almost any USL team last year despite finishing bottom of the table. Coverage of some B/II teams who finished several places higher is almost nonexistent. It also might be a good idea to make a distinction between those independent teams in USL (which generally receive more coverage) and true B-teams of MLS sides (Atlanta United 2, Loudoun United, etc.) which generally don't get much coverage at all. A rule restricting coverage from players who have only played for B teams might be a good rule in general beyond USL, but I don't know enough about other countries to say for sure. We'd probably need to move that to its own section if we're going to go that far though. Smartyllama (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that Juventus U23 players, who play in the Serie C, arguably get more coverage than the average Serie C player, by virtue of being affiliated to Juventus. I can't speak for players of reserve teams in Germany, Spain etc., but it seems that there is a difference in this sense between Europe and NA. Nehme1499 01:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is a difference in reaction to facing a B team. I think the opposition in NA has to do with the lack of pro/rel. Fans of those teams get a bit annoyed that they can't get promoted, also with those B teams not always making an effort to be competitive since it's truly just a reserve team for them (and they can't get relegated), so they feel their presence lowers the legitimacy of the league, which was part of the push behind getting rid of those teams from USL. Also the fact that there were like 10 B teams in the league instead of 1-3, where a team like Juventus U23 is more special, not to mention the prestige of Juventus - for example facing Salernitana B would probably be met with far less enthusiasm. RedPatch (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned earlier when the league had American and Canadian clubs that joined the MLS those clubs did receive notable coverage. I have access to newspaper.com, newspaperarchive.com, and to numerous different Canadian newspaper archives (Toronto Star, Globe and mail, Montreal Gazette, etc.), which could be used to support notability. Many of the American teams did receive weekly coverage and the majority of Canadian franchises did receive coverage from national newspapers. Its predecessor league the USL First Division was the top league in Canada at one point. Also before the creation of MLS the American Professional Soccer League, and USL A-League which are historically tied to the USL Championship served as the top tier in the United States and Canada. I can also find reliable secondary sources to support their notability. I believe the league is notable due to its historical ties or history, and there are numerous secondary reliable sources to support its notability. Shotgun pete (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But is EVERY player who has appeared in one match for ANY team notable? That is what the standard says. If this is to be included, someone needs to test that by looking at a sample size of guys who play a game or two at that level, not just gut feel of "they get coverage." No one is saying the LEAGUE isn't notable. Rikster2 (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and I do agree if it was only a minor American soccer league then all their players shouldn't be automatically assumed notable. The thing is that the league and its predecessor leagues were not exclusively in the United States as it had an international presence with teams in Canada, Puerto Rico, and Antigua and Barbuda. For example in Canada, it served as the top professional league in the country for about 15 years. During that time period, there were no Canadian MLS teams or a Canadian Premier League this league served as the primary avenue for a full-time career in Canadian soccer. I don't think this league and its predecessor leagues should be removed from the list because it had an international presence which should have increased the likelihood of significant coverage. After all, NFOOTBALL is only a guideline it doesn't guarantee notability to all players. If a player only appears in one match and fails GNG then the article will most likely be deleted. NFOOTBALL can only help to assume notability, but it doesn't guarantee it. Shotgun pete (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the thing, the whole reason WP:NSPORTS was blown up is there were too many sports that were claiming one-match, blanket notability for leagues where it wasn’t actually true that the vast majority could be sourced enough to meet GNG. The bar needs to be raised. It really doesn’t matter if it’s a country league or a continent league, you can’t claim one game blanket notability unless the whole league actually generates that kind of sourcing. But if folks would like to get it included, I would invite you or anyone else to do the work and prove that the majority of players who played one game or a handful of games would be VERY LIKELY (like 90-95%) to meet GNG. Enough of the generalized statements. Rikster2 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eredivisie (women)[edit]

I would like to make the case for including this one as recent AfDs showed that even fairly peripheral players like Manon van Raay were deemed to pass WP:GNG. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Lorsheijd (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Verspaget both of whom failed NFOOTBALL at the time but there was no consensus to delete them either. Even Ilham Abali, who played a few games and then disappeared, would likely survive an AfD due to sources such as this. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible to me - hence why I include it as a 'possibility' as I am aware of those AFDs and similar articles where players are regularly shown to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 19:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a larger sample, I suggest we take the two players with the fewest games from each team from this or last season and see if they pass GNG. How does that sound? I think that would give us a better sense of how close the players of the league come to pass GNG since online sources should be fairly available for them. Alvaldi (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to evaluate the players at the end of the rotation from the current season here (anyone interested is more than welcome to edit it). My thinking is that if these little used players pass GNG then I would randomly check other teams from maybe the last 5-10 years (where online coverage should be available) and see if I had the same success. However, if these players don't pass GNG for the most part, then there is probably not much point in looking at earlier seasons. Alvaldi (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if there is little coverage for current players, there is even less chance for older players! GiantSnowman 11:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much gave up on this after ten of the first 12 end-of-bench players I researched did not have enough coverage to pass GNG. While there are many players in the league that pass GNG, playing one game in the league is unfortunately no guarantee that significant coverage on the player in question exists. Alvaldi (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can please present your findings/names of players, then we can decide whether to include or exclude the league. GiantSnowman 16:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman No problem, I have them listed here. I wrote a comment about each player I had researched and included the significant coverage I found. Those without comments have yet to be researced. Alvaldi (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for league inclusion[edit]

What is the criteria for league inclusion? Is Italy's third tier more notable than England's third tier? The complete absence of Central American leagues seems wrong, given how well teams from that region compete against Liga MX and MLS squads. Nfitz (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which Central American leagues should be included and why? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that have regular Champions League success again MLS and even Liga MX teams, and we've had no end of unsuccessful AFD attempts before listing them on FPL. I might say any one with a CONCACAF Club Index above 25 or so ... though that get's fuzzy with Panama not appearing at all in 3 years, when they at 57; but somehow Guatemala was 38 back then. Off the top of my head I'd say Honduras, Costa Rica, and Panama, based on what I've seen in Champions League play, and AFD history. Though Panama isn't currently at WP:FPL. Though there's stratification in some of these leagues - might almost be worth doing this based on a different criteria than league. Hence my question, which I'll modify slightly:
What is the criteria for inclusion? Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read the introduction! Where is the significant media coverage of players in those leagues? Also we should each league in a separate section - again, as the guide suggests. GiantSnowman 09:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to discuss any league in particular; Spiderone asked for examples. I'm merely trying to establish the criteria. Surely we should be setting criteria, before going through the leagues one by one. Otherwise, all we are doing it tossing out the previous, well-developed and referenced list of fully-professional leagues, and replaced it with gut-feel and intuition. Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One way to establish whether most players of a certain league are likely to have the significant coverage to pass GNG is to check whether the 3-4 least used players of each team during this or last season actually have significant coverage. If they don't in this golden age of online coverage, then the league shouldn't be included. If they do then it would probably be wise to do additional tests to strengthen their case. Alvaldi (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat - please bother to read before you comment. Do players in the leagues receive significant coverage or not? That is the test. I know you want to keep everything as it is, but that will never happen given the RfC. Plus we all know FPL was far from perfect. GiantSnowman 19:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that - but how do we implement that? I literally argued that for a decade for Honduras, to no avail. Also, why base it on leagues? We've got leagues in some smaller countries where a handful of top teams are fully-professional and any starter is notable - but other teams aren't fully professional, and fly under the radar. If we are going to rewrite this, I think we need to more fully define the criteria, rather than simply assuming that changing the leagues at WP:FPL is enough. Nfitz (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, for the last time - please just read the sodding thing. A league is included if it "is subject to significant coverage that means a large majority of the players pass WP:NBASIC.". That is literally in the second paragraph of the introduction. Can you demonstrate that players, particularly those with few appearances or playing for smaller teams, regularly get significant coverage? If so the league should probably be included. GiantSnowman 09:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if I'm not being clear. Why base it on leagues at all? Shouldn't we be discussing the criteria we want to base this on, rather than simply jumping up, and rewriting the list of leagues (based on much more subjective guidelines than before). Nfitz (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Propose something alternative and workable then. GiantSnowman 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damallsvenskan[edit]

As per GS' note, I also think this league is worth discussing. I would put forward Lina Domberg (sources at NWT NA) and Liza Renlund (sources at NSD Damfotboll and other places) as two examples of footballers who have had very, very few appearances in this league and yet still pass GNG. I would say that it's at the same level in terms of depth of coverage as the FA Women's Super League and National Women's Soccer League but that's just my view. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, probably need a few more examples though... GiantSnowman 09:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South American top tiers[edit]

I would like to add the South American top tier leagues to the list, with Venezuela being the most doubtful over these and Ecuador being the least doubtful:

@BrazilianDude70: How about Peru? I would assume that gets very good coverage based on the stature of the league, but I'm not familiar enough with CONMEBOL to say for myself. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Microwave Anarchist: I didn't go through because I've only created Peruvian managers, not players. But from what I know, there's Ovación and Fútbol Peruano, both football-related websites, and there's Canal N, RPP, Andina and El Comercio as newspapers. Of course, those articles will have to respect WP:GNG, but I'm sure that some of those links would provide coverage to the article. BRDude70 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But do the players that only play handful of games during the season in those leagues get significant coverage in those publications? Alvaldi (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that in Ecuador, Uruguay and Paraguay, probably. In Venezuela, I'm not that sure, but from what I could gather, managers do. BRDude70 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One way to help establish that would be to check whether the two players with the fewest games in each team from last season do have the significant coverage to pass GNG. That is, coverage that is more than just trivial mentions (for instance, a mentioned he was substituded into a match). Alvaldi (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but can we discuss each league in a separate section? It will make it so much more manageable. No issues with including them if players can be shown to consistently meet GNG. GiantSnowman 09:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

@GiantSnowman: Done. Moved them to separate sections. BRDude70 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuadorian Serie A[edit]

Ecuador has a lot of coverage under newspapers El Universo, Primicias, El Comercio and so on, aside from having football-exclusive websites such as Bendito Fútbol. My last creation, Byron Castillo, demonstrates that a player easily pass WP:GNG when playing regularly.

Taking Leonardo Yáñez, a youngster who has two substitute appearances for Barcelona S.C., there's one full article about him at El Universo, a brief mention at El Universo, another article at Bendito Fútbol, and another article at El Comercio.

Moving to Wilter Ayoví, a backup option at Mushuc Runa S.C., there's a trivial article about him at El Comercio, another short interview at Bendito Fútbol, an article about his transfer and several other mentions inside other articles, like this one. BRDude70 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above initial information about sources in the country and player examples, I'd be inclined to include the league. GiantSnowman 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No It's true that some players that have played in this league meet WP:GNG. The vast majority do not. Automatically including every player that ever played a game in this league in Wikipedia is exactly what the RfC was trying to avoid. If a players meets WP:BASIC on their own, fine, there will be an article written about them. We don't need an automatic hard rule like "playing in this league" confers notability. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it's NOT automatic notability - it's a rebuttable presumption that by playing in a league significant coverage will exist. GiantSnowman 21:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayan Primera División[edit]

Uruguay has football-exclusive websites such as Tenfield, Fútbol.uy, aside from a exclusive section on El País (Uruguay), called Ovación.

Taking Luca Giossa, a backup goalkeeper for Danubio F.C., there's trivial mentions at El País (Ovación) ([7], [8]), Tenfield ([9]) and Fútbol.uy ([10] and [11]) even before he actually played in a first team match. BRDude70 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions do not meet GNG. GiantSnowman 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think BRDude70's point (and please correct me if I'm wrong) was more that even a backup goalkeeper (with no senior appearances) is picking up trivial mentions in multiple newspapers. I would argue that this would be the same in the English Premier League, with examples such as Reece Hannam (a defender at Crystal Palace, who is the same age as Giossa), and Chelsea's Lucas Bergström (another backup goalkeeper, named on the bench once for a Champions League tie) who would both likely fail GNG with only minor coverage. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidlofgren1996: Precisely. I could have brought up Ayrton Cougo, a player I've recently created, which clearly passes GNG. The example I've tried to bring was that even a backup GK that did not debut in the division yet has some sort of coverage. BRDude70 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No - agree with Snowman. Leave it out. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguayan Primera División[edit]

Paraguay has plenty of coverage under newspapers ABC Color, Crónica, Prensa 5 and so on, aside from football-related websites such as Tigo Sports, and an exclusive section on Última Hora (Paraguay), called D10.

Taking Elvio Vera, who have three matches in the competition for Tacuary, a recently promoted team, there are mentions about him at ABC Color ([12], [13], [14]), a full article about him at Crónica, a brief mention at D10, and an article (broken) at Tigo Sports. BRDude70 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above initial information about sources in the country and player examples, I'd be inclined to include the league. GiantSnowman 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I wouldn't include this league. Yes, Paraguay websites cover this league (of course). Does anyone in the rest of the world regularly cover this league? No. It's not a notable league. It doesn't belong on this list.
If a player played one game in this league, would that guarantee he meets WP:GNG? Of course not. The whole point of re-working the notability guidelines was to ensure a one-game stint in a league like this didn't automatically make a player "notable" enough for an article. Including this league under such criteria moves the whole process backwards. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NONENG: it doesn't matter where the sources come from, as long as there is significant coverage. Nehme1499 13:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is questioning whether or not the LEAGUE is notable enough to have an article. Also not questioning the league's notability based on language. I'm saying that because coverage of the league is restricted to local sources, playing a game in this league does not confer notability on a player. Not even close. That's why it shouldn't be included in a list that automatically confers notability. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Zepelin: Just because your local city newspaper doesn't talk about these South American leagues, you can't deny them (with a very brief touch of prejudice) because there aren't English-based sources to provide your so-called "demanded coverage". As Nehme said above, WP:NOTENG suggests the use of non-English sources when English sources are unavailable, and there are no restrictions on WP:GNG about these non-English references. And as GS said above: "it's NOT automatic notability - it's a rebuttable presumption that by playing in a league significant coverage will exist", so I brought up an example of a backup player from a recently promoted team to prove that yes, most of the players in the league may pass GNG.
Plus, you did question if the league is notable enough for apparently, your own taste ("Does anyone in the rest of the world regularly cover this league?"), and as some examples from players who briefly appear in the league can pass GNG, why not add it on the list? Just remind that Wikipedia is not WP:IDL... BRDude70 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BrazilianDude70 You're absolutely right on that Wikipedia doesn't require English sources, significant non-English sources in are perfectly fine. And there is no requirement that a subject has coverage in international media, having significant coverage in national publications is usually enough.
Regarding Elvio Vera, the sources provided would not be enough for him to pass WP:GNG as it requires multiple sources of significant coverage, not just brief mentions (only the Crónica article is significant coverage). Even if he would pass GNG, one player is probably to small of a sample to decide if all players in the league are likely to have the significant coverage to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan Primera División[edit]

Venezuela has good amount of coverage under newspapers Primicia, Diario Meridiano, El Carabobeño, and football-related websites such as Balonazos.com and La Vinotinto.com.

Matías Lacava is an example of clear meeting of GNG, but he did play a lot in the division. Bryan Castillo, a player who did not appear for Deportivo Lara but appeared with the under-20s, has brief mentions at Balonazos ([15], [16]) and La Vinotinto ([17], [18]).

Since I've started the discussion before, I think this division might not make the cut for players, but I do see that all managers have coverage under GNG. Gabriel Martínez Poch, a debuting manager, has articles at La Vinotinto, Balonazos ([19], [20]), Meridiano, VTV, Correo del Caroní, Líder en Deportes and Primicia, aside from trivial notes in all of those newspapers. BRDude70 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions do not meet GNG. GiantSnowman 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Snowman. I'd leave it out. Fred Zepelin (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian Liga 1[edit]

Peru has Ovación and Fútbol Peruano, both football-related websites, and there's Canal N, RPP, Andina and El Comercio as newspapers.

Taking Giacomo Gambetta, a clear backup goalkeeper for Sport Boys, there's two articles about him at Ovación ([21] and [22]), an article about his performance in one match at RPP, and other brief mentions in the other aforementioned newspapers. Also note that I've used references that aren't in the article itself, so he does have more coverage than this. BRDude70 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above initial information about sources in the country and player examples, I'd be inclined to include the league. GiantSnowman 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. Let's take a random example from the players who do not have an article of those listed at Sport Boys: Edy Rentería. Searching google for "Edy Renteria futbol" (cause obviously Spanish is going to give more results), I can find plenty of routine match coverage, some of it which mentions him by name, but not much in the way of encyclopedic SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found in approximately 3 minutes - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, all from a Google News search of just his name. GiantSnowman 16:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that`s the exact same kind of stuff I`ve been finding. I haven`t checked all of your links, but the first, as an example, one plainly has no biographical information on the player and is routine match coverage. Other than a passing name check stating he scored the winning goal in the 85th minute, the only other thing is Dicha acción fue aprovechada por el futbolista colombiano Edy Renteria, que en esta temporada se convirtió en nuevo refuerzo del Sport Boys, ejecutó el tiro libre y con un buen disparo al lado derecho del portero rival Juan Goyoneche, anotó un golazo con el que dio la victoria a los 'porteños'., which does mention that he joined Sport Boys this season [when the article was written], but there is no other detail about the player, only a play-by-play-style description of the goal, which probably falls squarely under the second point of NOTNEWS ("For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The eighth reference is the best one, translated here Atlantic306 (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of this matters. If a player has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, that's it, he gets an article. If he doesn't, then no article. Setting some sort of arbitrary system in place that would qualify otherwise un-qualified players in an exercise that wastes time. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serie C[edit]

I just want to share some examples to further prove that debuting in the Italian Serie C (usually) means passing GNG:

  • Abdoulaye Toure: 1 game for Giana Erminio (last place)
  • Manuel Zanon: 1 game for Viterbese (19th place)
  • Michele Calamita: 1 game for Fidelis Andria (19th place)
  • Nehme1499 15:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How far back in the past does this extend? And care to explain why most of the current squad of one of those teams either do not have an article or have at best something like this or this? This is also the case for other teams you list, A.S. Giana Erminio and U.S. Viterbese 1908. Sure, there might be exceptions which are indeed notable, but looking at it right now, I'm not convinced that extending this presumption to the whole squads would be appropriate. It certainly does not seem like "debuting in the Italian Serie C (usually) means passing GNG". Less is more. Those that pass GNG can still be included without having an unwarranted presumption for all the others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • And care to explain why most of the current squad of one of those teams either do not have an article or have at best something like this or this? Because no one has gotten to creating the articles yet. And the ones who do, often just create one-line stubs. The examples you pointed out can easily be expanded (Nunzella: [29], [30]; Palazzolo: [31], [32]). The three players above also don't have pages, but can clearly have one given the sources I provided. Nehme1499 16:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No time to check all of them, but the first one of these sources (for Nunzella) is plainly an interview, by his former club... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The introduction in the second one isn't, though. Also, calciolecce.it is not the official website of the club; it's a page for news related to the club. And those are just sources I found from a cursory search. Nehme1499 17:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying "usually" already means that this league shouldn't be included on a list that automatically confers notability. Why are we attempting to re-create the system that was voted down in the NSPORTS discussion? No, do not put this league on any list that "automatically" makes a player notable for playing one game. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't providing any actual numbers or sources to what you're saying. You're just saying "no, I don't want it because I don't like it". Nehme1499 16:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, if you make a list of leagues that automatically confer notability on any player that played one game in that league, then you damn well better be sure that all of those players can meet GNG and WP:BASIC on their own. If you include a league like this, which has many players that don't meet GNG, it defeats the purpose of the list. So either don't make the list, or make a list with leagues where ALL of the players meet GNG. Not "usually". Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which has many players that don't meet GNG: again, you haven't provided examples. Nehme1499 17:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to. You'd need to prove that every player who's played 1 game in that league meets GNG. You can't, because they don't. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but I don't have the physical time to do so. Nehme1499 18:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're admitting that Serie C should not be on a list of leagues where "he played one game in it so he's notable". Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, read again. Nehme1499 22:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have this backwards. It is you that needs to provide the required evidence that this should be included. That means a substantial random survey across the entire timeframe (note: you didn't answer the earlier question on this – are just talking post-2014, wanting to include C1/C2, or go all the way back to the original foundation?), that demonstrates significant coverage in intellectually independent, reliable, preferably secondary, sources that are independent of the subject, for 90-95% of players. What you have provided so far falls well short of that. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided examples of players, in lower-ranked teams in the Serie C, who have enough coverage to pass GNG after one cap. After RandomCandadian pointed out a few other names, I promptly provided enough sources to prove that even those players pass GNG. I have already done quite enough, I'm not going to analyse all 1,500-odd players currently playing in the league. If a random selection of "lower-tiered" players pass the test, then it implies that the ones from even bigger teams will pass it as well. Regardless, even if I provided 12 other examples, you would still probably argue that a dozen isn't enough, and that we'd need at least 100 more (knowing full well that no one has the time to search for sources hundreds of players alone).
I'm providing evidence that today, in 2021–22, Serie C players are notable upon receiving their first cap. I don't know whether this applies to 2008 or 1956, and I don't have the time to do this research on my own. Nehme1499 16:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three players from this season is not a substantial random sample covering the full time period you wish to include (which we still don't know), and you haven't even provided the required coverage for them. Sorry, but you are not going to get consensus for inclusion without doing the legwork. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't even provided the required coverage for them: I have, though? Nehme1499 16:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you had, showing that three players from a league are notable doesn't mean that every player in this league is notable. The purpose of the list is to say "okay if they played in X league they're notable". I think it's a silly list to begin with, but if people are going to insist on having a list, then every player in a league better be able to pass WP:GNG on their own if you're going to put that league on such a list. Serie C is not such a league. Not even close. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, you haven't: Toure, one source (which seems blog-ish, so is questionable); Zanon, zero (both links are the same and not independent as it's based on a press release); Calamita, zero (all three sources given are either not significant or not independent, more press releases). You also still haven't clarified the time period you are proposing here. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not belive that one/two/three sources give enough notability to a player... Dr Salvus 21:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how many sources do you think are needed? 10? WP:GNG just says sources, so a couple are fine. Nehme1499 22:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nehme1499, no, a coulpe are not enough. GNG requires significant coverage. So, everyone could have a Wikipedia article if a kid (who doesn't have a big coverage) played one minute in Serie C. Even I, could have one without doing anything of particular. Dr Salvus 22:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple significant is enough. Even 100 irrelevant sources aren't enough. The point is quality, not quantity. Nehme1499 22:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3SOURCES exists, but that is just an essay. I personally say 2 good, significant sources is enough for GNG. GiantSnowman 09:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires multiple significant sources, so GiantSnowman and Nehme1499 are right that two significant sources are in theory enough. In practical sense, articles with at least WP:THREE (another essay) significant sources tend to fare better in AfD's. The significant part of the source also matters. This transfer article for instances is not a significant source while this one most certainly is. A couple of significant sources like the later would probably persuade me to !vote keep for a person in a Afd while dozen similar of the first one would not. Alvaldi (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - transfer reports are (99% of the time) WP:ROUTINE. One could write many detailed & decent articles on English lower non-league players, all based on transfer reports alone, but that does not mean the player is notable. GiantSnowman 11:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency/Avoid Duplication[edit]

Just a minor proposal to keep the list more manageable is to avoid the duplication of leagues (ie. teams of one country that play in another league) that the league does not need to be listed twice, just list it under the country the league is sanctioned by. This does not mean that players/teams from the other country are not notable, just a way to reduce and limit duplication. The list is a bit inconsistent right now in that aspect. I tried to make a change but was reverted. For example, Canada currently lists Major League Soccer and USL Championship as it presently (MLS) or formerly (USLC) had teams in those leagues. However, we don't list Wales with EPL/EFL (Swansea/Cardiff), Lichenstein with Swiss Super League (FC Valduz), New Zealand with the A-League (Wellington Phoenix), Monaco with Ligue 1 (AS Monaco). Proposal is to just list leagues once (by the main country of the league) or then list the league in the list of every country that has/had at least one team. My preference is the former, but the latter is fine, it just needs to be consistent. Right now it is not. Can add a note at the top to say that (also by the country as well). Right now I think all that would be needed is to remove the duplicated leagues from Canada or to add all those countries I listed. Consistency is the goal and I say this as a Canadian editor, who mainly edits those articles. RedPatch (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Techincal note: A-League is listed twice currently (under Australia and New Zealand). Regarding the suggestion, I agree we should list only under the country the league is sanctioned by - also to avoid duplication and also to avoid confusion. --SuperJew (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed that. Thanks. RedPatch (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree - some leagues (like USL and NASL) were much bigger in some countries than others. So inherent notability may vary. Besides - with so few examples, it's not a big deal to list twice; and is going to be simpler for editors who might not even think of checking multiple countries. Nfitz (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If only some of the teams in a league might carry "inherent notability" then the league as a whole doesn't. Best to either come up with a higher standard (higher # of games, etc.) or leaving players from that league to fall under GNG. These are the hard choices that all of us sport SSGs have to make. Rikster2 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in some cases the league as a whole isn't! This is my concern that we are putting the horse before the cart - simply rewriting the list of leagues (on a new, very subjective, criteria rather than a clear line), rather than thinking more holistically. Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National League (division)[edit]

In line with the move to focus on significant coverage over professionalism, should the National League (division) be included in the list? It has a televised game every week, which is more than can be said for EFL Leagues One and Two, and pretty much every prominent source that covers the EFL also covers the National League to a similar extent. For clarity, this is only the English 5th tier I am referring to and not the much less covered NL North and South. OGLV (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The league might get coverage - but do the vast majority of players? GiantSnowman 07:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No less so than League Two, if BBC and Sky Sports are anything to go by. OGLV (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do 99% of the players who played 1-2 matches there the last couple of seasons have enough WP:SIGCOV to pass GNG? Alvaldi (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no. That is also the case for Leagues One and Two, though, and arguably the Championship. OGLV (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then probably none of them should be included. Of cource, not being on the list doesn't exclude the leagues players from having an article so there are no worries about the players in those leagues who already have 2-3 sources of sigcov. Alvaldi (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree about the English Football League. GiantSnowman 09:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposals[edit]

Tiered guideline[edit]

What are your thoughts on a tiered notability guideline, similar to what the Italian (see guideline) and French (see guideline) projects do?

Just as an example, I'll summarize the Italian guideline:

  1. One senior national team game (excluding friendlies), or Olympic national team game in the Olympics;
  2. Seven games (final tournament + qualifying) in a continental club competition (e.g. Champions League, Europa League, etc.), or just three games in the finals (excluding qualifying);
  3. A percentage-based amount of games in a first division, based on the "tier" of the division
  1. 10% of the games available in a season (e.g. 4 games in a 38-game season), or 10 games in multiple seasons, in a "top tier" first division league
  2. 25 games throughout multiple seasons for "second tier" first division leagues
  3. 90 games throughout multiple seasons for "third tier" first division leagues
  1. Same logic for second division leagues, with higher thresholds

Examples of tiers:

  1. England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil, ...
  2. Austria, Saudi Arabia, Japan, USA, Mexico, ...
  3. Albania, Finland, India, Venezuela, Malaysia, ...
  4. Afghanistan, Gibraltar, Iceland, Lebanon, Barbados, New Zealand, ...

Of course, if we were to implement something like this, we would adapt it (quite a bit) in our own way. I would completely remove the Olympic national team, and maybe have different numbers/percentages for the leagues. We would decide which leagues go in which tiers based on availability of sources: if it's ridiculously easy to find an in-depth source for someone who made their debut in a league (for e.g. the Premier League), then we would put the PL in tier 1 (and tier 1 would entail only playing 1 game). If for the Japanese league, usually, we can expect to find good sources after 10 games, we'd put that in tier 2, and so on... Nehme1499 17:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate this in principle, but if we're struggling to categorise only a handful of league with my proposal, how are we going to sort out every league in the world? GiantSnowman 20:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, we wouldn't be categorizing all leagues in the world. We could have a three-tier system (which is actually a two-tier system):
Tier 1: one cap = presumed notable
Tier 2: [x] caps = presumed notable
Tier 3 (all other leagues): no presumption of notability
I'm not sure how easy/doable this is, but it's not such a ridiculous task at hand I think. Nehme1499 21:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nuance this allows will help, but it does need some modifications - one cap should never be enough for notability ("played for like 9 minutes in one game" was a major criticism of the previous guidelines) and it needs to avoid presuming the same level of coverage existed one hundred years ago as exists today. BilledMammal (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, one appearance in the Premier League is certainly enough to garner notability. Football is absolutely massive, and the top leagues are followed by so many people that they profile players who haven’t even debuted. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I have recently shown you an example of coverage of players 100 years ago and you have just ignored it. Your 'there was no coverage of players before [YEAR]' argument is baseless. GiantSnowman 21:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I agree with David: there are a few (probably a dozen) leagues where 1 minute of play would guarantee notability (the top 5 European leagues spring to mind). The others would go in the [x] caps category. Nehme1499 21:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a "more than 1 is needed" argument many, many times before - and nobody has ever been able to suggest a number and justify it. GiantSnowman 21:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that’s why the tiered approach works, because it only needs to be one appearance for the TOP tier (i.e. the decided top few leagues in which notability is garnered after one appearance). In the second tier, you can work out a percentage of games per season, or whatever is decided, then in the third tier, it can be solely GNG that determines eligibility for an article. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: I don't think it's useful to lump together the Premier League and the Malaysia Super League; it would undermine how much importance debuting in the PL actually has. One cap is more than enough for the PL, but maybe 5/10/20 (?) is better for the Malaysian league. Nehme1499 21:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do we do if a player plays [x] matches in the second dvision of a tier 1 country? How'd the criterium work? Dr Salvus 21:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s better to differentiate by specific league, not country. A player debuting in the Premier League is going to get more coverage than one debuting in the EFL League Two. The League Two player will (most likely) still get coverage, but it would be understandable if League Two is in the second tier. This would be up to the community to decide. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do know a player playing in PL would get a better coverage than one playing in L2. I'd like to open a discusson on it Dr Salvus 21:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As David says, we should be looking on a league-by-league basis, not country by country. We should compare the PL and L2 the same way we would compare the L2 with the Armenian Premier League. The PL, Serie A, La Liga, and others can be in tier 1, while the Championship, L1, Armenian PL, Japanese J1, etc can be in tier 2, for example. Nehme1499 21:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This might work - but even if we agree a % of games to play (for example), this will not prevent people creating articles on players in 'tier 2' leagues who only have 1 game. In effect, it will simply lead to more clean up work, more time wasted. GiantSnowman 22:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles are created by the same few people; as long as they know about the guidelines, it won't be much of a problem. Of course, even now, we get the occasional African player of dubious notability, or Iranian futsal player. If the FOOTY project knows about this guideline, it won't be much of a problem I think in the long run. Anyway, even if we decided to restrict it to a "one-tier" notability list, we'd still get people creating pages for players outside of the new list. Nehme1499 22:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I already clarified this. I am not saying that there are no notable players one hundred years ago, I am saying that less players were notable - and thus we cannot apply the same standard.
As for the difficulties in choosing the number of caps, they also apply to choosing "one". BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But your 'less players were notable in the past' stance is based on what exactly? And I've already explained the clear logic of '1' as a magic number. GiantSnowman 22:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could we use FIFA's league/country rankings to determine notability? --dashiellx (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an easy but ineffective solution; the two are not necessarily always correlated. "Smaller" countries can have very good coverage for a variety of reasons. Nehme1499 02:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but then leagues in those smaller counties would pass GNG on their own. dashiellx (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Examples like John Charlton (footballer), who played at the top tier of English football but fails WP:GNG. Further, football received less coverage one hundred years ago than it does now, and less coverage means it is less likely that an individual player received significant coverage. The nature of coverage has also changed, but the impact of that is less significant. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the lower tiers- playing in Afghanistan, Gibraltar etc won't make someone notable. The only notable players in those leagues will be some internationals (who achieve their notability by playing internationally, not playing in an obscure league). The original proposal is way better than this tiered system IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: I'm not sure what is the probability you are pointing out. In the example you brought the lower tiers- playing in Afghanistan, Gibraltar etc would go in Nehme's example proposal under Tier 3 (all other leagues): no presumption of notability (which is as you said that playing in the league won't make them notable). --SuperJew (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Less presumptions[edit]

Instead of attempting to write an exhaustive list of which leagues or competitions may or may not be notable, it could be simpler to write a guideline which keeps presumptions limited to a small group (one where the likelihood of SIGCOV is nearly 100%), and then have a clear description that players who have participated in [lesser-likelihood of SIGCOV competitions] may also be notable, though without an automatic presumption. This would both A) keep the purpose of providing guidance on which players/leagues are likely to be good targets for article creation; and would do that B) without having to give an exhaustive listing (although something like the existing listing could be maintained to guide editors) and C) without encouraging problematic behaviour at AfDs. A proposed text could be something like the following (based on the contents of Association_football#International_competitions and the section about domestic competitions):

Proposal

Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:

  • Have participated in a major senior level international competition (such as the FIFA World Cup or the continental championships)
  • Have participated in the playoff stages of major international club competitions (such as the UEFA Champions League or the Copa Libertadores)
  • Have participated in at least one of the following domestic leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), and/or Ligue 1 (France)

Players or managers who do not meet the above may still be notable, although sources should not be assumed to exist without further proof. A listing of other competitions wherein participation may lead to significant coverage is maintained by the WP:FOOTY wikiproject, at [link].

Of course, this is more restrictive than the current, but hopefully it strikes the right balance between being useless and being overly inclusive. And on top of that, keeping it simpler is nearly always better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's so specific that it's not useful to be honest, any player in the World Cup/CL is beyond notable. That bar is way too high, the vast majority of noteable players don't even make it to the World Cup. Ortizesp (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal includes more than just the World Cup. The biggest issue right now is the domestic leagues, which seem to generate most of the problematic cases of players who technically meet the very generous NFOOTY requirements but are not notable. The two routes suggested so far are essentially "keep as is but trim away some of the more dubious leagues" (with an attempt to remove more of them being of course resisted) or "replace with some general criteria which will make so we don't need to list all of the leagues:. Neither of these look like they'll really solve the issue, nor do I think they'd be accepted by the wider community. Limiting the "presumption of notability" (and hence the potential for abuse of the guideline) to a few leagues and clear cut cases, and listing the others which may be notable on a Wikiproject page, seems like the best compromise. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
International criteria certainly need restricting from "any Tier 1 International Match" because significant coverage exists for only a very small minority of players in some countries; this is readily apparent from many AFDs and DRVs (regardless of how they've been closed) and the state of countless other similar articles. This proposal is probably overly tight (assuming it is limited to finals and does not include qualifiers), but that is exactly how we should be approaching new guidelines. Perhaps it would also help to encourage list creation ("List of ??? men's international footballers", "List of ??? women's international footballers") for some countries instead of separate articles. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree that a highly-detailed list is going to make things more difficult in the long-run, with technicalities and caveats and pitfalls all bound to arise. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restricting to only top-level domestic players is too far, and clearly ignorant of the realities of lower league football in some countries. GiantSnowman 13:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "restricting" those who can have articles to only top level domestic players in a few countries. This is restricting the "has been and will be de facto used as an insta-notability pass at AFD" to those cases where such an use is justified; while not preventing those who do not meet the criteria from having an article (since they can still meet GNG, and the proposed text makes it explicit that those who do not meet the criteria may still be notable). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the "realities of lower league football in some countries" is so obvious, then can't they pass GNG? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the same can be said of ANY player in ANY league - or indeed any profession. Again, the point of the SNG is to give guidance on what kinds of articles might be notable. GiantSnowman 15:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second teams playing in a pro league[edit]

Second teams players often get a lot of coverage even though they don't play in a pro league (or when they play in a pro league we decide it's not notable). In Italy there could even be youth sector players who have never played a professional match who don't get a trascurable coverage. What do we do in this case? Dr Salvus 20:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they pass GNG, that takes precedence over anything we’re discussing here about leagues. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think reserve teams should ever be considered notable, and playing for/against them shouldnt count similar to how if a player debuts against a PL U23 team in the EFL Trophy it doesnt count as notable. playing for/against barca b shouldnt be considered notable.Muur (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the reserve/youth teams play in a properly competitive league, and the players in that league are notable (according to whatever definition of notable leagues that we decide on), then what's the difference between them and any other player in that league? For teams such as Man Utd U-23s that play in a cup tournament with third and fourth tier teams, I would say not notable though. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Joseph. Nehme1499 14:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So do I Dr Salvus 15:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Hhkohh (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Muur, no playing for reserves teams playing in a notable league should be considered notable as Joseph has said above Dr Salvus 15:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a youth or reserve player has received enough significant coverage over substantial time (that, not just over few days but many months or years) to pass GNG the he is eligible for an article, regardless of what leagues he has played or not played in. Alvaldi (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Throw out the notion of using one game played in a league to qualify notability entirely[edit]

If a player plays in one game (or a manager manages one game) in X league, and there's debate about whether X league meets the definition of "notable league", so what? If the player or manager has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, that's it, their notability rises to the level of justifying an article creation. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter that they played one game in X league. The entire RfC about sports notability was to reduce this kind of arbitrary criteria, and here we are, attempting to re-create it again. It makes no sense. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well the advice says that Significant coverage is likely to exist if they meet the criteria. That means almost everyone would be notable, just because one or two players in a league aren't notable, that isn't a reason to throw out everything... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying "throw out everything'. The problem with a list like this is that it ends up being used as an excuse in deletion discussions to keep an article about a player that doesn't meet GNG in any way. "Well he played one game in the Paraguay 2nd-divison, so that means he's notable." The leagues being discussed on this talk page don't have "one or two players" that aren't notable, they have hundreds or even thousands, if you go back enough decades. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there is already clear consensus at AFD that meeting NFOOTBALL but failing GNG is not sufficient to keep the article. The purpose of this guideline is to guide editors as to what kinds of articles may be notable. GiantSnowman 21:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A number of participants at AFDs don't honour that "clear consensus" though, and !vote keep in cases where NFOOTY is met but GNG is not (and in some cases where no significant coverage is shown to exist anywhere, let alone in multiple places). Sometimes such arguments win the day, yet the community has expressed its view several times that this is not acceptable. NFOOTY is a guideline to possible GNG status not an alternative to it. I have no objection to rewriting NFOOTY if it helps people, but this fundamental point must be stated clearly at the top.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some at AFD don't acknowledge GNG's superiority is less than ideal, but chainsawing NFOOTBALL as a result is throwing out the baby with the bath water. Make the "fundamental" point clear, absolutely. GiantSnowman 21:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: To be clear, I'm not looking to chainsaw NFOOTY, and I appreciate what you're doing here (and agree with most of it). But @Amakuru: is right - sometimes an article deletion fails just because voters say "well he played a game in Serie C so that's that" and I think that making the list of "acceptable leagues" MUCH tighter is the way to go, given the tendency of football fans to abuse such lists. Fred Zepelin (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If when I want to write a new article and anyway I have to research to make sure subject meets GNG to be notable, what advantage does the SNG give? --SuperJew (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should give you a good idea of whether the subject is likely to have enough significant coverage to pass GNG and aid you in the decision of whether you should put the time and effort in creating the article. Alvaldi (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's so, I'm not sure why this is such a big fight and why there's so much pushback from both sides. The SNG doesn't have any real meaning anyway. --SuperJew (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely due to the SNG's use as an argument in AfD's to keep articles of players who genuinely lack significant coverage to pass GNG. However, if properly done, a SNG could be a useful tool in AfD's to protect articles of historical players who are likely to be notable but sources are genuinely hard to come by (I don't think they should really apply to modern players as internet coverage far surpasses offline coverage today). But for it to become that, there would have to be some research done to prove that players who pass a certain condition (for instance won a certain award, played x many matches in a certain league or international competition) regulary have the significant coverage to pass GNG. Going by a feeling or testing 3-4 players would be nowhere near enough. Alvaldi (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a firm note in NFOOTY explaining clearly that playing in a league on this list does NOT automatically confer notability. Fred Zepelin (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sounds like a mountain of work for little return. --SuperJew (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Zepelin has a point. Many arguments people put forth to keep an article is simply "He/She played X games in XXXX" that makes them notable. Why can't NFooty specifically state something like "Roster appearances or games played does not confirm notability."--dashiellx (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does already, it says there's "likely to be coverage" of them, which means there will be exceptions. The problem is people taking it as black and white, which is also what people are trying to do by trying to get rid of it. It's actually clear enough already, if people actually read it as a guideline for possible notability rather than a definitive text. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"likely to be coverage" is great, but I don't see why we can't simply reinforce that just appearing in game(s) doesn't confirm notability. It doesn't matter what I understand or think is clear, we need to insure the understanding of everyone, including those where English may not be a first language. --dashiellx (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like the alledged problem with the SNG that the RFC was created because of, is actually a problem in people's interpretation of it. Therefore changing the SNG won't necessarily change people's interpretation of it. --SuperJew (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this was the intention of the SNG from the get go really. The goal wasn't to decree that certain players were ipso facto notable, it was to give a guide to who might be notable, given the difficulty of digging out sources from long-gone eras. Where the rules as written failed though, is that (a) it pre-supposes that players playing at a level which would make them almost automatically notable today would also have been notable playing at that level 100 years ago, and (b) it gives rise to potentially large numbers of stubs based entirely on brief passing mentions, with no prospect of really creating an article from what's available. So now the community is saying we need to put the horse first, before the cart, not put the cart before the horse. First demonstrate genuine notability, then start writing your article. The SNG is still useful though, because it gives guidance as to whether to even bother searching for sources, given previous experience about whether such sources exist.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the point of the SNG is to give guidance on who might be notable, to guide editors creating new articles. If they meet NFOOTBALL, then they likely are, but it is no guarantee, as countless AFDs have shown. This is why I believe NFOOTBALL in some form should be retained, because it is increasingly useful. GiantSnowman 18:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having NFOOTBALL is helpful to editors, but I'd like it to make clear that some common interpretations that have repeatedly been advocated at AfDs are not consistent with the RFC consensus. For example, I've seen multiple editors argue the following:

(1) The player is contracted to a club in a league listed at WP:FPL, and/or his or her career is still in its early stages. Thus, there is no need for SIGCOV because he or she will soon have notable achievements with this club and the SIGCOV will then become available. Per the RFC consensus, this may be grounds to keep a draft, but not grounds to retain an article in the hopes that someday SIGCOV (and GNG) can be met.

(2) The player has made double-digit (or insert another random threshold) of appearances for a club in a league listed at WP:FPL. Thus, regardless of whether his or her career is ongoing, we should assume that SIGCOV exists even though no WP editors have access to sources to validate that assumption. This goes against the RFC consensus.

Can we agree to clarify that these are not proper interpretations of NFOOTBALL? Jogurney (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that number (1) is wrong, as it's a reason to draftspace it, if they don't pass WP:GNG at this time, then leave it in draftspace until such a time as they do meet GNG. For number (2), we shouldn't presume coverage exists, though for some players (e.g. in historic pre-Internet era, or countries where not much of their newspaper content is online), there will be less online material available, and we need to be careful not to bias as a result of this (because offoline sources may exist, but it could be difficult to find them in the timeframe of 1 week if an article is at AFD). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing twice expecting different results. I have zero confidence that people will suddenly realize that citing NEWNFOOTY when the subject is a clear GNG fail is inappropriate when that's exactly what kept happening with original SNG despite the guidance at the top of its page which said some proof of SIGCOV was necessary. But surely the closers will understand this and disregard the unsupported votes? No, they won't. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - I cannot stress this enough. The purpose of a new guideline is simply to provide guidance on what kind of articles might be notable. It does not confer automatic notability by 'passing' it. If people continue to !vote 'keep, meets SNG' (when there is no SNG!) after being told then they might have to be topic banned. GiantSnowman 08:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2.0[edit]

NFOOTBALL has now been removed from NSPORTS, and whilst there is appetite for a new version, we have not agreed on what that should be. It is clear that we need to move away from mere participation and focus more on significant coverage BUT editors will still need an idea of what level of play might mean an individual is notable. There have been a number of proposals here.

My first proposal was:

The notability of association football (soccer) figures is assessed on the basis that the level that they compete at is the subject of significant coverage. Accordingly, significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:

  1. Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match as defined by FIFA.[1]
  2. Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from a 'notable' league.
Note: For the purposes of this guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or coming on as a substitute. Being on a team's squad roster is not sufficient. Youth players, or players at the Olympics, are not likely to be notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:NBASIC. Please also note that, in either case, association football (soccer) figures ultimately must meet the wider requirements of WP:NBASIC.

References

  1. ^ "Regulations Governing International Matches" (PDF). FIFA. p. 8–9. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-05. Retrieved 2018-05-18.

@Nehme1499: suggested a tiered notability guideline.

@RandomCanadian: proposed the following:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:

Have participated in a major senior level international competition (such as the FIFA World Cup or the continental championships)
Have participated in the playoff stages of major international club competitions (such as the UEFA Champions League or the Copa Libertadores)
Have participated in at least one of the following domestic leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), and/or Ligue 1 (France)

Players or managers who do not meet the above may still be notable, although sources should not be assumed to exist without further proof. A listing of other competitions wherein participation may lead to significant coverage is maintained by the WP:FOOTY wikiproject, at [link].

@Fred Zepelin: suggested that we should 'throw out the notion of using one game played in a league to qualify notability entirely'.

Mashing up the above, I propose the following wording for a guideline:

The notability of association football (soccer) players and/or managers/head coaches is assessed on the basis that the level that they compete at is the subject of significant coverage. Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:

  1. Have participated in a major senior level international competition (being the FIFA World Cup or a continental championship) or their qualifying matches;
  2. Have participated in a major continental club competition (such as the UEFA Champions League or the Copa Libertadores); or
  3. Have participated in a competitive match between two clubs from [major/significant?] domestic league. A list of competitions wherein participation may lead to significant coverage is maintained by WikiProject Football, at [link].

Players or managers who do not meet the above may still be notable, although sources should not be assumed to exist without further proof.

Being on a team's squad roster is not sufficient. Youth players, or players at the Olympics, are not likely to be notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:NBASIC. Please also note that, in either case, association football (soccer) figures ultimately must meet the wider requirements of WP:NBASIC.

This is primarily a mash up of mine and RC's proposals. From RC's proposal, I have:

  1. Clarified that by 'association football figure' we mean player or manager only. This is to try and prevent people writing articles about coaches, scouts, physiotherapists etc.;
  2. Relaxed the wording to make it clear that international players in both a major tournament and their qualifying matches might be notable;
  3. Changed the tournament from 'playoff' and re-named as 'continental';
  4. Removed the mention of specific domestic leagues, as it might cause confusion - we should refer to the list (once agreed); and
  5. Added some detail from my proposal that clarifies that being a non-playing squad player is not enough, that youth and Olympic play is not enough; and that ultimately NBASIC must be met.

Thoughts? If we can agree the criteria, we can then focus efforts on the list of major/significant leagues. GiantSnowman 12:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. First, "figures (i.e. players or managers only)" seems rather convoluted – why not simply say "players and/or managers/head coaches" (I'd include head coach here)? As to the substance, I feel this is still too inclusive for internationals; far too many (in some cases almost all) players for minor nations, especially in women's football, do not receive little if any significant coverage – in this regard I would favour something along the lines of RC's proposal, i.e. world/continental final tournaments or similar. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to change to 'players and/or managers/head coaches' (and will make that change now), but think for international players that limiting to players in major tournaments only does not reflect the significant coverage that the vast majority of international players get. After all, this is just a. guide as to what might be notable - and so those players for 'minor' nations who don't get significant coverage will not be notable... GiantSnowman 13:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Italian Wikipedia's guidelines limit notability by international games to the World Cup, major continental competitions (Euros, Asian Cup, etc.) and their qualifiers. Adding this last part is a good compromise imo. Nehme1499 13:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we do end up with 'major tournament' for international players then I agree playing in a qualifier needs to be included as well - but are you saying international players who only play in friendlies (rare, admittedly) don't get significant coverage? GiantSnowman 13:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am. Or at least, I would be very surprised if this were the case for lower-ranked nations. I'm sure it applies to England and Italy, but not so much to New Caledonia and Tahiti. Nehme1499 14:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    but the point is that this a a guide only, and GNG still trumps... GiantSnowman 14:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. But while I can say that 99.9% of players who make their debut in the Serie A will have significant coverage, I feel that the portion for players worldwide debuting in an international friendly will be lower (I'd even argue that it would be less than 50%). Imagine the amount of 89th-minute subs in unremarkable friendlies between two nations ranked below 100th (there are 211 FIFA nations mind you). Nehme1499 14:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I take your point. I'll re-word my proposal accordingly. GiantSnowman 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that qualifiers should be included. Qualifying for major international tournaments generates coverage of the players, but (except for nations where players are likely to meet club criteria) qualifying matches generally do not – this is clear from AFDs of international players from minor nations, where no significant coverage has been found. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to hammer the point home about qualifiers, I'm going to give yet again the example of the Seychelles ([33]), where the players have to "beg time off work" and earn a combined "about $635 per month" - and this while preparing for qualifiers for the African Cup of Nations... or here, an example of a player who actually played in some of those qualifiers and of course fails inclusion criteria by a wide margin. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But the same can be equally be said for players who play for minor countries who happen to qualify for big tournaments (such as Comoros). GiantSnowman 15:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And here an example of a player who played once in qualifiers for the Arab Cup... I'm not saying with confidence where the cut-off should be, but mere "qualifiers" is obviously too much, at least for some regions of the world (and given that every FIFA-recognised team has access to those, including places where "professional" football would be a generous description of the local competition level, then it has nothing to do with merit either) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the Arab Cup is not a 'major senior level international competition'. GiantSnowman 15:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, might have gotten a bit confused. Anyway, here's maybe a more telling example, which actually participated in qualifiers for the African Cup: Chad national football team... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also examples of players who played a lot of times in the Oceania Cup for Vanuatu or Solomon Islands who've got a low coverage Dr Salvus 16:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd exclude that from 'major senior level international competition' as well. Perhaps we need to say which ones we mean - Euros, Asian Cup, AFCON, Copa America? I would not include OFC Cup, and probably exclude CONCACAF Gold Cup as well. GiantSnowman 16:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman The American soccer is getting better so, I wouldn't exclude it Dr Salvus 16:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd consider as a 'major senior level international competition' each cup which allows each team from the contintental conferederation to qualify for it except Oceania. So, I wouldn't include the Arab Cup for example Dr Salvus 16:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all confederations should be considered equal, they play in the exact same tier system as Germany, France, and Argentina. I don't think international footballers are even 1 per cent of total footballers out there, so not sure why this of all the criteria is the one we are worried about.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the coverage players receive, and in that respect they are far from equal. We have two options: have different criteria for each confederation/country, or one simple criterion that covers everything. The latter would be best, but it must be calibrated conservatively. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why not including the qualifiers is the simplest solution. Of course, it's possible to list them, but then that adds complexity. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When did international matches start to be classified as "Tier One International Matches"? Depending on how early that is, I believe we will need a date restriction for that, and we will need a date restriction for leagues, as being sufficiently notable now does not mean they were sufficiently notable for their entire history. BilledMammal (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some leagues, yes - some leagues, no. GiantSnowman 08:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any criteria that starts "Have participated in a..." is in violation of the outcome of the RFC. Any attempt to tweak or tighten guidelines that are still single-appearance guidelines is inappropriate as a replacement. These should be rephrased as merit-based qualifications, such as "Was credited with a goal, save, or assist in a...". Other qualifications that could be included which would be merit based are "Medaled in or won a championship", "Won an award from FIFA, a notable leage, or a publication that meets the definition of a reliable source", etc. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 22:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: +1 for Ahecht. Simple participation criteria are out the window, full stop. People are just going to have to come up with something else. Ravenswing 05:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahecht the Rfc is not a law and we're not forced to follow it. Football is much more than American football, basketball or baseball (who outside USA and Canada follow them?). A player can get coverage even though if doesn't win the FIFA World Cup or if doesn't play in the first division Dr Salvus 06:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, merit-based participation is acceptable per the RFC closer (no matter how many people are shouting no at it). Playing international sport seems like a merit-based participation to me, as you need to be in the best 11 players in your country at the time. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is 'not participation criteria' and is more in line with merit based than the 'one game = notability' that many people viewed the old rules to be. The fact of the matter is that football is the most popular sport in the world, by far, and many players are notable because of the level they play at and the coverage they received as a result. Limiting the guideline to 'people who have won a World Cup medal' is incredibly ignorant of the realities. GiantSnowman 09:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The same can be said of "all international footballers" as a criterion. The new guideline has to sit somewhere in the middle, preferably without needing to maintain lists of countries and effective dates. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the list of 'significant' leagues, once created, will involve minimal maintenance, even less than the current (and now defunct) WP:FPL. It served a useful purpose. GiantSnowman 10:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302 The RFARFC close never mentions "merit-based participation". --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 12:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, it's RFC not RFA. Also, was clarified by the RFC closer at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Content removed again. Their comment included So while there is generally consensus to remove (merely) participation-based criteria, that doesn't mean we can be robotic about removing any criteria that mentions participation. Productive discussions (as part of the bold-revert-discuss cycle) would center around whether a criterion is sufficiently merit-based to warrant inclusion. Qualifying for (and participating in) highly selective national or international events leans towards the merit-based side of things; playing in a single professional match before being sent back to the minor leagues leans toward the "mere participation" side. For criteria in the middle, editors can and should discuss whether it's sufficiently merit-based. That's a clear support for some limited-scope merit-based participations (something that some editors are ignoring by just shouting "no participations" at everyone and everything). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No participations! Levivich 15:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because constantly just saying "no participations" is so helpful.... I guess you didn't bother reading what the RFC closer actually said then, which is that "merit-based participations are acceptable". Attitudes like this is why everyone is pissed off and can't get anything agreed on. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Levivich was trying to do a funny... GiantSnowman 16:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2.1[edit]

Discussion seems to have died down, so a bit of a newish proposal to move forward:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they:

  1. Have participated in a major senior level international competition (being the FIFA World Cup or a continental championship)
  2. Have participated in a major continental club competition (such as the UEFA Champions League or the Copa Libertadores)
  3. Have participated in at least one of the following domestic leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), and/or Ligue 1 (France)

Players or managers who do not meet the above may still be notable, although sources should not be assumed to exist without further proof. A listing of other competitions wherein participation may lead to significant coverage is maintained by the WP:FOOTY wikiproject, at [link].

Being on a team's squad roster is not sufficient. Youth players, or players at the Olympics, are not likely to be notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:NBASIC. Please also note that, in either case, association football (soccer) figures ultimately must meet the wider requirements of WP:NBASIC

This has a few changes from 2.0:

  1. Remove most of the new introductory sentence, for consistency with others, and also because notability is not assessed based on the level where the player competed but on whether the player actually was on the receiving end of significant coverage (note that this was not present in the previous version of the guideline before the recent changes, ex. as it was back in December)
  2. Remove the "or qualifiers" as per above (in the interest of keeping the criteria short and sweet and not having to keep an exception for those qualifiers which are not worth that much)
  3. Give an explicit listing of "major domestic competitions" (the same as before, based on Association_football#Domestic_competitions) - because simply redirecting back to the FOOTY list, which goes all the way from lower domestic leagues to the top ones, could possibly lead to ambiguity as to what such major competitions are (since no example nor definition is given, and since Wikiproject pages are not usually understood to have been thoroughly vetted by the community, so that could lead to lack of clarity about the status of the whole thing.
  4. Keep the link about "may be notable but no assumption" together with the remark it pertains to (in light of the alterations of no. 3)
  5. Retain the additional clarifications about squads and youth players

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the third criterium apply to championships with a minor tier such as Championship, Serie B or Ligue 2? In these leagues, footballers often get an high coverage and so could they if play in third tier. I also think that the footballers playing in countries like Russia or Portugal (the best 10 European leagues) could get an acceptable coverage. Dr Salvus 14:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3 specifically applies to the top tiers of such systems (the tiers where international players are frequently if not always present, were you have outsized salaries, where success often means participation in some of the other competitions already listed, ...). That's an objective criteria, and although we have a few exceptional cases of such players (mostly from long time ago) who are not notable, those are much rarer than in the lower levels; and as such seems an accurate indicator of notability (and also would be more in line with WP:NOT and other sports altered as a result of the RfC, ex. cricket or curling). Listing all of the others would quickly get out of hand, which is why, instead of doing that, I think that giving a link to the Wikiproject list is simpler. FWIW, it could be re-worded as "Have participated in a major domestic league competition, such as [insert same listing of Bundesliga et al. here]", but then that opens lack of clarity about what a "major domestic league competition" is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wording could be "Have participated in the following major domestic league competitions: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England) etc. Either way, this seems more than fine as a revised proposal to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still have issues with limiting the 'list' to so few. What is the problem with maintaining a separate list? GiantSnowman 17:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this: despite a disclaimer at the top of the list saying that participation in one game in a league on the list does NOT confer notability automatically, the list was previously used in deletion discussions as ironclad justification for a "keep" vote, even if WP:GNG was not met. Therefore, to alleviate this problem, the list should be kept, at a minimum, to include only leagues where participating players ALL meet GNG. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you will ever find 100% of anything which are guaranteed to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 08:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a risk. I remember this US youth international was expected to be a star when he signed with Arsenal, but injuries ended his career very early, and I doubt the article would be able to pass WP:GNG if not for his excellence as a scout. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest clarifying the bit about the Olympics to "male players at the Olympics", since for female players it is a senior level international championship. In fact (for European nations) the World Cup is only the qualifying series for the Olympics. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - will change. GiantSnowman 17:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus to remove participation at the Olympics for both male and female players. BilledMammal (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - in which case this should reflect that consensus. In reality most/all Olympic footballers will reach GNG anyway. GiantSnowman 17:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian would playing in the qualifying rounds for the UEFA Champions League be acceptable to meet this guideline or is it group stage onwards? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: I'm not exactly sure where in the qualifying process the cut should be, if it is there at all. Unlike with the World Cup qualifiers (where everybody gets an invite), UEFA seems to be more selective. There are hundreds of clubs which could potentially qualify, but only a few dozen of them actually even take part in the qualifications process (and then only 6 of these make it into the group stage) [per current format, which of course might not have always been the case]. If there is one, then, yes, it probably should be group stage onwards. If, however, the qualifying rounds [or getting there - which often involves being national domestic league champion] generate the same or a similar amount of (additional, on top of the routine match reporting) coverage as the main competition, then yes, they should probably be included too (in which case I'll go ahead and clarify the text). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's an interesting one. I'd certainly welcome the input of other editors here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think CL qualifying rounds should count - only competition proper. GiantSnowman 17:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here you go. I'm doing NPP, what's Linafoot in the hierarchy of validity? WP:FPL mentions Congo Premier League. Both claim to be top division of the Congolese Football. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, playing in Linafoot is no guarantee of meeting GNG. GiantSnowman 17:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Whiteguru, Linafoot is the top league in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, aka Congo-Kinshasa, formerly the Belgian Congo. However the Congo Premier League is the top league in the Republic of the Congo, aka Congo-Brazzaville, formerly the French Congo. They've been 2 different countries since the 19th century. Nfitz (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Geography lesson noted. Whiteguru (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's certainly confusing! Only reason it jumps out at me, is I was once preparing to move to Brazzaville (it fell through). To which my first question was "where?" and my second question was "what do you mean there's 2 Congos?" :) Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz: The question that interests me is "why" :) --SuperJew (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the newly proposed criteria are that bad but I also didn't think WP:NFOOTY was that bad of a guideline previously. I still think participation-based notability is a good idea as it provides a very clear guideline on who we can expect to have an article on without needing to do an exhaustive GNG analysis for each AfC/AfD and explain what is routine coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another change to NSPORTS discussion[edit]

There's another discussion at NSPORTS for a change, specifically to WP:SPORTCRIT. See WT:Notability (sports)#Basic Criteria #5. Nfitz (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2.2[edit]

Hello, everyone. I have noticed some different proposals based on GiantSowman's, RadomCanadian's and Fred Zepelin's proposals, but they could not find a clear consensus on these conflicting proposals based what to include on N:SPORTS and N:FOOTY, so I have proposed the following regarding significant coverage, and for the sake of general notability guideline:

Proposal

Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for players if:

  • They have played in at least one match, either in a at the starting lineup, or as a substitute, in a major senior level international competition (e.g. the FIFA World Cup with qualifiers, the continental championships with some qualifiers depending on which confederation, and the continental Nations Leagues), excluding friendlies
  • They have played in at least one match either in a at the starting lineup, or as a substitute, in the playoff stages of major international club competitions (e.g. the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Copa Libertadores or the Copa Sudamericana, etc.)
  • They have played in at least either in a at the starting lineup, or as a substitute, in of the following leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), Ligue 1 (France), Major League Soccer (United States and Canada), Argentine Primera División (Argentina), Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (Brazil), and other leagues listed here
  • They have been at least called up and/or is in the official squad list in a major senior level international competition (e.g. the FIFA World Cup, the continental championships, and the continental Nations Leagues Finals)

Significant coverage is likely to exist for coaches if:

  • They have coached the senior national team, and has coached in at least one match in a major senior level international competition (e.g. the FIFA World Cup with qualifiers, the continental championships with some qualifiers depending on which confederation, and the continental Nations Leagues), excluding friendlies
  • They have coached in at least one match in the playoff and/or group stages of major international club competitions (e.g. the FIFA Club World Cup, the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Copa Libertadores or the Copa Sudamericana, etc.)
  • They have coached in at least one match in of the following leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), Ligue 1 (France), Major League Soccer (United States and Canada), Argentine Primera División (Argentina), Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (Brazil), and other leagues listed here

Significant coverage is likely to exist for referees if:

  • They are appointed to officiate at the major senior international tournament (e.g. the FIFA World Cup, the continental championships, and the continental Nations Leagues Finals),
  • They have officiated at the group stages of the major international club competitions (e.g. the the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Copa Libertadores or the Copa Sudamericana, etc.), as well as the appointees at the FIFA Club World Cup, and is on FIFA International Referees list
  • They have officiated at the highest first division the following leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), Ligue 1 (France), Major League Soccer (United States and Canada), Argentine Primera División (Argentina), Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (Brazil), and other leagues listed here, and is on FIFA International Referees list

Players and/or managers who do not meet the above may still be notable, although sources should not be assumed to exist without further proof. A listing of other competitions wherein participation may lead to significant coverage is maintained by the WP:FOOTY wikiproject, at leagues listed here.

Assistant referees may not counted to meet the criteria unless it satisfies with further proof to meet the W:GNG. Referees who do not meet the above may still be notable, although sources should not be assumed to exist without further proof. A listing of other competitions where they may lead to significant coverage is maintained by the WP:FOOTY wikiproject, at leagues listed here.


That would be all for that. I also would recommend that if you can share your thoughts, whether you support, or oppose that proposal to sustain that consensus. I am open to hear your opinions. If you support or oppose this proposal, let me know here, or if you have a question to add on this proposal, please let me know here, or leave a reply on my talk page for further questions. Thank you all, and have a peaceful day. Cheers. Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few immediate issues; participation in 1st and 2nd tier professional leagues is too inclusive; even participation in 1st tier professional leagues is too inclusive. There should also be a date cut off, as coverage is generally more extensive now than it was in the past. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand your concern to that, but tell me, which of those professional leagues in your opinion would be sufficient enough to meet that proposed criteria? Ivan Milenin (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The modern Premier League, Bundesliga, Serie A etc are likely to meet that proposed criteria. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take those concerns to consideration. In the meantime, I would amend that those player that have participated in those "notable" that will have significant coverage: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), Ligue 1 (France), Major League Soccer (United States and Canada), Argentine Primera División, and the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A are considered to meet the criteria. Is that what you asked for? Ivan Milenin (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to go back to the wording of proposal 2.1, but at the third bullet point expand the list of leagues that playing in might attract the sigcov. WP:FPL should be deprecated and replaced as per my initial proposal. GiantSnowman 10:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have amended that. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wouldn't a player be notable if plays in 2nd tiers in countries like Italy, England, Spain etc..? I also believe players who play at reserves team of a team are often notable even though they're not professional Dr Salvus 14:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reserve players are very unlikely to be notable. GiantSnowman 14:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In England it could be as you say because they don't play in a professional league but abroad it's not as you say because for example almost every Juventus U23 player is notable Dr Salvus 14:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well quite. Juventus U23 play in Serie C, part of the senior football pyramid, and therefore are not a true 'reserve' team. GiantSnowman 14:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Serie C isn't included on the list Dr Salvus 15:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and? Are you saying every (or nearly every) Serie C player receives GNG-level coverage? GiantSnowman 15:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No but almost every U23 player is notable, can an exception be made here? So, even if Serie C players aren't notable, Juventus U23's are? Dr Salvus 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, you do know that this proposal doesn't make players automatically notable, they'll still have to show sources of significant coverage? If the Juventus U23 players are generally notable, then the best solution would be to simply add at least two SIGCOV sources in their articles when they're created. Alvaldi (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The list of leagues needs to be expanded. GiantSnowman 14:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which other leagues are you referring to? Ivan Milenin (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football#Proposed list of leagues. GiantSnowman 14:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seem to be failing to understand why the "and/or scored a goal" bit is necessary. It's quite difficult to score a goal if you don't play in a match. Am I missing something?
Otherwise, as GiantSnowman says, the list of leagues is clearly too short. As I've said elsewhere, I can't imagine that there isn't more than enough sourcing for anyone contracted to any English football league side in at least the top four tiers. To try to suggest that this should just be limited to the Premier League is, frankly, laughable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal also seems to have been substantially edited after most of these comments were made. Which makes the discussions/replies seem odd, when they made sense at the time (and the original proposal should not have been retrospectively edited). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great point - I'm just back from holiday, and will be proposing something more sensible in the coming days if you can bear with me. GiantSnowman 14:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Perhaps any new proposal needs to start by clearly restating the purpose of this proposed guideline, as it's apparent that some are still unclear what that is. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Association_football&oldid=1136421165"