Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Continental cups

I would suggest that any player who has played in a continental (or intercontinental cup) game (not including the qualifying rounds), is notable, regardless of what sort of team he plays for. Currently if an amateur team were to make it into the Champions League their players would not qualify for an article. This would seem to be wrong. John Hayes^talk 10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bob Bishop

• Article in question: Bob Bishop

I've just had some trouble determining if this is a notable article or should have a prod on it. I just fail to see how Bishop is notable in any category. crassic\^talk 04:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say to merge the relevant content into George Best, that's all the article is about. --Angelo (talk) 08:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'll propose it, and add a little text to Norman Whiteside as well. But also note that all of the text is virtually already on the Best article. crassic\^talk 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in this case just make it a redirect to George Best. --Angelo (talk) 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FA Trophy?

Does criterion 2 allow appearances in the FA Trophy to be an implication of notability, or is this excluded? And the Conference League Cup too. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

People from WP:BIO have made it clear that they do not want our criteria to stand unless they are accepted by them, stating that unless they are the criteria are basically just an essay and virtually useless, so it's not really worth thinking too deeply about the implications. I can't really be bothered to trying to get them accepted, they enjoyed undermining them so much the first time round, I think they'll revel in the chance to demonstrate that nothing (no matter how sensible/consensus based) will ever be allowed to supersede their two sentence on WP:ATHLETE. I'm really quite disappointed about the whole thing. English peasant 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"..football at the Olympic games"

Hi all,

Would you say "football at the Olympic games" covers only the actual football tournament held during the Summer Olympics? Or also the qualifying tournaments which determine which teams get to appear at the Olympics?

This was an issue in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Naidovski which is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 26. --Stormie (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely only the Olympic games, otherwise we should allow an article for each athlete who just makes an attempt to qualify at the Olympics, including many non-notable amateur athletes who are highly likely to fail WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Club reserve teams

What's the consensus on this -- are club reserve teams (e.g. Jong AFC Ajax notable? I think not. – ukexpat (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, reserve clubs are never notable in countries where the reserves have their own league. However, reserve clubs can be considered notable in countries where the reserve team plays against smaller first team clubs (a classic example would be Real Madrid B). Hope that helps BeL1EveR (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"FPNL"

The abbreviation FPNL is used often, yet I'm not sure what it means. I think it is "Fully professional national league", but the fact I don't know - as a seasoned editor - makes it hard to imagine newcomers might do too. Therefore, it'd be good if "FPNL" was changed for either a better-known abbreviation, or simply for what it actually stands for. (I'm fully aware of the policy, by the way, just not the abbreviation). Esteffect (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Amatuer Clubs

What makes a club notable is it a news story about the club or are they only notable for being a football club. What exactly are the criteria for a club on wiki thanks. BigDunc^Talk 11:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New notability discussion

I have started a new discussion on all aspects of notability in football on the football project's main talk page. All comments would be appreciated Stu.W UK (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

How about adding these 2 to WP:FOOTYN and attempting to get wider acceptance across Wikipedia?

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

All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable. All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable. All other leagues must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria. Stu.W UK (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This may work for some countries but in Germany, for example, every first (non-reserve) team playing in senior league football can qualify for the national cup by going through the qualifying process. Therefore every league and every club would be notable by this rule. And I don't think my home-town tier-twelve club is notable by any means. I think, the rules should be strikter then that. EA210269 (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to Germany being allowed 2 tiers more of clubs than England- it is a larger nation so that would make sense. However, my interpretation would be that unless the team actually won the regional cup they were not eligible for the DFB-Pokal that season. Stu.W UK (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You are pretty much right, a club has to win a regional cup (or finish runners-up in Bavaria or Lower Saxony), but theoretically any club could do so. In any case, I personally don't consider a German club notable unless it has played in tier five or above or has taken part in the DFB cup. Just a personal view and really only applies to Germany because the league pyramid broadens much quicker then in England where tier five is still nationwide, compare to twelve leagues at this level in Germany. In any case, any form of notability criteria will be an improvement as we don't really have one right now and yours is a good start. EA210269 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course there will always be exceptions to the rules but I think a slightly flawed notability guideline is better than none. Currently there are approx 75,000 articles with this project's tag and if nothing else it would be useful to have at least a vague idea of how much further this project would expand before covering every relevant team, league, player, nation, association etc. etc. etc. It allows not only for deletion of material that doesn't make the grade, but also encourages creation by making the gaps easier to detect. Stu.W UK (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the proposal. It makes a lot of sense and will keep the notability guidelines within FOOTY more focused and less subjective than what they have been. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(reindent) The Footyn giudeline was meant to be expanded to cover leagues, clubs, stadia, games, referees etc, but after the player guideline we worked so hard to acheive was immediately attacked by people fromWP:BIO most of us lost our motivation to continue. As for the proposal, it looks pretty good to me, although perhaps the wording could be changed to "All teams that have played in the national cup"? King of the North East 00:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible suggestion, consider it changed. Is there any reason for me not to be WP:BOLD and put this up on WP:FOOTYN? If (as I expect) I need to demonstrate more of a consensus, what's the best way to go about it? Stu.W UK (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. It should get people more interessted into something that, I think, is quite important for this project.EA210269 (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've moved them onto the FOOTYN page (with my amendment) and copied this discussion to the FOOTYN talkpage. We still need some kind of consensus on: managers, stadia, referees, cups, chairmen/owners, specific games etc. Anyone wanting to pick one and start a discussion feel free......King of the North East 19:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Note In order to avoid discussion forks, this discussion comntinues on the WP:FOOTY talk page, and will be copied here if it leads to any alteration in the guidelines as currently laid out Stu.W UK (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewording of club criteria

I have reworded the club criteria replacing "(or the highest league in countries where no cup exists)" with "(or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists)" because I believe that playing in a national level league is more analogous with the national cup than only the Primera División in the case of the many South American countries with no cup. As it stood before level 10 clubs in England (Horden Colliery Welfare A.F.C.) would pass and level 2 clubs in Argentina (C.A.I) would fail, which is absurd. Perhaps a further rewording to allow all clubs that have played in the official league stucture, in no-cup circumstances would be OK since this would still limit South American leagues to tier 4 or higher, much tighter than the level 10 criteria for English clubs? King of the North East 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Move of Jorge Alberto Rojas

Read the talk page. – Michael (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Farrington Gurney F.C.

A new editor (User talk:Nradnedge) has started an article about Farrington Gurney F.C., which has been prodded. As I know nothing about football articles on WP could some experts take a look & advise re notability. Thanks.— Rod ^talk 10:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability of female footballers

A discussion that may interest some here is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Logue. Hack (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for more than 2 years to change the notability guidelines of Football!

Currently, level 11 (or step 7) English clubs of the English Football League System are not inherently notable on Wikipedia. I proposed a change of this more than 2 years ago but my proposal was not received on a positive note. Just one user supported my proposal. Now, as Wikipedia has expanded considerably, we should make level 11 clubs inherently notable and deserving of articles for themselves because they are part of the National league system. By including these clubs into this project, Wikipedia would have a very comprehensive list of English football clubs. It would also make this project more in-depth in nature as well. This is one of the main reasons why I started editing on Wikipedia 4 years ago. But for a couple of months, I did not do any edits because most of my level 11 club articles got deleted from Wikipedia due to notability issues. Isn't Wikipedia a sum and collection of all human knowledge? Any comments on this would be deeply appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Isn't Wikipedia a sum and collection of all human knowledge?" No, it isn't. It is a record of that which is notable. --Kevin McE (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I said it when it was brought up before and I hold to the view that it's a bridge too far to denote all Step 7 teams as inherently notable. While some leagues at that level are of a half-decent standard, others are little better than Sunday league football. I myself recently went to a Canterbury City F.C. game in the Step 7 Kent County League, and if you look at the picture I took and added to the league's article, you can see that they actually play in what I believe is simply a public park. There were no spectator facilities of any kind and I didn't even have to pay to attend, I just wandered up from the road. I think some editors would probably think we're stretching it a bit giving inherent notability to Step 6 clubs, who often draw "crowds" of less than 20 spectators, but at least there's a defined cut-off there (the lowest level at which clubs are eligible to enter the FA Cup and Vase). To be honest, when it comes to Step 7, saying "they are part of the NLS" really doesn't mean a huge amount IMO...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well isn't Wikipedia's goal to have a sum and collection of all human knowledge? That was and still is Mr Jimbo's statement! Anyway, by including level 11 clubs to Wikipedia, the English football articles would be more complete. Besides, notability is only a guideline and not a policy. It should not be set in stone at all! The subject of notability is very subjective and not objective in nature! What if the level 11 clubs can be verified which is indeed a policy in itself!? I think we should have a new consensus to state whether we should include level 11 clubs to Wikipedia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's probably now really time for something to be adopted as policy and included on the WP:NSPORT page at the WP:NFOOTY section, and in a way that non-sports orientated editors can get a grip on. I've read everything on WP:FOOTY/Notability and on this talk page and confess that as someone with absolutely zero knowledge of soccer, and zero interest in the sport, I'm still baffled as to what to do with the dozens of one-line stubs and poorly or unsourced BLPs that arrive daily for New Page Patrollers to accept or tag. These footy articles account for probably up to 50% of all new pages, and it's impossible for the average patrollers to have the inside knowledge of footy to know for the click of a Twinkle button, what the rules of notability are. It seems to me that for lack of this knowledge, a lot of stubs about amateur players, and unknown youth teams in tiny emerging nations are either being given the OK to languish forever as stubs, or simply being patrolled as OK, for lack of precision. Footy accounts for an enormous portion of the Wikipedia, and I've got absolutely nothing against any one of the billions of people that love the game, however, Wikipedia was definitely not conceived to become a directory listing of every person in the world who has ever played in a football team, and nobody seems to be working from the bottom of the huge NP backlog which now has hundreds of articles falling of the 30 day cliff as 'patrolled' by default.--Kudpung (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to redirect?

I was going to suggest this redirected to WP:NFOOTY now that WP:NSPORTS is an accepted notability guideline, however I note that the club and league notability is not included in that guideline. Considering the opening statement of that guideline is "used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization' " I think steps should be take to include such in the guideline and this page then be archived / redirected to it. Discussion opened at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Association_football_clubs_and_Leagues--ClubOranje^T 09:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability of referees

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

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

Is it about national team competitions or club competitions as well? – Kosm1fent 09:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Very few referees are professional, the guideline should reflect that. GiantSnowman 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I believe presuming that FIFA referees meet WP:GNG would be a fair compromise. – Kosm1fent 14:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Brislington Ladies FC

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

Nick Perera

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

Notability guideline

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

Overhall per main project talk page

1st proposal: "A-list" clubs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly disagree with this part of Basalisk's post: "I would propose that simply being assigned a first team squad number for United is a more notable sporting achievement (and in fact probably one that makes the subject more well known to the general international public) than playing a full season for a club in the Venezuelan second division" Are there any reliable sources to back this claim? If a non-debutant in a famous club is given a squad number and he gets "more well known to the general international public" as Basalisk says, that will certainly show in the amount of coverage this player gets and will ultimately help him pass WP:GNG, isn't that right? Simply assumining that fact without evidence is way inappropriate, as we'll get tons on articles on youth players who have never played in a fully professional league, with their only claim of notability being awarded a squad number. Please. I'm not saying that playing in the Venezuelan second division should be considered notable either, and I would totally support a redesign of WP:FPL with a two-tier system, similar to the one proposed by Basalisk, which would actually apply to players which have appeared in such leagues. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 18:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Second proposal: promotion and relegation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes

I feel this essay needs major overhaul to bring it up to scratch. GiantSnowman 12:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Player notability

Our player notability should match WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I am a little bit concerned about pre-professional footballers who didn't represent their country and NFOOTY doesn't mention anywhere – they didn't play in a fully professional league, but some would deserve inclusion. Or it's a matter of passing GNG? – Kosm1fent 19:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Club notability

Perhaps here we should make it more clear that clubs articles, especially those about low division teams, should pass GNG? – Kosm1fent 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything should pass GNG ;) GiantSnowman 19:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

League notability

I'm pretty happy with the wording there. – Kosm1fent 19:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Sure, of course. – Kosm1fent 08:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Player notability criterion 4

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

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

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

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

Player notability clarification

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

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

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

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

Club notability criteria update

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

Clarification of club notability criterion regarding national cups

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

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

English County Cup seasons

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

English club notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we up for reaching a consensus on this one?

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

I don't see any problem with the current consensus, and certainly no reason why it needs to become more restrictive. I'm slightly bemused by the claim that there seems to be appetite to change the rules, as I don't see any. Number 57 13:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Referee notability

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

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

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

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

Revisiting Club Notability

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

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

The current club notability guideline reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a counter-proposal, I would say:

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

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

I think that ("all clubs in notable leagues") would be going too far. We have many articles on leagues in England where the league is considered notable, but individual clubs not. That kind of qualifier could result in thousands more articles (on clubs that play on park pitches). Number 57 22:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is Bulgarian Cup making you notable?

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