Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability/Archive 1

Rationale
Please use this page to discuss which football-related subjects should be considered notable enough to have their own page on Wikipedia. While we have no more right than anyone else here to decide that something ought to be deleted, the opinion of a group of people who know about the subject should carry some weight, and I think that some guidelines on this would be as useful as the stuff at Wikipedia:Notablity/*. CTOAGN (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

General
I'd suggest going for an approach where we decide on what makes an article definitely notable enough for Wikipedia and allow for the possiblity of other articles qualifying as well. So for example something like "all Italian clubs that have ever played in Serie A or Serie B are notable enough, and other clubs might be". Saying clubs that meet certain criteria qualify and no others do would cause problems as there are bound to be some with exceptional circumstances. CTOAGN (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, let's not forget to improve already existing articles by the way. Julien Tuerlinckx 18:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be too much debate on here any more. Would anyone have any objections if I declared what we've got so far as consensus and put it on the project page? [[Image:Yemen flag large.png|24px]] CTOAGN (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my opinion on this is that just about anything can go in as long as there's a realistic chance of it ever becoming a decent article of roughly three decent-sized paragraphs or more; saying "only the most famous players/clubs/etc" should be allowed to go in seems pointless to me. It won't hurt anything if a few lower-level players who are of interest to people have well-written articles; I just don't think it's too likely for pub teams and most non-league players: I've created content on several non-league players and can only find enough citable info for a paragraph or two for each, so I'd rather see those merged by club. I haven't got into this discussion with the intention of saying "Wikipedia's running out of space so you can't create an article on that guy"; I really want to establish some guidelines that say "anything above this level should be allowed an article" so we don't get AfDs on notable players/clubs/etc like we had last week with Articles for deletion/Wembley F.C. Someone putting every Football Conference club on AfD because they thought the league was too low would waste a lot of time (and possibly cause a lot of friction) and that's the sort of thing I'm trying to avoid. CTOAGN (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Clubs

 * To me we should have a "maximum" number of clubs per country as said Johan and it would depend on the "level of football" played in the country (at a first glance, i would have 3 levels). It is clear that this maximum should increase with time/seasons since we will never delete teams from wikipedia and some teams will become "notable" enough in a few seasons.  This maximum is also only valid for the current teams as defunct teams must be more numerous in countries of the same level depending on the year the league was created.  For instance, I created an article for each club that had played at least one season in the first division (since 1895) which makes 55 teams (if you don't take the present Jupiler League teams into account), 25 of which are now defunct.  If you apply the same criterion to, say Sweden (that plays at the same level as Belgium but whose league was created in 1925), we will have less defunct teams and thus more space for current teams which wouldn't be ok.Julien Tuerlinckx 18:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I give a try: for level 1 countries (England, Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands and France for Europe) I would say 300/350 clubs (which make approximatively the first 8 levels in English football). For level 2 countries (Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Russia, Ukraine, Ireland, Scotland, Austria, Switzerland,...) I would say about 150 clubs and for level 3 countries (Luxembourg, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Albany, Latvia,...) around the 50/100 clubs but I know few about football in those countries. What do you think?Julien Tuerlinckx 18:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it would include too many minor teams. As I told on the other discussion, we should include only teams with some actual relevance. The first 4 or 5 levels of football in "1st class" country (commonly the "pro" divisions) would be enough. For minor leagues like Luxembourg, Andorra, San Marino, we should just include the top division teams: who knows about 2nd division teams of Moldavia?!? --Angelo 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Things which I think would class a club as notable include (but are not necessarily limited to):
 * Being professional
 * Having competed in a continental competition
 * Regularly attracting attendances over an as yet undecided level Oldelpaso 19:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a "quota" of club is the way forward - who decides which country deserves having 100 teams, while another gets 500? I think the best way forward is to split the criteria into "definitely notable", "probably notable", and "definitely not notable" like CTAOGN suggests and we allow a certain amount of flexibility. That way all clubs are judged on the same criteria and are equal regardless of nationality, and we don't get too bound up in intricacies. Although it is difficult to compare e.g. Spain and Albania's leagues there are some criteria: professionalism, participation at the highest level, and attendances have been mentioned as good indicators of notability, so I thought of the following guidelines. Feel free to tear this apart, though:

A club is definitely notable if it meets any of the following criteria: A club is probably notable if it meets more than one of the following criteria: A club that meets ''any' of the following criteria is definitely not notable:
 * Definitely notable
 * Clubs which have been fully professional for a significant time of their history (i.e. decades)
 * Have featured at any time in their country's top division
 * Have featured in their country's cup final (or semi-finals?)
 * Have participated in continental-level competitions (UEFA/CONMEBOL/AFC etc.)
 * Attract over 1,000(?) paying spectators on a regular basis
 * Probably notable
 * Semi-professional clubs that compete in the division below professional ones.
 * Clubs that have contributed national team players (maybe a minimum number?)
 * Clubs that a highly notable player (10+ caps for a top-level country, or 100+ appearances for a top-level club) has played for, for a significant period (e.g. one year or more).
 * Clubs that regularly participate in their country's senior cup competition.
 * Definitely not notable
 * Clubs that do not participate in their country's senior cup competition.
 * Clubs that do not normally charge an entrance fee for spectators.

Further suggestions welcome. Qwghlm 12:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that I don't agree with you but I just noticed that the definitely not notable section misses some criteria. I remember having attended a 4th Brabant league game a few years ago, and this is the very last level in Belgian football.  I had to pay some euros to enter the stadium and the club do/did participate to the senior cup competition (every club in Belgium takes part to the Belgian Cup).  So for this particular country, the definitely not notable set is empty.  But I just can't figure out another criterium at the moment.  Julien Tuerlinckx 16:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * About the who decides which country is from which level I think this is no problem. For European teams, have a look at the UEFA ranking for club competitions: this hardly changes over the years (I mean the big 6 are still the same, and the bad countries too). We could however have a problem with non-EUR teams but I'm sure we can make an "objective" distinction between countries. I don't mean to give a too strict upper bound to the number of clubs for each country, we may have exceptions.  And by the way, I don't get what you're gonna do with probably notable clubs.  Should we include them or not?  Or delete them or not? Thanx, Julien Tuerlinckx 09:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Even in Europe, trends change - for example far fewer clubs from Eastern Europe now make it to the later stages of the Champions League than they did in the old European Cup. I don't think it's a bad idea to have numbers and stature of the country as a rough guide - e.g. "There are 500 clubs in Moldova higher in the league than this one, so this probably means this club is not notable", but I think it is very hard to quantify it as a definite rule.
 * Re: Probable notability. Perhaps this is a better way of putting it: If a club meets any one of the "probable" criteria, then there is a weak case for it being retained. The more "probable" criteria it demands, the greater its claim to notability. If it only meets one, and cannot meet the others, then deletion or merging into another article is probably the best idea. What do you reckon? Qwghlm 11:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really agree with angelo (sorry). First of all the English teams from the first 8 levels already have an article, and I think these should not be deleted from wikipedia.  For minor leagues, I admit that few know about 2nd division but isn't that what an encyclopaedia is all about?  I would be quite interested to read articles for at least the first 2 levels in this country, who wouldn't? Even if you don't read them all, I think this should belong here.  Anyway, generally the first two levels make only a few teams so I admit the 50/100 was maybe too much.
 * Don't worry! If club articles already exist, they should not be deleted at all. --Angelo 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

About what Qwghlm said, I think this is an idea, but then we'll have to add some criteria so that it's easier to meet more than one. For instance, I'm wondering which Latvian club would meet one condition for probable notablity. Some conditions we could add:
 * 1) Team with 60+ years of existence
 * 2) Team that played in the second division at least for a decade
 * 3) Team currently playing in a division 2 levels below a division where the "current teams" section is all blue

Finally, I would love to know to which level teams are said "pro" in other countries (than Belgium). This argument is often cited but I'm quite sure no one knows what it means in other countries than his. Julien Tuerlinckx 20:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In Italy, the pro divisions are from Serie A to Serie C2. --Angelo 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In Belgium if being "pro" is having all its first squad players having no other job as footballer, 16/18 teams are pro in first div. and maybe 1/2 2nd div teams are also "pro". Julien Tuerlinckx 21:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Qwghlm's list looks ok but I'd change "definitely not notable" to "probably not notable" or something similar. I can think of a couple (but only a couple) of junior clubs that have produced enough international players to be interesting enough to have an article (Senrab, Wallsend Boys Club) so I'd prefer it if the way it was worded allowed for exceptions. [[Image:Yemen flag large.png|24px]] CTOAGN (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about changing Qwghlm's "definitely not notable" to "probably not notable" as above, and inserting a phrase such as "The above list is not exhaustive, but exceptions should provide clear evidence for notability", or some phrase which makes it clear pub teams and the like are not notable. Oldelpaso 11:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Question: I have a discussion with another editor over Eintracht Frankfurt U23. I had redirected it to Eintracht Frankfurt, he wants to keep the article. I would like some input from the people here to know a) if this particular youth/reserve team is notable (main claim to notability seems to be that they play in the highest amateur division), and b) if reserve teams of major teams in general are notable enough for their own article. I would like to keep those two questions separate, if possible. Fram 20:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinions vary. An AfD for Liverpool's reserves ended with no consensus. My opinion is that mentioning the Eintracht Frankurt U23 team in the main Eintracht Frankfurt article and redirecting would be the way to go, others may disagree. Oldelpaso 20:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Judging by various AfD outcomes and discussions on this Project, a) A youth/reserve team is generally not notable and b) reserve teams of major teams are generally not notable. This depends on the situation though. If reserve teams play in the national league system, at a level where other clubs would be considered notable, the reserve team has some claim of notability that might make it deserve a separate article (this goes for Spain for example), while in countries where the reserve teams play in reserve leagues, the team generally has no claim that makes it notable (this goes for England for example). Seeing that Eintracht Frankfurt U23 plays at a relatively low national level (Oberliga, right?), without any major notable events, I personally do not think the team deserves a separate article. Either way, the article consists mainly of a squadlist with links to players that do not deserve articles, so there is little point of having a separate article. I suggest you post the question at the main talk page to get more input. – Elisson • T • C • 20:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one editor Fram talks about.My point of view is that the article is worth keeping because the team not only plays in the 4th German tier and has several honours but also played in the Regionalliga (3rd tier).I've listed some arguments for the keeping here -> Talk:Eintracht Frankfurt U23 Regards.-Lemmy- 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Players
The closest thing I've found to an existing standard is this, at Notability (people):

''Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.''

CTOAGN (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm quite Ok with that "standard". But I think a good start is to fill the red links in the following articles:
 * the premier leagues top scorers or individual awards former winners for each country
 * most capped players section for each national team
 * noted players and current squad sections in clubs articles
 * international competitions squad articles (like Football World Cup 1994 (squads))
 * Julien Tuerlinckx 18:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Julien about the need to make first articles of the players he suggested. I don't agree at all about the sentence "sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league". Guys, even Serie C2 is professional! According to me, we should accept just footballers who have been capped for any national team, plus the ones who have ever played in a top division of a "1st class" country. --Angelo 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "first class" country? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Qwghlm's rule of thumb of 100 appearances for former players is a sensible one Oldelpaso 19:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This probably applies more to the Club template or the non-league subproject, but it could be a good idea to say "For non-professional players, consider using a summary style in the appropriate club article (see F.C. United of Manchester for an example of how to do this)." Oldelpaso 11:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Youth players
I disagree with the current criteria of notability of youth footballers, since it seem to stipulate first team appearences.

I would suggest that:

1. Being a member of a youth international team (such as Gavin Hoyte, Fran Mérida and Nacer Barazite of Arsenal) merits notability in it's own right, or at least under under the criteria of athlete notability p2: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (or in analogy thereof).

2. Prominent members of important youth academies merits notability in the same way as above.

3. Very promising players can be notable because of their talent, regardless of if their talent has been realised or not. Even if their talent isn´t realised they still can be notable as "the talent that never delivered". Using a simple linguistic definition of "notability" would mean the more well known the player is, the more notable he is. And there surely are youth players that are better known than lower level players, even if the latter has played for the first team.

It can´t seriously be argued that a player who has made a couple of appearences for a League 2 team is more notable than a player such as Bojan Krkic, Giovani dos Santos, Fran Mérida etc wich most probably will be playing first team football (if not already be big stars) within the next years. Look at the attention G. dos Santos' selection of national team or proposed transfer has attracted in the football community. Or look at Theo Walcott who was included in the english WC squad without having played for the Arsenal first team. He never played during the WC, so before his first team debut at Arsenal, was it only his appearences for Southampton in the Championship that merited an article about him? Surely not!

My point isn't that membership of a u17 national squad automatically constitutes notability. My point is that there are youth players that may haven't yet broken in to the first team at a big club such as Arsenal or Barcelona, but nevertheless still are more notable than a player that may have appeared for a low-level first team such as Accrington. The requirement of first team football shouldn't be carved in stone. Sebisthlm 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. ""fran merida" arsenal" generated 26,400 hits on Google, ""robert grant" accrington" generated 306!
 * I disagree. "Will probably be playing first team football" doesn't cut it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A youth player could break his leg and disappear without ever making the grade. Many simply peak early and fade into obscurity without playing professionally - even if they play internationally at junior level. To use the club I know best as an example, Manchester City had a highly-rated young striker called Dorryl Proffitt, who played for England at every level up to under-19, including the 2003 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship. He was tipped to be a big star in the Premier League, but he never made the first team, and has since played for semi-pro teams such as Altrincham, Leek Town and Crawley Town, well below the bar for notabilty. As an aside, Theo Walcott's article was created in October 2005, shortly after he made his first team debut for Southampton, a fully professional team in a fully professional league. Oldelpaso 17:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I ought to add that I don't think 2 or 3 appearances for a basement side is that notable either given that there isn't normally enough verifiable non-trivial information to generate more than a substub, unlike a player who has played regularly for a season or two at that level. Oldelpaso 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Needless to say I completely agree with Oldelpaso. The major Italian example of youth player who failed to make his breakthrough is Diego Maradona's Neapolitan illegittimate son, Diego Sinagra, who played in S.S.C. Napoli and Genoa's youth systems (I am unsure but he could even have received a few international appearances at the youth level), but never made a single professional appearances and now is a backup player in a minor Eccellenza team after having been part of a football-related TV reality show. --Angelo 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your arguments! I think both of you slightly miss my point though. As I write in the last paragraph above, I don't think membership of a national youth squad automatically merits notability. I merely suggest that there are prominent youth players that are better known, more notable, footballers than lower-level first-team footballers. Both of your arguments, if I understand them correctly, seem to be circular arguments; youth players without first team football (however well known or much talked about) are not notable because they haven´t played first team football. I understand that such footballers don´t meet the current criteria of notability, wich is precisely the reason why I appose the criteria. I think this question has to do with the overall aim with football articles (or articles in general). People hearing about a certain footballer may want to look him up in an encyclopedia. The more people wanting to look a certain player up - the greater reason to actually include an article about that player. I think there are a lot of people reading or hearing about Fran Mérida in the news that want to look him up on Wikipedia, not even contemplating whether he has or hasn´t débuted for Arsenal. And I think those people are a lot more than those who want to look up Robert Grant of Accrington even if he has played for the first team. Sebisthlm 11:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, and I remember Dorryl Proffitt. I wonder what ever happened to him? I really ought to look him up on Wikipedia...
 * First of all - Diego Sinagra has an article but according to the criteria, he is non-notable, right? The Eccellenza is not a professional league... and second of all this criteria seems to be arbitrary and only applies to European football players. The policy regarding American basketball players, for example, allows high school stars (that is, players who have never made an appearance for a professional team or even a college team - which is still amateur!) to have articles: Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, O.J. Mayo, Donte Greene. These players are considered notable simply on the basis that they have the potential to become star pro basketball players within 2 years! And yes, I have read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and I know this by itself is not a suitable basis to argue against the current criteria.
 * But I don't understand what the point of the hard-and-fast guideline is. I think it's quite true that IF a player has made a first-team appearance for a professional club THEN he is notable, but I don't think the converse is true (IF a player has not made a first-team appearance, THEN he is not notable). It's simple logic I learned in 7th grade - in order for a statement's converse to be true, then its inverse must be true as well. Is that to say then, every single notable footballer has made a first-team appearance for a professional club? No - you even pointed out one example of one yourself.
 * Also, all that criteria establishes is that the player is a good footballer, at the current time, relative to the rest of his team (i.e. he is considered good enough to play in the first team) - not that he is notable! What I am arguing is that there are plenty of notable footballers in the world that are, for whatever reason, not good under these limited criteria - and one of these reasons is that the player has joined a really good football club (like Arsenal). For example, compare Michael Jordan to Vito Mannone. In June 2006, their stats were - Jordan (2 first-team appearances in League Two) vs. Mannone (0 first-team appearances). Obviously Jordan was notable and Mannone was not, right? But wait - the only reason Jordan made those appearances was because he was released by Arsenal - i.e. that Wenger thought Mannone was a better football player than Jordan! So essentially the player got an article because he was not very good at his job, using this criteria to call him "more notable". (obviously now both of them have made first-team appearances so there is no issue any more)
 * And of course as an Arsenal fan, I have to ask - name the last player Arsene Wenger signed (or, for that matter, graduated from the youth academy under his tenure) who reached the age of 25 without making a first-team appearance? :-D ugen64 23:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sinagra is notable because of non-footballing reasons (he is Diego Maradona's son, he was part of a TV show and he is occasionally featured on Italian media). Don't talk to me about this stuff: I think the exact opposite than you: should I decide, I would consider a player notable only in case he played regularly at a fully professional level. --Angelo 23:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One point which has not yet been raised is that youth team matches, even of big clubs like Arsenal, get negligible media coverage and are attended by the proverbial two men and a dog. A pro club at a low level such as Accrington Stanley (despite being probably the smallest team in the English League), have their matches covered by national press e.g Telegraph, Independent, BBC. This does not automatically correlate to player notability, but it gives an idea of the relative standing of youth football compared to lower league first team football. Oldelpaso 09:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The FA Youth Cup says: "The highest attendance at an FA Youth Cup match was 38,187 for the first leg of the Arsenal v Manchester United semi-final at the Emirates Stadium on 14 March 2007." First of all - how many Accrington Stanley players have played at the Emirates Stadium? Second, how many have ever (in their entire life) played in front of 35,000+ fans? Incidentally I notice we don't have an article about Jay Simpson, the first player to score a hat trick at Emirates Stadium... and it's true, youth team and reserve team matches don't get lots of attendance but it's hard to beat some of the attendance "records" set at the Stadio Delle Alpi in recent years :-D
 * And as the for "negligible media coverage" - when I talk about players like Fran Merida being notable, I am talking about their performances at the youth international level. I agree that players who only appear for club team reserves and U-18 squads are not inherently notable, but I am arguing that performances at a major tournament (like the U-17 World Cup, UEFA U-17 championship, etc.) can make an otherwise obscure player notable! For example Arsenal paid 2.5 million pounds to Chivas to buy Carlos Vela after his performance at the U-17 World Cup - before he had ever played for the Chivas first team! ugen64 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oldelpaso's point about media coverage is interesting, and it may contain part of the reason why we disagree. I think it is a fair point to refer to media coverage when discussing notability. Oldelpaso's statement that Accrington Stanley get national media attention is obviously true, but it also suggests that we perhaps look upon football from slightly different angles. Of course British national media reports on local British football. No disrespect to the Nationwide, but the more regional the media, the more regional the news, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Accrington papers (if there are any) write more about Accrington Stanley than about AC Milan or Barcelona. Even if BBC reports on a pile-up on the M5 it doesn't exactly make it world news. My point is this: even if Robert Grant of Accrington actually is a better known player in British football than Fran Mérida (which I still doubt), he certainly is not in the global football community. In global media I can assure you that it has been said and written a lot more about Mérida than about Grant (as my Google experiment above would suggest). I can assure you that there are a lot of football fans outside Britain who know a lot about British football, perhaps wondering when Mérida is going to get his début, who have never even heard of Accrington Stanley, let alone Robert Grant. I think this boils down to the question who we write Wikpedia articles for. Is the articles about English football exclusevly aimed for English football fans supporting their local team or do we also write for people with a boader international interest, who perhaps is more interested in international youth tournaments and the reserve teams of the super clubs, than of League 2? I think Wikipedia would be better off if we write from both of these angles. Sebisthlm 10:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As a tertiary source, it is not up to us to guess which players will or will not make it to the first team. To the question of who we are writing for, the answer is neither of those suggested, but for the general reader, who doesn't necessarily know the first thing about the subject of an article. Is there a systematic bias? Yes. English football is in a more developed state on Wikipedia than a lot of other countries are due to the number of editors from England. But Arsenal are also a club in England, and are thus favoured by systematic bias - the areas which get neglected are those such as South America - the squads of South American teams tend to have a number of redlinks, even the likes of Boca Juniors. (by the way, if it was up to me, Robert Grant would be deleted too - you can't write a decent article about someone who has made one appearance). Anyway, I digress, and we're not any closer to reaching a consensus (not that this page carries any weight, its WP:BIO that counts). Articles ought to be judged by their sources. If you think you could make a decent article on Merida based on reliable sources why not make one in your userspace, so that something of substance can be judged rather than a concept, and take it to deletion review. Oldelpaso 18:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that WikiPedia is written for the general reader. But, as you say yourself, we can´t know of the interest or knowledge of this general reader. My point was that you shouldn't write articles from just one point of view, but try to bring up different angles to cater to as many different interests and knowledges possible. If we only wrote articles for people without any knowledge or interest on the subject WikiPedia wouldn't be very big. As for my argument on media coverage it wasn't aimed at the systematic bias. I was only pointing out that basing notability on media coverage would depend on the nature of the media itself. Regional media coverage would indicate regional notability (perhaps not enough for Wikipedia), whereas global media coverage would indicate global notability. However, this discussion never seems to evolve beyond the circular argument that we shouldn't scrap the requirement of first team football for youth players since we can't know if they will ever play for the first team, and changing the criteria for notability isn't necessary; youth players not fulfilling it aren't notable enough to merit an article, since they do not meet the current criteria. Meanwhile, we have a notability criteria that says that a player who have made one appearence for a League 2 team, possibly a couple of years ago, is notable, while a youth World Champion, possibly signed for millions of pounds for a G13 club, given a first team jersey, having dominated the pre-season's friendlies, the club having refused numerous loan-propositions from rival first division teams, is not. I have only tried to start a policy discussion on the principles of the criteria and I can live with an article on Fran Mérida not being written until August or September when he has played competetively for the first team. I tried to start this duscussion on WP:BIO but my attempt was only archived without answers and forgotten, and with four participants of this discussion, with 300 members of WikiProject Football, you might wonder if you should bother starting a policy discussion in the first place. Maybe there are more fruitful things on Project Football to waste your energy on. I think I noticed that the Robert Grant article needed expanding for example ;). Sebisthlm 12:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a massive split on what appears on the page and what people believe should be the standard. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Managers
I think any manager who has ever managed a professional club or any country is notable enough for an article. Any thoughts on this? CTOAGN (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's a decent rule of thumb, though I'm not sure that someone who was caretaker manager of a Third Division South team for two matches in the 50s and didn't do anything else would really count as notable. But as most managers were players as well, then notability can often be found in their playing career instead (and vice versa, for obscure players who became reputable managers). Qwghlm 09:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Referees
I think very few referees are notable, probably the only high profile one is Pierluigi Collina. I could name most of the Premiership refs, but I'd struggle to write a decent article about any of them. Most referee notability comes from specific incidents rather than their full career, for example Anders Frisk retiring due to the furore over the Barcelona-Chelsea game. I think that in most cases, referees should only be included if they have officiated in a major final, or been the subject of controversy in an incident notable enough to have its own article. Oldelpaso 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that most refs aren't notable, although I would say something like "has officiated several World Cup/European Championship/whatever matches". Although, if going by the criterion that the cricket project seems to use, almost any referee that has officiated in any large national team competition, is notable. See for example my AfD on an umpire that officiated one (1) game in 1885... -- Elisson • Talk 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, I voted in that AfD (merge). While cricket umpires have a higher profile within their sport than football referees, that one was taking inclusionism to ludicrous levels. How about:
 * Has officiated in any of the following:
 * Several international matches
 * Several continental level matches (UEFA Champions League/Copa Libertadores etc.)
 * A major domestic cup final
 * Oldelpaso 22:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems ok, although the last point is somewhat broad (define "major"?). Something that should almost automatically give notability to a referee, outside the other criteria mentioned, is if the ref is amongst the top five (ten?, two?) on the IFFHS vote on the world's best ref, which has been held every year since 1987. Or if he has appeared on the top ten list more than once (twice?), or something like that. -- Elisson • Talk 22:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition of "major" is possibly dependent on the outcome of criteria for "single matches" below. I've not heard of that vote before, interesting. Presumably most of those referees would fulfill more than one of the other criteria. Oldelpaso 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's a little too stringent. On that basis Uriah Rennie would have to be deleted, but surely enough people have heard of him (and cursed his name) to warrant an article (the current one could do with expansion, however). I'd suggest that refereeing for one or more seasons at the highest level of a top seeded nation should also be included in the list. -- Daduzi  talk  22:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to be convinced, but can't help but feel that in many cases an article about a referee would be a stub which is unexpandable due to lack of verifiable, reliable sources, other than trivia of dubious encyclopedic value such as average yellow cards per match. Looking at some Premier League programmes I have lying around I see a few names I'd put in that category, e.g. Andre Marriner (who?). So I suppose I'd suggest a longer period than one or two seasons. I'd be happy if somebody ended up proving me wrong by making a referee stub into (say) a good or featured article. Oldelpaso 23:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think basic biographical information (place of birth, family, route into refereeing, career progression) should be possible to dig up. Then as to career details, notable matches refereed and controversial decisions would be the obvious candidates. Basically your average premiership referee should be seen in much the same way as your average premiership footballer, and have the same sort of information included in their articles. Few of them will be GA or FA candidates (though Graham Poll's up for GA), but equally few bog standard premiership player articles will be. That doesn't mean there's not information that could be included, and would be useful to readers, however. Most Premiership refs have had acres of column inches dedicated to them in the national press, there's got to be some verifiable and useful stuff out there. Thinking about it it might be worth hitting the guys at The Referee Forum up and trying to recruit them into working on the articles. -- Daduzi  talk  00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Single matches
I'd include all major cup finals (major UEFA, FIFA etc tournaments, national cups) and more notable world cup matches (although you could make a good case for any world cup match being ok). I don't think qualifying round matches or league matches should normally have articles unless they were especially notable (a country reaching the World Cup finals for the first time, perhaps, or a league match where some sort of record was set). CTOAGN (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would add the knock-out matches for WC qual too (i.e. matches after which a team qualifies for WC). Julien Tuerlinckx 09:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think WC qualifying playoffs are particularly notable, they should probably just be included in brief in the main article for the relevant WC qualifying tournament. Qwghlm 09:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Maybe we can just ask that a match should have been attended by a minimum people (50,000?) and that this match has a special meaning (e.g. every home milan game has more than 50,000 so it should be a special game for milan as a milan-inter that ended in a 3-3 or whose winner also won the italian championship or something).  Maybe the "minimum people" should be a percentage of the stadium capacity (90%?). Julien Tuerlinckx 07:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, having a minimum attendance feels wrong. Very special matches can be played in front of relatively few people, as the notability in the match very, very seldom has to do with the actual attendance, but with what happens in the match and what relevance it has to others. -- Elisson • Talk 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The majority of matches should fall under the scope of Season in country football. Oldelpaso 11:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, every match should be examinated case by case. You know, there cannot be any static way to say "hey, this match surely deserves an article". The Game of the Century for example is quite reasonable, but it was just a semi-final match of a World Cup. And, what about Argentina-England 2-1 at the 1986 World Cup? It was just a quarter-final! That's all, folks --Angelo 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Single-season reports
A large number of articles West Ham United F.C. XXXX-XXXX e.g. West Ham United F.C. 1972-1973 have recently been created. Should these be kept/deleted/merged? Oldelpaso 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They don't really fall under any of the direct categories in WP:NOT, and it would be difficult to merge them either with West Ham United F.C. or "xxxx-xxxx in English football" articles. As they stand, I'm not too inclined to delete - the articles are factual and NPOV, West Ham United are a notable club, and these articles don't needlessly clutter any high-level categories. Also, there are other club-by-season articles out there - e.g. Rangers_F.C._season_2002-03. But there are lots of the West Ham ones - a possible option may be to merge the articles into decades or periods of five years. Qwghlm 00:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merging into decade-wise, or five year-period, articles is a good idea and should be applied to all of these season-wise club articles, IMO. -- Elisson • Talk 00:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And possibly, let's include this kind of articles just for very notable teams. I don't think it would be a nice idea to have an article about, for example, A.S. Pizzighettone 2005-2006 (with all the respect possible for A.S. Pizzighettone, a minor Italian Serie C1 team). I hope you understand ;) --Angelo 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
This is an invitation for interested parties to contribute to the above discussion in order to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments, should this be our notability guideline?
The page WikiProject Football/Notability was created over 18 months ago, in the intervening time we've failed to come up with an overarching statement that can go on the page.

My suggestion is a collection of statements that we know are true from our experiences of AFDs and other areas, as below. Please note I have kept this suggestion purposely vague in some areas to avoid conflicts over small overly-exact points. The guidelines at WP:N and WP:BIO are still the official rules to follow, this is my interpretation of them for football related subjects. Please read through the following suggestion and comment on whether you feel this accurately reflects the views of WikiProject:Football members. - Foxhill 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopaedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice".

Only articles that are deemed to cover a notable subject should be created, those that don't are liable for deletion. It is important that all articles show why a subject is notable to avoid this.

''This page lists statements on notability relating to football articles that we agree are true. Please note that the validity of these can change at any time due to the organic nature of Wikipedia.''

General notability guideline
Notability states that - "'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'"


 * Each article must show the notability of its subject, failure to do so can result in the article being deleted. The sources used to show notability must not have been provided by the subject themselves and must be from a reliable source (for instance, a news organisation).
 * It must also be noted that Notability refers to the lasting impact of a subject, the article must demonstrate that this person/object/organisation is of long-term historical note.

Notability of people
Notability (people) states that - The following are generally held to be notable -
 * 1) Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis
 * 2) Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).


 * It is generally accepted that 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.
 * It is generally accepted that Players, Managers and Referees who have participated in their country's highest domestic league (whether professional or not) are notable, however notability must still be shown as per the general notability criteria.
 * It is generally accepted that Players, Managers and Referees who have participated in their country's fully professional domestic leagues are notable, however notability must still be shown as per the general notability criteria. A fully professional league is defined as being constituted completely of teams composed of players that are paid to play for the team and have no other wage-paying job (i.e. not part-time and not amateur).
 * It is generally accepted that Players, Managers and Referees who have not participated in a fully professional domestic league are not notable, however notability can still be shown as per the general notability criteria. The article might not be deleted if adequate proof of notability has been provided.
 * A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition.
 * It is generally accepted that Youth Players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above.
 * Players are not notable because they have played for a notable domestic team, notability must still be shown as per the general notability criteria.

Notability of teams

 * It is generally accepted that the senior national team of each country is notable, this applies to both male and female competitions. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
 * It is generally accepted that the lower national teams of each country (Under-21, Under-19 etc) are notable if they have competed in an officially sanctioned international tournament, however notability must still be shown as per the general notability criteria.
 * It is generally accepted that a team that has played in a fully professional domestic league is notable, however notability must still be shown as per the general notability criteria.
 * It is generally accepted that a team that has played in a top-class cup competition or tournament is notable, however notability must still be shown as per the general notability criteria. Top-class is defined as being a major cup competition either in the teams constituent country in which teams from other leagues may enter (if applicable) or an international club competition.
 * It is generally accepted that a team that is of interest to a locality only is not notable (for instance school teams competing in a local league), however notability can still be shown as per the general notability criteria. The article might not be deleted if adequate proof of notability has been provided.

Notability of games

 * It is generally accepted that the final game of a cup or tournament is notable, however notability must still be shown as per the general notability criteria.
 * It is generally accepted that all other games are not notable, however notability can still be shown as per the general notability criteria. The article might not be deleted if adequate proof of notability has been provided.

Notability of leagues

 * It is generally accepted that all senior leagues sanctioned by an international body or a domestic football association are notable. A senior league is defined as containing teams whose players are over 16.

Comments
Does the above accurately reflect your views? If a consensus can agree then I will move it over to the article. - Foxhill 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As said on other occasions, I strongly disagree with the following: "It is generally accepted that Players, Managers and Referees who have participated in their country's highest domestic league (whether professional or not) are notable, however notability must still be shown as per the general notability criteria." Playing in the highest league of a country is not automatically notable, because playing in the highest league of a low-ranked country like the Central African Republic, Bhutan or Belize is not at all notable. Punkmorten 10:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why I added in the caveat notability must still be shown as per the general criteria, which would preclude the addition of any non-notable player. If you can think of a better statement which can be used in all cases, we can integrate it. Or if you recommend the deletion of this statement, we can do that too.
 * The problem (as I see it) is that no players are automatically notable (due to the main criteria being over-arching) and yet players are saved from AFDs purely on their participation in a major league (for instance Premiership players) and it's only after the article has been saved that notability is added.
 * Please also let me reiterate that the above suggestion is not designed to usurp or change or add to the guidelines at WP:N or WP:BIO, they are still the be all and end all notability criteria - Foxhill 10:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to include level 11 clubs into this project!
I feel that it is now time to include level 11 (or step 7) clubs of the English football league system to this project. This means that ALL the level 11 clubs should be considered inherently notable. It is because these clubs are part of the National league system and are also eligible to compete in the FA Vase, which is a national competition. 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. Any comments on this would be deeply appreciated. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think this and agree with you totally, it is defiently time that level 11 clubs should be included.I wish there was some way of a vote to take place to see if they can be included. Thanks.  Sunder  land  06   22:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose it. Level 11 is definitely amateur, and I don't think they deserve an encyclopedia article, considering they can hardly fit the general notability guideline (notably, due to lack of "significant coverage" and "reliable sources which are independent of the subject"). --Angelo (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but how can you say that level 10 is notable when the quality of football is practically the same.  Sunder  land  06   22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * IIRC it is related to eligibility for entering the FA Cup. Oldelpaso (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Wearside Football League
Hi, can you tell me if teams in the Wearside Football League would be considered notable as i am considering making an article about my home town team Easington Colliery A.F.C..Thanks.Sunderland06(talk) 14:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not inherently - the long established rule of thumb is that level 10 of the English football league system is the usual cutoff for clubs. It depends on whether the team has previously played at a higher level, has had cup success etc. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Under 19 and Under 20
I think it is time to include football players from under 19 and under 20 national teams, these players articles have been getting deleted without thought just because they havent played a professional football league, this could be because they are in the youth team at a professional club such as Jamie Chandler who has played for england under 19 and scored for them.  Sunder  land  06   15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. Most of them have been mentioned in reliable, third party sources such as newspapers and magazines. Also, they comepete at the highest level of amateur sports.-- Phoenix -  wiki  16:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Football is not an amateur sport, so what you say is simply not valid. In addition, newspaper mentions are expected to be more than a simple citation in a team lineup. In any case, I still support the current status quo (only players with at least one professional appearance, which is quite a very inclusive criterion by the way). --Angelo (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The football you see on TV isn't, but young players of about 19 and 20 who don't play for teams like Liverpool and Arsenal aren't paid. They just play for fun.-- Phoenix -  wiki  18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But football is a professional sport in England, as well as in Italy and a huge majority of European and world countries. The notability rule you mentioned was thought to cover amateur sports which however have some kind of coverage (for instance, for being featured at the Olympic Games). Examples? Ping-pong, Greco-Roman wrestling, fencing... --Angelo (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, football is a professional sport, but these aren't proffesionals, they're amateur players.-- Phoenix -  wiki  13:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're mistaking the real meaning of that sentence. We're talking about amateur athletes in a mostly professional sport. And WP:BIO says "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports", which is different than your interpretation of "Competitors who have competed at the highest amateur level in sports". I hope I've clarified it. --Angelo (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but how does under 19 and 20 football differ so much from under 21 national footballers. Sunder  land  06   15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a different sport. That's all. --Angelo (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean now, but I don't agree with what you mean.-- Phoenix -  wiki  20:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that some of the players are notable enough to warrent their own article. As long is they can be decent sized with good sources. KingsOfHearts (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that if the player has achieved something of note, i.e. youngest player to score in the F.A. Cup. Or similar. I also think they are of note if they play for a "big club" e.g. Ryan Flynn of Liverpool. // F  9  T  17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the status quo is just about right - wait until they make a fully professional senior appearance (or I guess a full international game). - fchd (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So if a player plays for the england under 19 national team they should be notable? Sunder  land  06   17:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not until they make a fully professional senior appearance or a full international game. As I said, effectively the status quo as per WP:BIO. (I think that even is a little generous, e.g. the notability of someone making one or two League Two appearances seems pretty low in the scheme of things to me). In general, I would be in favour of tightening the notability criteria rather than loosening them. - fchd (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any chance in under 19 players being included notable.  Sunder  land  06   22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO is definitely clear: if a footballer plays a professional league match, he is notable, otherwise he is not. I am not gonna support yet another loosening in the notability criterions, and so I fully agree with Richard Rundle. Under-19 player hardly gain some kind of significant coverage, except for a very few cases. --Angelo (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is any justification for allowing articles on youth players it should be strictly limited to the highest level of youth football (U-21 in Europe and U-20 in the Americas). The U-20 world cup is the most important youth tournament in world football. King of the  North  East  11:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of footballers
Hi, following the lengthy discussion about football notability criteria in November I have restarted the discussion here. Please give your opinion so that we can move towards formalising the criteria. Regards, King of the  North  East  15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)