Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of association footballers

Are association football players an exemption to the general notability guideline?

View by WFCforLife

Sub-notability guidelines, when well-written, are useful tools. They provide a simple test to help those who are not familiar with a field evaluate when an individual is likely to meet the GNG. Meeting a sub-notability guideline should normally prompt someone who is thinking of deleting an article step back and made an effort to ensure that the individual really doesn't meet the GNG. When written properly, an individual that meets a sub-notability guideline will always meet the GNG,

However, this is not the case with WP:NFOOTBALL (alternatively known as WP:ATH, WP:ATHLETE, WP:NSPORTS and WP:NSOCCER). In this instance, the sub-notability guideline is routinely used to defend articles where there is not even a pretense that the individual concerned meets the wider community standard. The commonly held belief among football editors is that it would be nice if everyone that passes NFOOTBALL meets the GNG, but that meeting the GNG is not necessary. [1] [2]. Indeed, the guideline is frequently taken to the extreme, with the assertion that one minute (or so) of qualifying football makes someone forever notable, zero minutes and an individual is certainly non-notable [3] [4] [5]. It has even been argued that it is common sense to allow for articles in cases where an individual does not meet the GNG and does not quite meet the letter of ATHLETE. [6].

To ensure the accuracy of articles of living people, and to protect the privacy of people that briefly receive trivial coverage before dropping off the radar, all biographies of living persons must show that they meet the general notability guideline, regardless of the wording of a sub-notability guideline. —W F C— 08:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

A lack of independent biographical coverage means a subject is not notable, no matter what sports fans think about it. We can't construct a verifiable article for an individual that doesn't have coverage. The subject specific notability guidelines are trying to overrule WP:V when they allow articles to pass notability when no independent, biographical coverage exists. Gigs (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gigs wrote it better than I could. East of Borschov 08:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Mkativerata

The view above seeks to elevate the GNG to a black letter law that must be passed by all subjects. The GNG does not operate that way, whether for footballers, politicians, or any subject. It is a guideline. It is a very good guideline that should be followed in the vast majority of cases. But it only confers a presumption of notability. Because it is a guideline, not a policy, it can have exceptions. Endorsing the view above takes GNG to a status that the community has never endorsed. It can't be endorsed for footballers, without elevating the status of the GNG to black letter policy across the project.

Subguidelines (like WP:NSPORT, WP:POLITICIAN, etc) are very helpful. For areas with a large number of articles (eg football players) they provide clear objective bright-line guidance giving editors the confidence to create articles. The GNG is not clear bright line guidance. Subguidelines sometimes produce contrary outcomes to the GNG. In the rare cases where this happens, the community should decide which way to go, on a case by case basis.

If there is a concern that a subguideline goes too far beyond the GNG, the subguideline should be amended. The association football guideline is one guideline that can validly be criticised for being overly liberal. But that is a matter for specific community discussion.

Users who endorse this summary

In particular I agree that conflicts between subguidelines and the general guideline should, by-and-large, be resolved by community discussion on a case-by-case basis. -- Lear's Fool 03:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Dpmuk (talk · contribs)

This RfC is too narrowly focussed. The arguments presented here potentially effect all notability subguidelines so this RfC should be closed and a new, more general, RfC should be started and again listed at WP:CENT. Dpmuk (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

per my statement above "Endorsing [WFC's view] takes GNG to a status that the community has never endorsed. It can't be endorsed for footballers, without elevating the status of the GNG to black letter policy across the project."--Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
pretty clearly true. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even without looking outside the WP:ATHLETE guideline, the "generally acceptable standards" have been asserted to confer notability on names found on an Olympic roster, without evidence that the named person competed (let alone that they existed before or after the Olympic competition). This is a general issue, not a soccer issue. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might just be time for another broad RfC on this question. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is being made out to be specifically a "football editor problem" and there are bigger pictures to consider -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, WP:PROF is probably worse than WP:ATH. Gigs (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider it, but figured that it would probably end with the conclusion that some SNGs work, and others don't, without going as far as naming the ones that do and don't. Nonetheless, it's worth trying. —W F C— 15:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse--ClubOranje^T 03:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Fetchcomms

All articles are expected to cite reliable sources so that the material included is verifiable. Notability is established by the presence of multiple reliable sources, showing that the subject of the article has received significant coverage elsewhere. But, it can also be established in certain special cases where the subject has been given a special designation (such as NRHP sites), won major awards, or, in this case, participated in a fully professional league of a sport. If there is an issue with the football notability guideline, then that guideline should be amended. It should remain, however, a guideline, just like the GNG is a guideline, but not an absolute.

I think that these specific notability guidelines are helpful, but that the GNG is the main thing to shoot for, because the goal of Wikipedia is to have articles on notable subjects that back up all the facts with independent reliable sources. But from what I can tell, the issue is with WP:NFOOTBALL is its lack of clarity on what constitutes notability under it.

Here is an excerpt from the beginning of the sports notability guideline page:

The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria. It is not enough to make vague claims about the person's importance—the sourcing in the article itself must document notability.

Reliable sources that show that a person qualifies under this guideline are required. The sourcing thus indicates notability, under either (or both) NSPORTS and the GNG. That seems good enough, but the problem right now is with the interpretation of NFOOTBALL. Personally, I don't think that having played for one minute in a pro game and never again is enough for notability. But that's why we have AfD, right? /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

Mkativerata (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With a shout out to the 1 minute thing. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my view below as well for elaboration. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above edits, what should be required here are multiple reliable sources, showing that the subject of the article has received significant coverage elsewhere. In contrast to the above, purely participating in a "fully professional league" is not sufficient imho to establish notability ( unless that notability is accomaniedied by independent analyisis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajbpearce (talk • contribs) 11 October 2010
Endorse, with reference self elaboration below and opening (second) sentence from Sven.--ClubOranje^T 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Sven Manguard

Honestly I think that the concept of notability in sports itself needs to be examined. The policy clearly indicates that the sources themselves need to indicate notability, but somehow that got warped into if it has sources, it must be notable. This is a perfect example of how the system is self defeating. If you appeared for the last 5 minutes of a game, or the last 5 minutes of five games, so what. Unless you distinguish yourself in some way, it doesn't matter that 20 reliable sources recorded that you spent five minutes on the field. Those 20 sources, no matter how good the sources are, failed to establish the player's notability. Once a player does something significant, like make the starting 11, or score a goal, or was recognized by the commentators for a stellar performance as a late game subsitute over a series of games, that player made an impact and became notable. Bench-warmers, even if they get a few minutes here and there, are not notable.

Users who endorse this summary

As poster. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elements of NSPORT, especially concerning football, ought to be tightened in my opinion. Perhaps we need to conceive of a "regular first team player" concept, or something of the kind. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your markers, but we need to think along those lines. —W F C— 16:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Amended at —W F C— 16:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too whooly. What is 'regular'--Egghead06 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Database entries don't "indicate notability". East of Borschov 07:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Sven. This problem goes way beyond sports actually. We see again and again at AFD: users who add anything they can find through Google or Amazon books to an article, without actually using it to add anything at all to the article text itself. I strongly dislike the idea that there is any category of article that is automatically notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Egghead06

If the bar for notability is to be set higher (and I don't believe it should), what happens to all the many hundreds of articles on pro-footballers who fall below that bar and do editors realise that this would render every new footballing article open to tiresome discussions of the nature of well he may not (have done x - wherever the bar is set) but 'I think he is notable because of this' - 'well I don't' etc.? If the bar was set at 'played a pro game for a fully pro team' this would all end.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

Wikipedia is a valuable tool for following the careers of footballers which has worked perfectly well up until now. There is nothing wrong with the existing guideline. Players with articles should meet WP:GNG, and in my opinion playing professional soccer allows one to meet that guideline, as per WP:ATH. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per JonBroxton. This lengthy debate is based upon a tiny minority of players who do play no more than one or two substitute appearances and then leave the professional game forever. From Ali Dia and beyond there would have to be a debate on every one of these players - by the way I am not volunteering for the job of finding the 0.1% of the 30,000 football articles who would have to be held against this set of arbitrary guidelines. If it isn't broke, don't fix it - we are creating a massive workload to fix a problem that exists only in the mind of one man. We need to improve the articles we have, not start debating on and deleting perfectly serviceable articles.--Echetus Xe 15:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the present wording conferring notability if a professional game has been played is a sound one. To come up with a revised number would be arbitrary and would not be reflected in the available sources. There are various on-line and paper sources that present information on players who have played at least one game in a notable league. Revising the current NSPORTS guideline has the potential to place a large number of (particularly) older player articles under threat, and I cannot see any benefit if this happened (as long as the articles were referenced of course). Eldumpo (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely. Aside from anything else, the nature of football reporting means that even those footballers who only make a few brief professional appearances as substitutes can reasonably be presumed to have been the subject of coverage in local, and generally national, newspapers. – iridescent 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. Kansan (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the analysis (but not intent). All these "X is a football player playing for X. Period." must go. Write articles, not copies of databasase entries. If there are reliable sources on the person, write a biographical stub. The problem is, most of footballer articles aren't even stubs. East of Borschov 08:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some time a footballer has been 'notable' if he has played a game for a pro-team in a fully-pro-league (why this did not encompass cup competitions I don't know). Many of these articles are just 'he is x and plays for x'. Are you relly suggesting we go back and revisit these and if the biog content is poor, get them deleted?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forward, not back! The subject of deleting thousands of unreferenced BLPs like Francis_Wewengkang has been discussed in and out. There's no point in restarting this debate here; my take is simple: no RS for a biography - no wikipedia article. East of Borschov 08:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by ClubOranje

I think the predilection for worshipping GNG as the be-all and end-all of notability is flawed in that some users appear to think a few newspaper articles this month is what determines notability. Notability is simply "worthy of note". To quote 2 extreme fictitious examples, a player who has never played a single professional match because they grew up in the mid 20th century in a country without professional leagues, but played a match for his country at the pre-internet era 1974 World Cup, is "worthy of note" regardless of the lack of on-line sources found for him and despite the fact that there may only be a few not very in-depth articles hidden away in basement archives, because he has achieved a feat that is part of the enduring history of humankind. By contrast, a player who has played all season for a semi-pro team (say in the NZFC or LOI), has a number of articles about him in the local rag (which may double as a 'national newspaper') and gets numerous mentions on blogs and webzines that cover that sort of local event, is often considered to pass GNG - yet they haven't actually acheived anything of note in the scheme of things. The two sides of systemic bias.

Yes multiple in-depth sources of depth and quality to meet GNG are desirable and a target to strive for; No GNG it is not the only measure of notability

GNG=General notability guidelines, and cover general notability. There are also subject specific guidelines which cover specific notability. This is why the WPN page specifically states "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed ...".
Additionally, a footballer is notable for their football achievements (tennis player for tennis, swimmer for swimming etc) so coverage only needs to cover the area of notability, it is not necessarily of note where they were schooled, grew up or lost their virginity - if an athlete has managed to keep their private life private then good luck to them, as long as their achievements are a)worthy of note and b) 100% reliably verifiable.--ClubOranje^T 10:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

addendumPotentially the lowest level of NSPORTS for footballers is set too low and getting lower considering "professional leagues" are becoming more and more commonplace, and there is a view that playing in (for example) League of Ireland is more notable than (for example) I-League or Football League Two, but they are other arguments outside the premise of this RfC--ClubOranje^T 10:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

For me, meeting specific guidelines such as WP:NFOOTY has always been more important than whether the subject meets general notability guidelines for one reason alone - a sportsman's notability is determined by their personal achievements (which of course must be verified), not by how many column inches they get. An over-reliance on GNG would neglect older professional sportsmen while allowing articles on semi-pro non-leaguers. Bettia (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject-specific guidelines must be an alternative to the GNG as a means of demonstrating notability; otherwise there is no reason for them to exist. Thparkth (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by Seraphimblade

The GNG is the gold standard. It assures that we can write a full, complete article on a given subject, be that an asteroid, a band, or a sports player. Subguidelines can be useful guidance as to when a given element is more likely to pass the GNG, but cannot make things notable in the absence of actual, substantial coverage. Notability, like everything, is verifiable. In this case, we verify it by asking "How much have independent reliable sources that do not have an interest in promoting the subject written about it?" If the answer is "Several good sources have covered the subject substantially", we know it is notable. If the answer is "they've mentioned it in passing" or "they've given slight coverage or bits of data", the subject is verifiable but not notable, and so may merit brief treatment in another article but not a standalone article. If the answer is "none at all", the subject is not even verifiable, and so does not merit mention at all.

Stubs are fine, if they can one day be fleshed out. However, articles which never could get beyond a stub, because the substantial and reliable coverage needed to just doesn't exist, should be covered briefly in a list or parent article, if at all. That's as true of soccer players as it is for anything or anyone else. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

As submitter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

General discussion on the issue should take place here, in preference to threading in the sections above. Please ensure that all comments are constructive and civil.

One very quick question regarding this RfC - why are there separate sections for football and non-football editors? Does it really make a difference to this discussion as to what subjects we work on here? Bettia (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the RfC commencer could explain that. But I think it is wholly outside ordinary RfC practice. RfCs are determined by community consensus, it doesn't matter where or what you edit.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -- Lear's Fool 03:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this RfC focussed solely on football? There are other sub-notability guidelines that could be seen as just as problematic. What about the one that says that anyone who has ever competed at the Olympics is notable, even at the early games which were little more than a glorified village fete? Based on that we have wound up with articles on people whose full names aren't even recorded. I don't think any of the so-called "football editors" would create an article on someone about whom so little is known..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read (and I'm guessing possibly endorse) my summary above if you haven't noticed it yet - in essence it says this RfC is too narrowly focussed and a more general one should be started instead. Dpmuk (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]