Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

NFooty AfD stats (mid-year 2019)

We now have six months of WP:NFOOTY AfD data for 2019. A summary:

  • 191 NFooty AfDs total (a little more than one per day)
  • 14 out of 191 were withdrawn
  • 39 out of 191 articles met NFooty. About half of those 39 resulted in consensus to keep and half resulted in consensus to delete.
  • 138 out of 191 articles did not meet NFooty. 5 of those 138 (3.6%) resulted in consensus to keep; 126 of 138 (91.3%) resulted in consensus to delete.
  • Something like one 1 of every 6 BLPs are footballers. For comparison, 1 in 12 BLPs are politicians; 1 in 18 are musicians; 1 in 55 BLPs are scientists.
  • More stats and raw data at User:Levivich/NFooty AfDs – Levivich 18:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Your obsession is flattering. GiantSnowman 18:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Comparison with Golf: Number of WP:NGOLF AfDs so far in 2019 - 0 (Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Golf/archive). Number of living golfers with articles: 2805 (Category:Living people + Template:Infobox golfer), 2% of the number of footballers. Nigej (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Some would say that's because you're comparing the most popular & accessible sport in the world (by far) with a boring elitist sport that only a minority of people care about. I mean I wouldn't say that, but some would. GiantSnowman 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Some would say that an encyclopedia in which a sixth of biographies of living people is a footballer has got something wrong somewhere. Nigej (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The real problem is that there aren't enough editors interested in many topics to write the articles that could be written. To give an example, I've made sure we have a biography for every MP in Israel since it became independent, but there are only just over 100 biographies on MPs in neighbouring Jordan, whose parliament is nearly twice the size (195 seats) and has a longer electoral history than Israel. Number 57 19:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you're right. Someone out there has written an article on Shehab Mohamed (randomly picked) but in many areas wikipedia editors are very thin on the ground. Nigej (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
On a similar line, I created many of the missing biographies for the most recent French general election. Still a few redlinks, and I guess it's slighltier easier to source English-French as apposed English-Arabic. What a headache! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Nigej and Number 57's point, brightline criteria have a lot to speak for. The advantage of having brightline inclusion criteria is that one moment I could write an article on WG Grace (878 first-class appearances over a period of 43 years) and the next I could be writing on Saldanha (Bombay Pilgrims cricketer) (one first-class appearance for Bombay Pilgrims in 1937). What are the brightline inclusion criteria requirements on men in tweed jackets and deerstalker hats?
Anyone who will carry out a task long enough and avidly enough to have enough information on every sportsman who fits any of the brightline criteria on any sport, will eventually get the job done, for better or for worse. Does, for example, the Hindi Wikipedia have the same brightline requirements for cricketers as the English Wikipedia? On a purely basic level, we could rewrite every cricket biography for Simple English Wikipedia (there are currently 27 English cricketers on Simple English Wikipedia compared with 12249 on English Wikipedia). One thing the Hindi Wikipedia does have, for that matter, is a POV template for "Major cricket players of India", and a couple more, inside the "Indian cricketers" category itself... going purely by Interwiki links and/or lack thereof, there are nine cricketers in hi:श्रेणी:भारतीय_क्रिकेट_खिलाड़ी that are not in Category:Indian cricketers - although I know neither list is neither exhaustive or thoroughly accurate. Bobo. 20:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The data suggests that in 2019, the creation of football biographies is outpacing the creation of all other biographies combined. In February, the ratio of football biographies to all biographies was 1:6.45. In May, 1:6.42. Today, 1:6.41. The ratio is slowly moving in the wrong direction; every passing day, a larger and larger proportion of BLPs are dedicated to footballers. This is because we allow a stand-alone page for any pro league footballer who ever steps on a pitch (even if they're only on the pitch for a few minutes), and every year, a relatively small number of editors create stand-alone perma-stubs for every new pro footballer who makes their debut, in some cases, even if that debut is in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th tier, i.e., the "minor" leagues. We're at the point where like 95%+ of articles nom'd at AfD that don't meet NFOOTY end up deleted, and those represent over 70% of all football bio AfDs. I think it's time to start using CSD A7 instead of AfD for articles that don't even meet the very low bar of NFOOTY (and don't otherwise have potential GNG-satisfying sources). That, alone, would could cut down the AfD volume by more than half. As for the articles nom'd at AfD that do meet NFOOTY, half of them are still being deleted, and that suggests that NFOOTY, as currently written, is not a good predictor of notability and should be revised. (BTW: 1:59 is the ratio for cricket BLPs on enwiki.) – Levivich 20:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a POINTy violation of A7 and anybody who tried that would no doubt be brought to a noticeboard for trying it. GiantSnowman 21:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Here we go with GNG again. There's no need to even mention GNG if NFOOTY or CRIN aren't met. And if they are met then why are we trying to destroy Wikipedia by selectively deciding what we are offended by? The fact that the two main notability pages contradict themselves as to whether the GNG needs to be met, renders GNG as pointless nonsense. And if your concern is the same sources we've been using for the last 15 years, and you find them insufficient, then instead of complaining about them, or deciding they need to be removed because they don't fit your special requirements, find some new sources yourself before telling us ours are wrong or inappropriate. Bobo. 21:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
"The wrong direction" - there's clear bias here. I don't know why it's surprising there's so many footballer biographies, since it's the single most covered sport in the entire world. And there's nothing wrong with deleting articles which fail NFOOTY/GNG, that's what AfD is there for. SportingFlyer T·C 01:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
SportingFlyer, why is that "bias"? I don't think the encyclopedia's biographies should be 50% football players, so if we're moving in that direction, I think it's the wrong direction. I guess I'm biased against fancruft in the same way I'm biased against promo, fringe, and UPE. :-) – Levivich 02:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Asked and answered. :) SportingFlyer T·C 02:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It would be great if you could show even half as much dedication to getting rid of articles about college athletes/musicians/actors etc. as you do professional footballers. Again, bias. GiantSnowman 05:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd be curious as to what number of appearances would be the cutoff for 90%+ (to throw out an arbitrary high number) of biographies with that number of football matches to be kept. Although of course the question of "what SNG accurately predicts that GNG will be met" is more complicated, as real-world coverage is a function of both appearances and which league people play in (among other, less quantifiable things). signed, Rosguill talk 01:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In leagues such as either Irish league, which are well-covered in the media but aren't a part of WP:NFOOTY as they're not professional, the best players (the ones which win league awards, et cetera) tend to clearly pass WP:GNG, as do managers. But the scale of football is enormous. By my count there are currently 212 fully professional leagues in our guideline. Assuming each league has on average 16 teams, assuming only the top 11 players on each team are notable (which will almost always be false), that would make 37,000 players notable every year. And while there's four or five leagues on the list I look at and say, "really?" I would still estimate all of those leagues are well-covered in local media, not all of which will be accessible online. SportingFlyer T·C 02:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure I understand the point of this analysis. At a high level I thought that everyone knew that whilst wikipedia has the ambition to be a source of the entirety of human knowledge, it is ultimately only going to be a source of knowledge equal to its editors' interests. This means certain topics are always going to outpace others. The only solution to that is to go out and create articles in areas where they are lacking.
Additionally, saying subject area x has a greater proportion of BLP creation than sunject area y is meaningless without some frame of reference to the maximum possible number of BLP that could be created in each area. Yes there are a lot of football BLP being produced, but that is a function of it being a strong area of interest of the wider editing body and the fact that it is without doubt the worlds most popular sport with a long established global structure which had lead to a sustained period of high levels of global professionalism as a result of almost ceaseless coverage over decades.
Finally, from a point of view of the AfDs, again, I am not sure what the point is. There have been lots of AfD, sure. That's to be expected given the focus the subject matter gets, but the analysis done shows the majority are deleted, so the process seems to be working in terms of weeding out the definitely non notable.
so, yeah, not sure what the analysis is really trying to show, but would advise editors against getting too pointy over things, and claiming something is broken when it isn't. Fenix down (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, not quite sure why two editors felt the need to refers to golf as a "boring elitist sport that only a minority of people care about" and golfers as "men in tweed jackets and deerstalker hats" when we could have had a sensible discussion. Nigej (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fenix down: Here's a long explication fo my point. TLDR: Quality over quantity; the efficient allocation of limited editor resources. NFOOTY as currently set up results in an inefficient allocation of our limited resources, and it's creating an encyclopedia that's filling up with out-of-date, unmaintained cruft that nobody reads or cares about, except those who have a vested interest for promo purposes.

  • If we write based on what editors are interested in, we are writing WP:FANCRUFT, because instead of focusing on whether the outside world feels a player is notable, we are focusing on whether Wikipedia editors think a player is important enough to get a stand-alone page. If we write based on what readers are interested in–measured by the amount of significant coverage in independent reliable sources–then we are writing an encyclopedia of notable topics.
  • Even worse, most of these articles are not being created by "editors" writ large, but rather by two groups of editors: (1) new accounts that have a COI, like the example I give below, and (2) a very small group (50 or less) of dedicated/long-standing WP editors who make a bunch of new stub articles for players when they make their pro league debut.
  • Instead of "following the sources" or following the outside world–the way a tertiary source like an encyclopedia should–we enforce an arbitrary rule (anyone who has played in a fully-pro league gets a stand-alone page). That's backwards–it's antithetical to how Wikipedia is supposed to work (and how Wikipedia says it should work, based on the pillars, policies like WP:NOR, and guidelines like WP:N).
  • Unlike other articles and even other BLPs, footballer BLPs are hugely prone to promo, misinformation, hoaxes and vandalism. These BLPs–for active players–fall out-of-date on a weekly basis. It's an enormous amount of work to keep these accurate and up-to-date, far more than for a politician, musician, or actor.
  • 5.8 million articles, about 4,000 very active (100+ edits/mo) editors = an very-active-editor-to-article ratio of 1:1,450. 50,000 or so active editors (5+ edits/mo) = active-editor-to-article ratio of 1:116. 500 or so active admins = admin-to-article ratio of 1:11,600. These are ridiculously unsustainable ratios. We cannot possible maintain this many articles with our current volunteer force–even double the number of volunteers would still be unsustainable.
  • It keeps getting worse. Between February 15 and July 5, 2019, we added 3,780 new football BLPs. That's more than 20 new articles per day. Meanwhile, we're deleting less than one per day. That's not sustainable... the editor-to-article ratio keeps getting worse and worse. (Overall, we create about 100 new BLPs per day, so one out of every five new BLPs is a footballer BLPs, which is why the football BLP:overall BLP ratio is moving slowly from 1:6 towards 1:5.)
  • We would need like 10,000+ editors to do nothing but maintain and update 140,000 football BLPs before we had a reasonable editor-to-football-BLP ratio. It's an impossible work load.
  • Look at these perma-stubs: Cody Claver, Mats van Kins, Tom Brandt, Quentin Lacour, Yue Safy, and Sébastien Ruster. All meet NFOOTY and survived AfD in 2019, but each receives less than 5 page views per day. Nobody is reading these articles. There is no reason to have these stand-alone pages, and they contribute nothing to the encyclopedia. Nobody cares except a few Wikipedia editors, who don't care enough to expand them (or in some cases, even maintain/update them), but for reasons I do not understand, feel strongly that we must have a stand-alone article about them. Why do we need these stand-alone articles that nobody reads?
  • Look at Konrad de la Fuente, a currently pending AfD that doesn't meet NFOOTY (because he has no pro appearances), but receives hundreds of page views a day (spiking to thousands of views per day when he got some news coverage in May). It took me five minutes to google that name and find examples of significant coverage in reliable sources like [1] [2] [3], but the AfD nom and discussion so far is that typical "fails NFOOTY, fails GNG", because editors are focusing more on the fact that the player doesn't play in a fully-pro league than on actually looking for sources upon which we can base an article.
  • Look at Thato Salemane, Tseole Ranthimo, Letuka Mokhochane, Thabo Mats'oele, and Basia Letuka. All five are about players for Liphakoe Football Club created by User:Liphakoe fc. These are unreferenced BLPs that don't meet NFOOTY, with no indication of GNG coverage. The end result is a set of perma-stubs. They will all probably be deleted, but instead of just one editor tagging them all and one admin verifying and deleting them all (which would require 2 editors' time), we had: an editor CSD A7'ing some of them, two admin declined the CSD, a second editor BLPPRODed them, a third editor removed the BLPPROD and sent them to AfD, where five additional editors (so far) unanimously !voted delete (several mentioning it could be BLPPROD or CSD'd). Those five AfDs will need to be closed and deleted, let's assume one admin does all of them. That's eight editors and three admin to clean this up, which is way, way, way, too much volunteer time spent on such an obvious cleanup job. There are over 140,000 articles–too many to go through–and we're creating 20 new ones every day. It's a flood!
  • The system is broken. We are creating so many FOOTY BLP perma-stubs (because we have a rule that any pro league player gets a page) that it is impossible to update or patrol them, and which nobody really reads or cares about, except for the people who have a promo interest in vandalizing them (by faking the stats, etc.). As a result, we get poor quality articles and clogged backlogs. We don't follow the sources as we should; we ignore sources. The current deletion system cannot keep up: it does not weed out the non-notable articles from the notable ones at anything close to an efficient rate. Rather, it often does the opposite: it encourages non-notable articles to be created and kept because we focus on whether the player plays in a fully pro league (an arbitrary measure created by WP editors that does not accurately predict GNG) instead of focusing on what sources are available to support an encyclopedia article. "Played football" should not be considered a credible claim of significance or importance to survive a CSD A7 anymore than "coached a youth summer league". ("Played football in a fully-professional league" would be a better CCSI standard for A7.) NFOOTY needs to be revised to something that will actually mean that if an article meets NFOOTY, it's a high likelihood that it will meet GNG (rather than the current 50-50 crapshoot). There are thousands of important football players who deserve a stand-alone article–one that is updated and maintained–but we are sacrificing this goal in order to pursue another goal, which is a complete directory of professional footballers. It's frankly not Wikipedia. – Levivich 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
You're right, that is TLDR - but in relation to the 'perma-stubs', you're wrong, they do get viewed and expanded, you just don't do any of the hard work that the rest of us over at WP:FOOTY do. Maybe if you spent more time improving existing articles rather than trying and failing to POINTily delete notable players there would be less of a problem? In relation to the Liphakoe players, the decline of CSD was absolutely correct (another reason why you trying to CSD any in future will be rejected). Maybe we should deal with problem editors who create these non-notable stubs rather than try to 'fix' NFOOTBALL that works. It may not be perfect, but it has remained unchanged for so long because it works. You're not the first to have a moan, and you're not the last, but nobody has ever come up with a viable alternative. I therefore politely suggest you drop the stick and find something else to obsess over and/or actually try to improve the articles you criticise? GiantSnowman 19:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It was long. I did read. I think Levivich's core premise is correct that we do not have the editor-hours to support the edifice we've built. This will require some difficult decisions for us at some point. Of course I personally wouldn't have picked NFOOTY as the place to start the discussions for those decisions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Only an observation, but I do find it interesting that Levivich's mass move across to NFOOTY AfDs started at the exact point, as seen via their contribs., the Clarice Phelps article deletion began; which they were against. Very little, if any, edits to do with NFOOTY in the preceding few weeks/months, then hours after the Phelps AfD began they nominated Cody Claver which was the start of all this from them. Has always felt very WP:POINTY. R96Skinner (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
IMO the disparity in article figures is as indicative of the high notability bar for people like scientists and academics, as much as it is indicative of the low bar for football and other sports. An equivalent scenario would see "WP:NSCIENCE" allowing articles on anyone with an article published in Nature. It's culturally interesting that sports and politics fans have enforced notability criteria far lower than those for biographies in other areas. Imagine how limiting it would be to the sports topic area if we had biographies rules equivalent to WP:ARTIST(!) It raises the question of who are the gatekeepers of those other areas and what are their reasons for limiting coverage of people noted in the topics' most prestigious organs? I also think the volume of articles should not necessarily increase vandalism – the prime factor is the number of vandals and I don't believe writing a new article increases vandalism in the general population. Assuming the vandals to editors ratio remains roughly similar, a WikiProject Watchlist should be sufficient to stave off degradation of even the most obscure topics. SFB 23:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The alternative, as alluded to by GiantSnowman above, really isn't one, it's what we've had all along. Reliable sources tell us what is notable and what is not, by whether or not they extensively cover it. If so, it's notable; if not, it isn't. The AfD results above seem to indicate that NFOOTY is not acting as a good guide to when a player is notable, and in many cases is presuming notability when it doesn't actually exist. So far as alternative handling of non-notable players, just have a List of players on the 2019 Somewhereville Whoevers. For the genuinely notable ones (meaning we can write a biography about them, not a blurb or a permastub), the names on the list will be blue; for the non-notable ones, the list can include some general statistics and still provide a place to record that the player was on that team in that year. That would solve the problem of little-watched permastubs, but still preserve the essential information and make it available. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Eeesh, this whole thing was settled 15 years ago when the notability standard for all athletes was set at a single game in the top flight. It doesn't matter that it's ridiculous on the face of it, or that it set up unreasoning top-flight shibboleths along the lines that athletes playing a thousand games in a major metropolis aren't notable (if that team doesn't happen to be "major league") while "I. Bartoziak" pitching a single inning for the (ostensibly) "major league" Worcester Ruby Legs in 1884 is. It's an article of faith set in stone, and unlike PORNBIO, you don't have a puritan constituency hellbent on restoring morality to Wikipedia by tossing it.

But anyone who thinks that sports is the sole province of flimsy perma-stubs isn't paying attention. For my money, quite a few Wikiprojects have their own hobby horses. Who was the bright boy (or, as is likely, the three or four bright boys) who decided that every "geographical place" is presumptively notable? Who decided that a "flag officer" (which one can be commanding as few as 500 soldiers) was presumptively notable, but a business executive supervising 5000 workers wasn't? What makes NFOOTY uniquely offensive in this respect? Ravenswing 05:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Bingo. There are other areas on Wikipedia that need far more attention than footballer articles, especially given that we have a large and active WikiProject which does a damn good job at trying to keep on top of everything. For example when I read articles on actors or musicians I cringe - but I don't see Levivich moaning about their notability standards/inclusion. As I (and others) have said before, this is pure POINT. GiantSnowman 06:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
"If we write based on what editors are interested in..." Well that's the only reason I'm here, to write about stuff I have an interest in. I'll take a wild guess and say that's the same the vast majority of editors who create new articles too. It's nearly impossible to get someone to write about something they don't have an interest in. It could be worse, someone could be adding thousands of stubs about some species of moth... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
That's why we're all here - to compile, via a list of defined, brightline criteria, a compilation of everything which needs to be known about every subject. Anyone who is standing in our way of doing this - in any project, let alone sports, is standing in the way of the aims of the encyclopedia, a complete, thorough compendium of knowledge. And anyone who is upset about the verifiability of the sources we use, should suggest new ones which are "more accurate", "more reliable", or "more official". Anyone who is upset with the brightline criteria should not just complain about it, but, by their own knowledge of the subject (which in most cases, is slim to none, otherwise they wouldn't be complaining) suggest new, workable, brightline criteria. GNG and N directly contradict each other and render each other useless, meaning the only metric we can logically work to is subject-specific guidelines. As far as I can tell, "exclusionism" as a concept is purely "don't like this. No include", not "I'll use my knowledge of the subject to suggest guidelines we can work to which will limit the number of articles we have on the site". "Exclusionists" seem to be more willing to restrict our knowledge than improve it. And that is not a philosophy we should be working to. Bobo. 11:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much. Yes, the traditional bright line criterion of "one top-flight game makes you notable," no matter the sport, has its deep and longstanding flaws. But with what do the naysayers advocate replacing it? Someone show me the governing principle by which NSPORTS can be safely, comprehensively and accurately replaced -- that'd be something that works for association football AND amateur sport AND the Olympics AND figure skating AND ice hockey AND 19th century athletes AND 21st century athletes, mind you -- and I'll advocate that you be made Dictator For Life of Wikipedia, because you'd obviously be smarter than all the rest of us combined. Me, I don't think it can be done without looking like the US Tax Code. Ravenswing 12:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see its flaws. Simple to follow, simple to understand, easy to implement, difficult to justify the exclusion of. (Sorry, I misread your second comment). Bobo. 12:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, well, let me spell them out: (1) It sets forth an unexamined shibboleth -- that playing a single match in the top flight is "notable," where a thousand games below the top flight isn't. Really? Some ephemeral teams in ephemeral leagues have been (or are considered, anyway) the “highest level of competition available.” Keokuk, Iowa, had a “major league” team. Troy, New York, had a “major league” team. Middletown, Connecticut, had a “major league” team. Cobalt, Haileybury and Renfrew, Ontario, had “major league” teams. Meanwhile, Gordie Sinclair played over a thousand games for teams in Seattle and San Diego, major metropolises dwarfing tiny towns like Haileybury and Middletown ... but not having been “major league” in the era of the six-team NHL. Mike Donaldson played nearly a thousand games in Portland. So did Bill Saunders. Chook Maxwell racked up over eight hundred in Los Angeles, Quebec City and Toledo. None have Wikipedia articles, despite assuredly having vastly more press coverage than John Carbine, who played 10 games for Keokuk, and has one. Len Lovett, who pitched a single game for the Elizabeth (NJ) Resolutes, does. Billy Arnold, who played two games for the Middletown Mansfields, does.

(2) It sets forth an ‘’untested’‘ shibboleth -- that any player for a big league team could meet the GNG. Really? Says who? When was this premise ever tested against the evidence? I expect it never was, and the “fully professional league” test was plucked out of thin air by three or four editors fifteen years ago.

(3) Speaking of which ... what *is* “fully professional?” That everyone gets a paycheck? Players get paychecks five levels down in the English football system. Every wannabe pitching in a single-A rookie league right now draws a paycheck.

Yes ... the fundamental NATHLETE bright line is simple, easy to understand, easy to apply. And if we didn’t give a damn about accuracy or notability, no one would ever question it. Ravenswing 05:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Let alone the fact that the exclusionists don't decide what they're offended by until eight years later... perhaps if they had decided at the time, and justified their reasoning, I would take them more seriously... Bobo. 12:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgive me for repeating myself from above, just thinking on the fly. Does Simple English Wikipedia have any cricket-related presence and/or sporting inclusion guidelines? I see no reason why every article on a first-class player in Category:English cricketers (or any other nationality) cannot simply be rewritten in Simple English and transported. An article such as simple:Dwayne Bravo is probably too complicated and flowery in its language for an article on Simple. Bobo. 12:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

TLDR aside: Meeting NFOOTY but AfD closed "delete"

One item worth discussing is the 39 AfDs at User:Levivich/NFooty_AfDs#Some_NFooty, of which Levivich says that 16 were deleted even though they met NFOOTY. That seems a bit high. Is there a plausible explanation? Is a tweak possible (needed)?—Bagumba (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a case that (with the exception of AfDs started by people who have completely misunderstood the guideline), only the most marginal cases are brought to AfD, so I'm not sure much tweaking is required, as it seems the guideline is still generally effective – I also can't think of any potential redrawing of the cut-off that won't create far more issues than it solves (for example, if we move to a cut-off point of ten matches, we'll end up with a cycle of people creating articles on players who have just started playing, followed by deletion, followed by recreation shortly afterwards when they hit ten appearances – we currently have this on a low level with youth players assigned squad numbers or appearing on the bench, but I think this would be a much bigger scale). Number 57 13:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
NSPORTS like all other subject-specific notability guidelines are meant to be presumed notability for a topic which can be challenged at AFD. NFOOTY may allow for a standalone for people that have played one or two games, but if a thorough source search shows nothing else can literally be said about the person beyond those games, then deletion is allowable. We fully expect NFOOTY-meeting articles to be expanded to a GNG-level coverage in time, but that requires good sourcing. --Masem (t) 14:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, meeting NFOOTY does not always mean it must be kept. My comment, however, was on the seemingly high 16/39 delete rate.—Bagumba (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha, and to that I can't see a pattern to explain why its higher. --Masem (t) 14:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bagumba: The delete rate does seem high for something that meets an SNG, but I think a better question is out of how many articles created in the last year that meet NFOOTY meet GNG? If the 16 that were deemed as failing the GNG is out of 500 (an uneducated guess, I have not checked) that do meet GNG, that seems like the SNG would fairly close to being accurate (98% correct). Yosemiter (talk)
NFOOTY definitely requires a tweak. In particular the assumption that fully-professional minor league players in the US receive SIGCOV - is lacking. The US minor leagues, even when professional (and this is true for baseball as well - which has more coverage than soccer), are usually non-competitive farming systems that receive little media attention. That the players get a salary (usually - not that high - in particular the US minor league soccer wages are not necessarily competitive with the general job market) and are professional doesn't mean they have SIGCOV. This is possibly true elsewhere. The current NFOOTY binary cutoff (played pro - yes, didn't play pro - no) - is very arbitrary and doesn't quite match coverage. Top-flight prospects on top teams often have SIGCOV prior to playing. Conversely - players at the edge of the bench on third division teams often don't have SIGCOV even if they did reach the pitch a few times. For the US - some (non-pro) college leagues have more coverage than the minor leagues currently listed. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
NFOOTY definitely doesn't need a tweak, not because its perfect, because it definitely isn't, but because not only has no one ever come up with an alternative that would actually work but also because of the chaos making a material change to a long standing SNG would cause. The correct way forward is to recognise that, as an SNG, NFOOTY, is merely a presumption of GNG. In that sense it works as a basic benchmark, but is not a guarantee of notability. It is particularly useful in ensuring we eradicate non-english bias to a great extent and also historical bias, where in both instances online, English language sources may be scant. Where editors see articles that meet NFOOTY but are of questionable general notability, they should not be afraid to nominate them for AfD. I would suggest a possible reason for the high number of articles passing NFOOTY but being deleted is because I have personally closed a number as delete where GNG has been challenged and not been supported. Fenix down (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
What is the harm/chaos that would result from trying one of these two tweaks:
  1. Increase minimum number of appearances from 1 to 10
  2. Change "fully professional' to "top tier" – Levivich 17:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The potential problem with (1) is addressed above in my earlier comment. With regards to suggestion (2), currently we have just over 70 cases where the men's or women's top division is classed as a fully-professional league and over 300 where it isn't, so it would actually be a huge relaxing of the standard rather than a tightening of it. And it would also be nonsensical, as it would allow articles on players on the top division in San Marino, but not on those from the Championship or Bundesliga 2, which are in the top 10 most-watched leagues in Europe. The fact that this suggestion is even being made is a huge red flag that there is a lack of understanding of the subject at hand. Number 57 18:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
N57, your earlier comment about #1 presumes that people would ignore an SNG change from 1 game to 10 games and continue to make articles for players with 1 appearance. Even if you're right about that, it would still reduce the number of non-notable articles making it out of AfC and make deletion faster/easier/more efficient. As to #2, maybe "fully professional" and "top tier", but you're basically arguing that the exceptions should make the rule. For every second-tier league whose players are likely to meet GNG, I can show you many second-tier leagues whose players are not likely to meet GNG. In any event, limiting the SNG to top-tier doesn't mean that non-top-tier players would "not be allowed", it just means they wouldn't be presumed notable, and there's no reason to presume notability for leagues like EFL Championship or 2. Bundesliga, because players in those leagues who are notable will easily be shown to meet GNG (because such notable lower-tier leagues are all in large, developed markets where access to sources is less of a concern). Even beyond that, the SNG can contain an exception for those few non-top-tier leagues where we want to presume notability. That would still be better than presuming notability for every player who ever stepped on the pitch once in a fully-pro league at any time anywhere in the world. – Levivich 19:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that the majority of top tier leagues are not fully-professional, it's clear that the number of second tier leagues that are also not fully-professional will outnumber those that are, so I'm not sure why you need to show anyone that. Restricting the guideline to top tier and fully-pro would be really unhelpful as there are numerous non top-tier leagues that have notable players, who would be beyond the SNG cut-off, leaving a huge grey area where in reality we know the players are notable, but because GNG can be highly subjective, it leads to a lot of uncertainty and I suspect a lot more time wasted on AfDs where someone who has no clue about football nominates such articles. Currently we have a clear cut-off which is probably at the best place it can be (and as your stats show, not every case of passing NFOOTY results in a kept article). As Fenix said, it's not perfect, but it's better than any alternative that's ever been suggested. Number 57 19:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
With as much knowledge as we have at WP:FOOTY, why can't we actually identify the leagues where we think the players are inherently notable? Those people already curate the list of fully professional leagues; it would just be one more step to say "of this list, these leagues are not inherently notable". Certainly anything below MLS in the United States and Canada would fall off that list, but we could keep lower level leagues in regions that receive much more in-depth coverage. I don't see the need for blanket rules when we have the easy capability of being much more precise. CThomas3 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I like Cthomas3's idea. Maybe promote WP:FPL from an essay to an information page or something like that, change NFOOTY from "fully-professional league" to "FPL-listed league", and the FPL page can continue to be curated as it always has been, with the inclusion criteria being something like, "consensus that players in the league are likely to be notable"? – Levivich 19:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
(e/c)Because it would be hugely subjective – how on earth do we decide how a league's players are notable, and how would you judge it when English and/or online sources were not available? This isn't a sport that is played in a small number of countries where it is easy to identify the key leagues. It's difficult enough to get decent sourcing just to decide whether a league is fully-professional or not, let alone go through hundreds of leagues to decide on the level of coverage individual players get. This seems to be a severe case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Number 57 19:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Number 57, Honestly, no differently than we did when we first set up NFOOTY to begin with. We had to make some assumptions and then tried to fit a blanket rule to those assumptions. The line we drew was just as arbitrary as this would be. The good news is we already have a starting point; we can start with the line we have now, and then discuss the edge cases. Is it subjective? Sure. But at least now we can properly discuss individual leagues rather than endlessly argue about how one wording or another inadvertently affects other leagues, which is what kills 99% of NFOOTY change proposals. CThomas3 (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The way we would identify leagues that don't belong on that list is the exactly the same method that Seraphimblade posted below to determine individual players' suitability: we investigate. Obviously it would require some kind of representative sample, but if a sizable fraction of footballers who have only played in that league aren't notable under GNG, then we should probably call the entire league into question. Obviously someone could come along and challenge this assumption at any time, but they would need to show evidence that players in that league (and that league only) have a reasonable expectation of meeting GNG. CThomas3 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Personally I suspect it would just lead to endless campaigns by a small number of over-zealous editors to get certain leagues added or removed and take up far too much time of the rest of us; I also have difficulties believing it would be easy to show that a significant enough proportion of players in a league don't meet GNG, especially given the existing levels of disagreement about when it is met. And it doesn't resolve the root issue that we do not have enough editors writing on the topics that are underrepresented. Perhaps if editors could spend a bit of time trying to recruit people to write all the missing articles on Jordanian politicians, it would be a better way of resolving the problem. (Also, there's no need to ping me when you respond; I can see it on my watchlist). Number 57 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
A "presumption" of GNG? GNG is as much a "guideline" as SNG, and to remove articles based on some flimsy, IDONTLIKEIT guideline when each subject-specific notability guideline provides us with clear, explicit boundaries rather than people choosing what they are offended by on a case-by-case basis, is hypocrisy. The important word on WP:N is the word or. GNG or SNG. For the record, I was originally taught that the GNG was for following where no SNG could be found to back up a "should this be included" case - precisely as WP:N claims. GNG need not apply as long as an SNG can be used to justify. Bobo. 18:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
As Masem said above, an SNG creates a presumption that GNG is met. In some cases, that will essentially always be true in practice too—I don't think we're going to find too many Academy Award winners who aren't in fact notable. And certainly those above have made good points about those going to AfD being the questionable cases to begin with; no one will, I imagine, be putting Cristiano Ronaldo up for AfD any time soon. But passing an SNG doesn't mean an article must be kept, period. If someone can show they've done a diligent search for sources (generally, more than a peremptory Google search) and come up empty, the article still can be deleted. Like everything else, we follow reliable sources, and if those sources have told us something is not notable (by writing little or nothing about it), we follow their lead and say little or nothing about it as well. Ultimately, notability, like all Wikipedia content, is determined by what reliable sources say (or, in some cases here, by them not saying anything). Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, ONESOURCE is important too, I understand - this has been mentioned to me before - but articles which have been questioned for ONESOURCE from WP:CRIC are easy to fix. Notify people that ONESOURCE is present and these can be sorted. What is more upsetting is the number of Test cricketers, even today, which have zero external links and/or references, when as I say, the sources are right there. At least two references can be added right off the bat (pardon the pun!). If people suddenly decide, on an arbitrary basis, that the sources we've been using for WP:CRIC for the last 15 years are appropriate for some and inappropriate for others, I wish they had done so 15 years ago... if these people can provide supposedly "more accurate" or "more authorative" links and references which, according to their superior knowledge on given topics, apparently exists by questioning individuals' notability in the first place, they should provide evidence that these references are more accurate and authoritative than the ones we have been using. Bobo. 20:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The wording at WP:Notability is general to allow for flexibility. This allows the editors who create a subject-specific notability guideline to reach a consensus, at the time of creation, that the guideline will act as a supplement to the general notability guideline by providing rules of thumb for presuming the general notability guideline has been met. The editors who created this guideline page, encompassing guidelines for multiple sports, have chosen this approach. isaacl (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I've only arrived at this discussion now, but I can explain the high deletion rate for those AfDs. Most of them were selected for nomination by editors like myself (or Levivich) who did some diligence beforehand to identify BLPs on footballers who very narrowly passed the bright-line of NFOOTBALL (e.g., 3 substitute appearances with less than 90 minutes of total play in a fully-pro league). In my experience these types of BLPs rarely justify the presumption of notability provided by NFOOTBALL, while the overwhelming majority of BLPs on footballers with more play in a fully-pro league do justify the presumption. We had a discussion months ago about raising the bar on NFOOTBALL to 90+ minutes of play (or at least 1 start) in a fully-pro league, but support was extremely limited. I don't like how low the bar is, but I can't find support for a slightly higher bar. Jogurney (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday's new footballer BLPs

28 new footballer BLPs were created yesterday (July 7):

You show a fundamental lack of understanding, not on ly about changing the notability requirements, but also because people will continue to make articles about borderline notable/non-notable footballers no matter what we say. GiantSnowman 14:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
And again, if you spent as much time improving articles as you did complaining about them... GiantSnowman 14:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
How does one go about improving articles like Memo Diaz, Akeem Hinds, Tom Bates (footballer), Chris Hubbard (soccer) and Joshua Kayode if there are no sources available beyond statistics websites and game/transfer reports? I keep showing you data, you keep making the same tired sweeping assertions. Can you substantiate your claim that "people will continue to make articles about borderline notable/non-notable footballers no matter what we say"? And what are you saying about the article creators? The articles I posted were almost all created by a small group of longstanding editors (some admin) with years of experience and tens of thousands of edits. Are you saying those editors ignore our notability guidelines, and will continue to do so even if they're changed? I don't think that's true, and the data doesn't support it. The data shows that article creators mostly create footballer BLPs that meet NFOOTY – in fact, I think 27 out of the 28 created yesterday meet NFOOTY – they just don't have any sources available, because NFOOTY is poor at predicting sourcing. I'm making this fundamental argument–NFOOTY is a poor predictor–using data. Why don't you try using data to prove me wrong? – Levivich 14:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Because I've got better things to do with my time than trawl through reems of reports. I'm using my 13+ years of editing experience to comment here. GiantSnowman 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
My thesis is simple: if NFOOTY were adjusted–either by increasing the minimum number of games, or limiting the leagues, or perhaps some other way–we wouldn't have those five "meets-NFOOTY-but-not-GNG" articles that were created yesterday, and in their place, the article creators would have created five different articles, about actually notable players–articles that actually can be improved–articles that actually belong in an encyclopedia. – Levivich 15:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, you are underestimating what football fans like to write about. They will still write the articles, trust me. GiantSnowman 15:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Alright. I'm a deletionist with a few thousand AfD edits, and I wager I rack up at least ten Delete votes to every Keep. But what the hell? I've haven't heard many arguments so specious as "Articles are being created faster than we can go through them." So what? Are we in a race? Is there a time limit after which footy BLPs are immunized from the deletion process? (Given that the hockey project is racking up ten-year old scalps at AfD, I'm thinking "not.") If your mission on Wikipedia is the eradication of NN articles, blessings be upon you, but I sure want a better reason to tighten notability guidelines than that. Ravenswing 15:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:THEREISNODEADLINE, it's true, but it's also true that WP is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The point can be turned around: why have notability guidelines at all? Why have AfD? Why not be like "those other encyclopedias" and allow an article about anything? Why not have an article about every Pokemon character? The answer, as famously said by Jimbo, is that Wikipedia is the sum of all knowledge, not all knowledge. The answer is that these are BLPs, and WP:BLP policy is paramount. We cannot just create articles about people without maintaining them and protecting them from tampering and vandalism. The answer is also in the editor-to-article ratio. There aren't enough editors to patrol 900,000 BLPs, of which 140,000 are NFOOTY (and that's the answer to "why NFOOTY"–because it's the biggest single block of BLPs–more than all other athletes, more than politicians, musicians, actors, etc.). My mission isn't the eradication of NN articles, but accuracy in BLPs is something that is very important to me. It's a very bad thing to keep making BLPs at a rate faster than we can maintain them, and it's even worse if those BLPs are of non-notable people. Something Must Be Done™. The solution is real simple, though: tighten up NFOOTY, and I think you'll reduce the growth rate of NN footballer BLPs significantly–by 20%, maybe 50% or more. That frees up editor time for more important things than maintaining clearly-NN BLPs. – Levivich 16:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Deletionism does not benefit the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to have a complete compendium of all necessary knowledge, by a defined set of rules. Deletionism runs to the nature of "I'll make up my own rules as to what I find acceptable and unacceptable whih goes against everything we've been working towards for the last 15 years". And no sporting project benefits from that. Why [x] but not [y] when [y] fits the same rules as [x]? The reason we're not allowed to broach that as an argument in AfD discussions is simple - because there is no answer other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And until we come up with new guidelines, agreed upon by the community, based specifically on bright-line requirements, this will not happen. Bobo. 19:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I see no issue with articles being created for subjects who pass NFOOTY (or whatever sport). It doesn't matter if it's 28 per day or 1,028 per day. If you find a batch of non-notable articles, start with educating the content creator. Not everyone is aware of the notability requirements. The rest are notable - great, dish out the barnstars and move on. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The only issue would be something akin to mass article creation based on NFOOTY, per WP:FAIT. It would inappropriate to take some 1000-10,000 players in a national language and run scripts to create basic articles for each claiming that play in the league assures NFOOTY is met. This was done loooong ago for around.. 15,000 footballers? (like, 12 some years ago), and it was met with great concern. If you want to hand-create each, showing how NFOOTY and/or GNG is met for each, and can do 100 a day, hey great, we won't stop you. --Masem (t) 16:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Echoing the above - we're an encyclopedia, we're meant to have more information, not less. We have a long-established notability guideline, so if articles are being created which meet that then great! But don't mass create hundreds of one-line stubs a day, that's not useful to anyone. GiantSnowman 16:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
What is this "borderline notable"? The advantage of brightline criteria is that there is a simple yes/no answer. If we didn't have people trying to censor knowledge, there would be no need for the phrase "borderline notable". According to some who have argued in the past, Gurudyal Singh (1) is "borderline notable" because "hasn't got a verifiable birthdate" is a workable notability criterion. According to others, GM Menon (2) is "borderline notable" because we have no verifiable first name. "Borderline notable" itself implies there is a border, therefore absolute values, which the people arguing against these individuals' inclusion are trying to swear against in the first place. Exclusionism is an entirely indefensible perspective, only justiable because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bobo. 20:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
"Borderline notability" should not be evoked because we are missing "core biographical data". "Borderline notability" does come into play when all we have in a stub about a person is that they played a tiny number (like, less than a quarter of the games in the season) of professional games for one team, and have no other details. That could be expanded, that could not be. NSPORT regulars have shown that as long as "profession league" is defined right, you can nearly always find the player's older career that can be used to help, but it might take time and research effort. Even if those still end up missing expanded full names or birth dates. Those are not secondary information about a person and are not essential to notability. --Masem (t) 20:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
"A tiny number" is a number nevertheless. And to alter this number once again implies moving the goalposts. Still nobody has ever come up with a logical justification to what this number should be and how this would further benefit the project other than by sawing off the bits they find offensive... Bobo. 21:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
What I think most regulars on this page recognize is that NFOOTY provides a presumption of notability. One pro game - even 5 minutes in one pro game - is a reasonable metric to say "we will likely be able to find sources that show how this guy even got to the pro league". You do need to eventually find them, and if someone does an intense effort to find them per WP:BEFORE and comes up empty handed, then maybe that presumption was wrong. Hence it is borderline notability to a degree, compared with a multi-season, first-string player. Not a reason to immediately delete, but it can be challenged. --Masem (t) 21:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
And yet none of the people who challenge this ever come up with their own figure which would please them. "Some", "a full season", etc, are meaningless and unenforceable. Imagine having to fill the requirement of a full, 162-game, MLB season. I'd be tired by then! Bobo. 21:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Bobo192, funny you bring up MLB - because for that SNG, if we wished, there's an official definition of when someone is ineligible for the Rookie of the Year award - a player must not have exceeded 130 at bats or fifty innings pitched in the majors, and also fewer than 45 days on the active rosters of major league clubs. So the SNG could be set at above those marks which would be black and white as you suggest. Is that the right standard? Probably not, but there's nothing inherently wrong with suggesting that notability for NFOOTY should be higher than 1 game. And even that we've already qualified - it's 1 game against a professional team. So, for instance, an FA Cup game in which someone appear on a professional team against an amateur team has been found not to meet NFOOTY. In my view the SNG should be formulated such that a very high percentage of people who satisfy it will pass GNG, and, ideally, that a high percentage of people who don't satisfy it don't meet GNG. Often those two can be set together but sometimes, as in here, there's a suggestion that we prioritize one of those priorities more than the other. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
An interesting metric - thank you for bringing that to my attention, Barkeep49 - I once was an avid collector of statistics, though not any more, as my need for a social life exceeds my need for paper! I never really assumed anything other than that a single-game notability standard for footballers was anything other than a single game against a professional team - I'm not up to speed with how many of the fifth-tier English league football teams are still not fully-professional. Of course the inherent problem with American sport is that since moment one it has been gorgeously (for someone like me with a love for pointless numbers) statistical. To hopefully not digress too much, one of the reasons I was falling out with music for so long is that it became so frustratingly theoretical rather than practical - if that is a reasonable co-analogy. Bobo. 22:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, an interesting metric ... well worth considering for more than one sport. The NHL's standard for eligibility for its rookie of the year award is less than 25 games in the previous season ... Ravenswing 16:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
As you mentioned above, Masem, there was a time when I much enjoyed picking off the "low-hanging fruit" as far as cricketer biographies were concerned - those which were easy to knock off and involved little to no adaptation of text or statistics. This was not a chore - this was fun! I was pleased with being able to further the project, to add more names to a category such as Category:Travancore-Cochin cricketers... then along came people who were offended by acts like this and encouraged creation of articles such as List of Travancore-Cochin cricketers for the sake of de-orphaning (this was three years ago and still only four names have been added (out of 27 who played for the side). According to the user who created the lists themselves (page history), these were solely created for the sake of de-orphaning. Bobo. 21:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

SNGs and BLPs

Team sports player SNGs and BLP counts
Sport SNG # BLPs Ratio # fans
All BLPs 908,260 1:1
Baseball 1 game in US, Japanese, or Korean top league (e.g., MLB) 12,950 1:70 500 M
Basketball 1 game in NBA or select other top-level leagues 14,050 1:65 825 M – 2.2 B
Ice hockey 1 game in NHL or select other top-level leagues; 200 games in select other leagues 14,297 1:64 < 390 M
Rugby 1 match in a "fully professional club Rugby league competition" or "a fully professional rugby union competition since 1995" 15,052 1:60 410–475 M
Cricket "at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level" 15,447 1:59 2.5 B
NFL 1 game in "top-level professional league" 18,164 1:50 410 M
FOOTY 1 game "between two teams from fully-professional leagues" 141,462 1:6 3.5–4 B
Sources: SNGs, # BLPs, # fans ([8], [9], [10]). #s are estimated. "Ratio" = Sport-specific BLPs : all BLPs.

The number of footballer BLPs is almost an order of magnitude larger than any other team sport, and almost twice as large as all other major team sports BLPs combined. It also has the "loosest" SNG of all other team sports. But correlation is not causation, and association football is by far the most popular sport in the world, so one would expect there to be more footballer BLPs than other sports. It's impossible to tell whether the number of footballer BLPs is due to its popularity or to the lax SNG. But one question remains: what evidence is there that one game between two teams from fully-professional leagues makes a footballer "likely" notable, but not a baseball player, or cricketer, etc., for whom "likely notability" is generally restricted to top-flight leagues? – Levivich 17:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

PS: if anyone thinks I didn't summarize the SNGs correctly in the table above, or wants to add other sports, please feel free to edit the table. – Levivich 17:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is meant to achive. If you want the football notability to be changed, then the best place is to start a WP:RFC at the Footy Project. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: What I think this misses is weighting it in some way to FOOTY's worldwide appeal. Are we getting a disproportionate number of players from that sport or is the sport itself simply disproportionately popular? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Barkeep49, It definitely is the most popular sport in the world by far. That being said, other sports are pretty popular too. I don't know how accurate this analysis is, but if it's anywhere close, I would say we are getting a disproportionate number of football biographies. Now it could be that news sources just dedicate that much more ink to football as well, I don't know. CThomas3 (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both, for asking the question and answering it! I added those numbers to the table. – Levivich 18:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Update: I added some more sources to the table, and folks may also be interested in List of professional sports leagues by revenue, List of sports attendance figures, and this recent Bloomberg story about the popularity of association football (behind a paywall). – Levivich 18:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: This table is in response to the conversation directly above about SNGs in other sports. It shows that NFOOTY is an outlier compared to other sports: the SNG is a much broader scope (not limited to top level leagues), and there are many more BLPs. Must admit I'm a little confused by people asking me what I'm trying to achieve. What I'm trying to achieve is to convince other editors to revise NFOOTY so it's a better predictor of GNG. (Have I not been clear on this point?) And I'm trying to achieve that by showing data in response to the specific points that people have raised, i.e., about whether NFOOTY predicts GNG, what happens at AfDs of articles that meet or do not meet NFOOTY (#NFooty AfD stats (mid-year 2019)), what proportion of all footballer BLPs that are created do or do not meet NFOOTY (#Yesterday's new footballer BLPs), and how it compares with other SNGs (#SNGs and BLPs). I don't think we're ready for an RfC yet–I, for one, have no idea which specific change to propose (out of the ones that have been discussed), at least not yet. – Levivich 17:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: and yet the problem I see with the BLPs you posted is more of a failure to ensure the sourcing is decent as opposed to a failure of notability generally. I found a player yesterday who was brand new, clearly passed WP:NFOOTY albeit in a less "notable" league, and was functionally unsourced. I found sourcing in minutes. Based your those stats, and looking at the arbitrary fans numbers, it's actually American football which is overrepresented - you would have 17,000 more gridiron players at the same ratio if gridiron were as popular worldwide as football. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
For me the idea that 1 in 6 BLPs is FOOTY is astounding and suggests that something we, meaning Wikipedia as an encyclopedic project, is doing isn't working. However, I don't know about what that what is. Perhaps we've made the SNG too low, perhaps the Wikipedia editor base (and/or the skilled article creator Wikipedia editor base) is skewed towards FOOTY fans, or perhaps it's some other idea is the cause. As I'm still grappling with that it precludes me from saying what kind of solution, if any, is appropriate for this SNG (I mean we're not going to tell skilled article creators that they shouldn't create articles with-in policy if it turns out that our editor base just has skewed interests). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Once again, someone says "maybe the notability line is too low" without suggesting how they would change it. Brightline notability requirements foster creation of articles based upon given criteria, without argument. Or at least, that's what would happen on a civilized project. People making up rules as they go along, with no justification as to why they are doing so and no suggestion as to what they would change it to themselves, not so much. Bobo. 20:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Bobo192, I'm not sure who the someone is in your statement (me or Levivich) and since you're indented under me I just want to clarify. I'm saying "maybe the notability line is too low or maybe it's not." If it's not too low I would be opposed to changing it. Considering that very point seem up for debate not only with me but with some other participants in this discussion (like GiantSnowman) it doesn't seem strange to me to discuss that. If we come to some sense it's too low then we could move on to possible ways to change it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Not aimed towards either of you specifically, just at the issue in general. It frustrates me every single time. Saying "there is a problem" without saying "here is the solution" is counterproductive. Bobo. 20:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I was just trying to put together a list of first-class cricketers who made their debuts in the 1924-25 season, simply to see how many there were and how many links were missing - see my post on WT:CRIC as to my motive - I simply pulled up a list of all first-class cricketers who appeared during the 1924-25 season whose name contained an A. Bobo. 20:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I've seen a number of solutions proposed during these discussions, such as: 1. increase minimum number of games, 2. have a minimum number of minutes played instead of games, 3. restrict to top-tier leagues, 4. restrict to a list of selected leagues curated by consensus. There are weaknesses in each solution, but for want of a perfect or guaranteed solution, we seem to be hesitant to try any change at all. (I think we should just try something and see if it helps.) – Levivich 21:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Or just leave it be and pretend there's no problem. Bobo. 21:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
In terms of football, especially in England, restricting articles purely to players who have played in the Premier League and its predecessors would create destruction to the football project beyond that which should ever be necessary. Thankfully, in terms of cricket, we have a brightline guideline which we can work to - and all these games are statistically seen as being at the same level. And I still find no way of changing the criteria which would effectively alter the goalposts in terms of verifiability (which apparently only becomes a problem when someone decides they don't like a situation). In a perfect world, if a source is reliable for a purpose, it should be treated as being universally reliable for said purpose - especially if we are working towards specific brightline criteria. Bobo. 21:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Regarding identifying what the problem is, I wanted to say that I don't think the problem is accurately stated as "too many footy BLPs". I agree with those who have pointed out that we cannot know the "magic number" or the so-called "correct amount" of BLPs in this category or that category, or even overall BLPs. (We do have to mind the article-to-editor ratio so that we can actually maintain all these pages, but that's a site-wide issue not a footy-specific issue.) I think the "problem" is better stated as "too many not-notable footy BLPs", and I think "the culprit" is the SNG (mis-)guiding article creators in choosing article topics. – Levivich 21:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
(e/c) It's primarily because football is a very popular pasttime and we therefore have lots of people from all over the world willing to write articles on players. There could be hundreds of thousands more articles on MPs if there were people out there willing to write them (as I mentioned above there are fewer articles on Jordanian MPs that there are current MPs despite the country having an electoral history of 90 years). It's also because football is hugely popular and footballers are amongst the most high profile public figures in many societies, and (because it's a team sport) there are also lots of them (I would imagine that at any one time, if you asked a cross section of the public to name all the public figures they knew, the number of footballers would possibly be higher than anything other than possibly actors and actresses). If people are really concerned about the ratios, I would advise trying to recruit editors to write the missing articles in other topic areas rather than worrying about the fact that one area is well covered. Number 57 20:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
If I had the time or the energy to do so, I would continue to make lists of cricketers by season who do not have articles on Wikipedia - I was already doing so before I grew frustrated with Wikipedia. It's very sleepy work! Bobo. 20:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@N57: I don't think that there are 140,000 footballer BLPs because there are so many people coming here and writing footballer BLPs. The PetScan searches at #Yesterday's new footballer BLPs showed that over five days, over 100 articles were created by a small number of editors. Which isn't to say that those editors are doing anything wrong–quite the opposite, they are building the encyclopedia and creating articles in line with our policies, something that we are all grateful for and encourage. But we can give those article creators a better tool with which to predict notability, so that they're not wasting their time creating articles about non-notable players (and other editors don't waste their time patrolling, updating, and maintaining them). – Levivich 21:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
And if we get all the missing articles on current and former MPs, who updates them? I don't see the issue here. Number 57 22:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
There aren't 140,000 Jordanian MPs. And, we don't need a stand-alone article about every MP in every parliament ever. We can have lists of MPs, or articles about parliaments and elections, but your point is the same as my point: if we actually made a stand-alone article about every MP in the world (or every footballer, or every anything), we would not have the resources to maintain all those pages. So we shouldn't do that. – Levivich 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
and, we don't need a stand-alone article about every MP in every parliament ever. Says who? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Says the top of the section you linked to (WP:NBIO#Additional criteria): ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included (emphasis in the original). Just because someone is an MP doesn't make them automatically notable, and even if they are notable, it doesn't mean we should automatically have a stand-alone page about them (says WP:PAGEDECIDE). – Levivich 17:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I never said there were 140,000 Jordanian MPs (and making statements like that isn't helping convince people you're coming at this from a completely rational angle). However, there are probably well over 1,500 for Jordan alone. Multiply this up by all the other countries with barely any MP articles (many of which have larger parliaments than Jordan and longer electoral histories), and then add in state/provincial politicians who are also eligible under WP:NPOLITICIAN, you are well into the hundreds of thousands and possibly even over a million potential articles in total. Number 57 09:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say you said that (and I don't need to convince people I'm coming from a rational angle; tweaking a notability guideline isn't some crackpot idea). What I am saying is exactly what you're saying: we can't have a stand-alone article about every MP there ever was, because it will be too many articles to maintain. Same with every pro footballer. – Levivich 17:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I disagree entirely. Number 57 18:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"...because it will be too many articles to maintain.." that has to be the weakest arguement to NOT have content I've ever read. Shall we lock down WP right now to stop it becoming too big? We're not far away from 6 million articles. Is that too many articles to maintain? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, 6 million is too many articles to maintain, with 4,000 "very active" editors (100+ edits/mo), which would be 1,500 articles to maintain per "very active" editor. If you count "active" editors (5+ edits/mo) I think there's about 50,000, which is 120 articles to maintain per "active" editor. It is difficult to maintain 1,500 articles while making 100 edits per month (or even 1,000 edits per month), just as it is difficult to maintain 120 articles while making 5 edits a month (or even 50). This is why there are hoaxes and errors and such that persist for months or years–we are not checking everything, because we can't check everything; there's too much to check and not enough people. And, the article-to-editor ratio is getting worse as time goes on, so more and more of the encyclopedia is effective un-patrolled. Even worse than that is the article-to-active-admin ratio (6 million:500?, or 12,000:1). Anyway, the encyclopedia will always grow in terms of article count, so we can't reduce the "article" side of the article-to-editor ratio. What we can do (aside from recruitment, the single most important thing necessary for the success of this project) is to make sure that future article growth is 100% about notable topics (or as close to that as we can get), by, for example, tweaking SNGs to make sure they are good predictors of notability. – Levivich 18:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
What makes me suspicious is, in a project with six million articles, how people, as I've been frustrated about in the past, randomly find articles of ten years of age or more, decide they are offended by them, and decide to put them up for deletion. I may have been able to take them more seriously if they had expressed their frustrations at the time, expressed why the guidelines we work to are offensive, but no. They wait ten years or so before they do it. Bobo. 21:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The great thing about cricket (as an example, I know there are dozens of others) is that however many bluelinks we have, there are still bucketfuls of redlinks to be working on. Naturally we would love them all to be packed full of prose, but this isn't always possible. Bobo. 21:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer: Well taken point, but can you find sourcing for Chris Hubbard (soccer) or Memo Diaz? I couldn't. Maybe you will, but if no one can find sourcing, seeing as those two players only started playing in the last five years and are American players, we can be fairly certain that it's not that "we can't find it", it's that "it doesn't exist", i.e., if our internet searches come up empty for those two players, it means they are not notable. Maybe something to consider tweaking is to limit NFOOTY by year, as is done with some other SNGs, so we presume notability for older (esp. pre-internet age) players, but not for current players. And/or, limit it by nation or language, e.g., for English v. non-English. Re: the gridiron numbers, please see my forthcoming reply to Barkeep above. – Levivich 21:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Re Chris Hubbard, a cursory Google search turned up this article about him in the Courier-Journal or this on USA Today's website. For Diaz, there was this on KFOX-TV, this on KVIA-TV or this on the Laredo Morning Times. Number 57 22:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
By "sourcing", I meant WP:SIGCOV. I'm not suggesting these people don't exist, I'm saying they're not notable. The coverage is routine and local. – Levivich 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

I think that this discussion is symptomatic of a wider problem of the application of notability policy in wikipedia. There is a clear disparity in how strictly individual wikiprojects define notability, not just of biographies. In my experience as an academic with an interest in scientific articles and biographies of scientists, the bar defined in WP:NPROF for an academic to qualify for a biography on wikipedia is far far stricter than in minor sports players, TV shows, or even fictional characters in those TV shows! It makes no sense that any footballer who happens to kick a football around for some known team is eligible for a biography here, but those people who actually advance human knowledge and make new scientific discoveries worthy of inclusion in the sum of all human knowledge are subject to much more stringent test for notability. I would very much like to see a concerted effort to normalise notability criteria across wikiprojects, this could come from a wide reaching Request for Comment, or some other open review of notability policy / guidelines. Polyamorph (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. However, this simply reflects a fundamental flaw in the whole concept of WP:GNG, which many people are very attached to. And what alternative is there to GNG? Nigej (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
What alternative is there to GNG? How about N, which directly contradicts it, and is what we all learn on our first day on the encyclopedia? A project which doesn't work to brightline notability requirements is working to destroy itself. If the specific sources we are using are wrong, inappropriate, or insufficient, point that out before we use them for 15 years... Bobo. 09:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
And I'm sure that in like fashion, a rabid football fan could say that it makes no sense for fluffy-headed academics no one's ever heard of to be eligible for biographies at the expense of sports heroes both lionized in the media, and whose exploits are watched by hundreds of thousands of fans. Just as well they're not all Wikipedia editors so as to push their POV, huh? Sarcasm aside, Polyamorph's inference that academics are more worthy to receive biographical articles than sportsmen is a frequent argument, if a bankrupt one. That the world doesn't give sufficient notice to the people we think it should is sad, perhaps, but anything short of the GNG as an underpinning for our notability guidelines (and I'm bemused at the premise that WP:N, of which the GNG is a part, contradicts it) will result not only in anarchy, but I rather doubt that the fans of scholarly bio articles will like the outcome. Ravenswing 17:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The inference that academics are more worthy is yours, not mine. My point is that notability criteria across wikiprojects are not equally stringent. Polyamorph (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"It makes no sense that any footballer who happens to kick a football around for some known team is eligible for a biography here, but those people who actually advance human knowledge and make new scientific discoveries worthy of inclusion in the sum of all human knowledge" are your words, not mine. Indeed, referring to that rather contemptuous polemic as an "inference" is pretty dern charitable. But speaking of points, you're either missing or ignoring mine: that quite a large number of people likely disagree with you on what's important in the first place. Both NPROF and NFOOTY (for instance) set forth criteria defining notability in those fields. You can only claim that one guideline is more stringent than the other if you can likewise establish how many people in each field should be considered notable by the world. I submit that such is a highly subjective value judgment, and odds are there are about a hundred times as many football fans as partisans of academia to deem NFOOTY just about right.

Is that the setup I'd do myself if I were Dictator of Wikipedia? Probably not. But I rather doubt you'd care for some of my subjective judgments as to which field is more notable than another, which is why I strive not to proffer any. Ravenswing 01:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, I have not said that any one subject is more notable than another. I do not wish to argue the meaning of my own words with you, but to clarify: I meant that minor sports players get wikipedia bio's while equally or even less minor academics do not (even when reliable sources exist). Polyamorph (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's see if I can make this simpler: by what standards do you declare certain sports players OR academics "minor?" So far, I haven't seen a single thing from you parsing anything of the sort out except the observation that there are many more sports bio articles than academic bio articles. If this is distasteful to you, then you are making a value judgment as to the relative merit of sport vs academia. Own your own premise, if you please. Ravenswing 23:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
As I have said elsewhere, if we were to apply WP:NFOOTY standard to academics, then any researcher in an international recognised university/institution would be eligible provided verifiable sources are available. We do not do this. The standards not equivalent, there is an undeniable disparity. I find it rather weird that you insist on telling me what I meant by my own words. Nowhere do I say any subject is more notable than another. Stop suggesting I do.Polyamorph (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a bit absurd to try and make any kind of comparison between the two guidelines; professional sportspeople play in matches attended by thousands of people; the level of coverage their sports attract as a result is why they are notable. There is no equivalence to academics. Number 57 11:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I accept that it's difficult to make such a comparison. Although academics write papers which are then read by thousands. And contribute to the sum of all human knowledge. That is notable and often sources are readily available, but WP:NPROF has a strict bar on "minor" researchers. Of course they may seperately be eligible for an article under WP:GNG but the footballers I've made a comparison to are deemed notable solely because they've played professionally. So whereas I agree a direct comparison is impossible, in my opinion, and some others here, there is a distinct disparity in the application of subject specific notability guidelines. Polyamorph (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I daresay if we were each a dictator of Wikipedia, we would add only material we believe to be notable by our own standards and allow nobody else any say. As it is, every notability guideline has been fashioned through what has changed over time - for example, the recent adaptations for eligibility according to CRIN - technically nothing to do with the eligibility criteria themselves but all to do with categorizion according to the sport. Are, for example, all the players here acceptable by CRIN? The eligibility criteria applies to both men and women, right? @Lugnuts: Bobo. 02:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:N is underpinned by WP:V, in that Wikipedia can not make something notable, merely reflect what is notable in verified sources. So Wikipedia's bias, while exaggerated, merely mirrors society's imbalance. While we can have editing drives and contests to try and address the balance, we can't take it upon ourselves to try and unduly make things notable or not which are not reflected by what is verifiable. Harrias talk 17:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
An open review of notability guidelines sounds like a good idea. Has such a thing been done before? Any lessons we can draw from experience? – Levivich 17:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not quite clear what you would consider an open review of notability guidelines that has been done before. There are lots of conversations like this one on the talk pages of the various subject-specific notability guidelines and the notability guideline, where editors have drawn comparisons with other guidelines. The key point of difficulty, in my view, is that real-world notability is determined through an achievement-based standard. People who attain certain levels of accomplishment attract interest so people write biographies about them, be it small blurbs, local newspaper articles, featured articles in regional papers, books, and so forth. The problem is that for English Wikipedia to use an achievement-based standard, the community would have to come to a common understanding regarding what achievements are of greater consequence than another. Doing this by consensus in a large group, however, is very difficult, since as a group grows larger, the less likely it is to agree. Additionally, comparing accomplishments in very disparate fields and potentially across different geographical areas or cultural environments is hard.
Accordingly, English Wikipedia has chosen to evaluate notability by proxy: its editors look to see what significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources exist, as indications of real-world notability. Most of the subject-specific notability guidelines try to avoid unnecessary churn deleting and recreating articles if the appropriate sources have not been located right away, by providing rules of thumb that predict with a high degree of accuracy if the general notability guideline is met, given more time to search for sources. Some, most notably the academic notability guideline, provide additional guidance on determining what level of sourcing should be considered adequate in order for Wikipedia to have an article on the subject. isaacl (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Is this possible in every sport? A general, all-reaching "sports RfC" has been taken on in the past, unfortunately by people who were rather green to the project and who had little knowledge of the areas they were tackling. And if the questions we ask are also going to be answered by (some) people who know little to nothing about the areas they are discussing, such a discussion will achieve nothing and we'll end up where we started. Bobo. 21:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
For one example, in the Ranji Trophy cricket competition, these days - thanks to the more extensive records available, these guys don't just turn up. I will take one random name from the Ranji Trophy who made their first-class debut in the 2018-19 season - Sanvir Singh. Singh has 48 games on record for junior teams from December 2012 onwards, through to September 2018 when he made his first-class debut. And of those 11 players who played in his debut cricketing appearance, he is the only one who - as of today - has made first-class appearances. Bobo. 21:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Your indent level indicates used to indicate you're replying to me, but I'm not sure what you are referring to when you ask "is this possible". Can you clarify? isaacl (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My mistake, please forgive me, it's late. I was opening it up to the floor, to be honest. Although I would like to know what you think of course. Bobo. 21:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
So... again, what are you referring to by "this"? Do you mean a general, all-reaching sports RfC? This guideline was created precisely because a consensus of editors determined it was best to allow editors well-versed in the individual sports to craft their associated subject-specific notability guidelines, which would then be generally reviewed for inclusion on this page. Are you asking about an RfC to review this consensus decision, or something else? isaacl (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
An all-reaching sports RfC in which every single sport in the guidelines was listed and practically nobody responded other than cricket fans, and those who wished to complain about the cricket-related subject-specific guidelines, has already happened. It was ended in remarkably quick time, declared a train-wreck, and, as far as I remember, nothing changed - certainly with regard to cricket. Bobo. 21:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's what the original poster had in mind. If you are referring to the RfC I'm thinking of (where the closer for the followup discussion infamously generalized the comments being made on the sports notability guideline to all subject-specific notability guidelines), yeah, I don't count that as anything. The person who created it tried to launch separate conversations for each sport simultaneously, which was predictably unfruitful. The followup discussion was basically a waste of time, as it affirmed everything that is listed in the FAQ for the sports notability guideline, re-confirming once again that the FAQ has captured the consensus viewpoint. isaacl (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, obviously this needs to be a very well planned RfC open to all projects, not just sports. Polyamorph (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
What are you thinking of when you say "a concerted effort to normalise notability criteria"? Are you thinking of moving away from the general notability guideline to an achievement-based standard, and setting up equivalent levels of significant achievements across domains? I am dubious that the community will be able to reach a common agreement across all domains via a consensus; it's just too big. It may be more feasible for individual domains to shift to achievement-based standards, but since a global consensus would still have to ratify what subject matter experts come up with, I'm not sure if it's really probable to occur at this point. isaacl (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Isaacl:, WP:NPROF is essentially already an achievement-based standard. So by normalising notability criteria, I mean ensuring that the same standards are applied across subjects. I am aware that it is difficult to compare highly disparate subjects, but the current situation is that specific project notability guidelines have widely differing standards - this is what needs to be normalised. If we were to apply WP:NFOOTY standard to academics, then any researcher in an international recognised university/institution would be eligible provided verifiable sources are available. We do not do this. So the standards are absolutely not equivalent.Polyamorph (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
As I said, specific domains may be able to reach agreement. But my personal feeling is that it will very hard to get people to agree on equivalent levels of significance across domains, as the global editing community is too disparate to reach a consensus. The most likely way it could happen would be for a working group to be formed to make a recommendation. But the community has not been all that open to delegating its decision-making in this way. Looking at it from another direction, nothing really motivates the different parts of the community to agree to this. As long as each part feels capable of supporting the articles within its scope, they aren't too troubled about the standards in other areas. isaacl (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
You would hope that the sources we use already help an article comply to whatever people wish to believe GNG achieves - and if the question that needs to be asked all-round is whether the sources we use - and have done for at least 15 years - are appropriate, then this question is being asked 15 years too late. Bobo. 23:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Even if something is 15 years too late, does that mean you accept things the way they are just because it's been done that way for years? I understand how it would be challenging to implement, but that is not a strong argument against change -whatever that change may be, it might simply require tweaking of project specific guidelines. Polyamorph (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
You're asking that question the wrong way around. Do I accept things the way they are? Yes. Do I resist change because people come up out of nowhere and suddenly decide something is unacceptable having been given 15 years to decide this? Yes. If you had decided this 15 years ago, then I would probably have been fine, as long as there were clearly-defined boundaries. Of course, if there were no clearly-defined boundaries and we were working on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then I wouldn't accept it, full-stop. That kind of attitude destroys an NPOV project, and I don't know why anyone would want to contribute to a project which excludes certain aspects on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT. Bobo. 09:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I have not suggested excluding content. I suggested consistency in notability criteria. Presenting solutions rather than barriers would make for a much more productive discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Same answer. We have consistency in notability criteria, and have had for the last 15 years. Once again, you have said, "Let's change this" without suggesting, "This is how things should be changed". Why do people do this? Is it because they have no answer which we can implement universally with the project? Bobo. 09:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Not true, I suggested a wide ranging request for comment to normalise standards. Possibly this discussion should move to an alternative venue, a more general notability board, where there is less bias / POV towards a specific project. Polyamorph (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure you'd prefer that. Ravenswing 23:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The whole point of having a RFC is to judge the opinion across the whole of wikipedia, not just this specific project. Polyamorph (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd honestly like there to be a review of the WP:NPROF standards as they're not really based on WP:GNG, and it's really difficult to tell when an academic is notable or not for someone outside that world, whereas with football it's much easier (you play and then get written about.) SportingFlyer T·C 04:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, it may be that as you and others have suggested, subject specific reviews are needed. Polyamorph (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Polyamorph: Well, the one thing that's happened ever since a particular NPROF AfD is "Sports are too inclusive! NPROF is too exclusive!" without really discussing any of the other areas of the encyclopaedia. I personally don't think sports notability guidelines are "inclusive" since we follow WP:GNG and I think there's a false equivalency here that sports and NPROF need to be on the same playing field, where I see there needing to be a discussion about making NPROF simpler to understand, likely by writing a clarifying essay on what academic coverage satisfies WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
NPROF is a bit different from other notability guidelines as it is recognized that 1) Academics and the work they do are important part of what WP should document and 2) there is nowhere close to the amount of similar coverage of individual academics as you'd see in other BIO fields like sports - very little external and very little internal navel gazing. In other words, while many academics in time can be shown to meet the GNG, its far too high a bar too start with, and thus needs a much lower bar to promote the creation of academic articles based on what we know of the impact of their work - eg to make it more inclusive. NPROF is thus the most unique SNG and should not really be compared to NSPORT. --Masem (t) 19:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the number of unnecessary challenges we keep getting, where a player meets WP:N but might not meet WP:GNG, ending in long debates about how independent sources are, how many words is significant, etc., there seems to be no point making very precise criteria, unless they are elevated to be policy, rather than a guideline that can be trumped if the article doesn't meet WP:GNG - because it won't stop all the unnecessary AFDs. And quite frankly, I don't think we go there for footballers, unless we fix other aspects of WP:N first. Surely that there is a lot more GNG media coverage of footballers than rocket scientists is the root cause of the issue! Nfitz (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

HawkAussie’s suggestions

I know this has been said but we have to increase the criteria for the player to be notable so I have a few suggestions in mind. This will cover players who might not only join for players who only got on because they were a sub. HawkAussie (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Number Critera Leagues
(1) Must played at least one start (not sub) in the big five leagues English Premier League
La Liga
Bundesliga
Serie A
Ligue 1
(2) Must have at least five starts (not subs) in the other top leagues that is a professional league + 2nd division of the top leagues Russian Premier League
Super Lig
Segunda Division
EFL Championship
Danish Superliga
(3) Must have at least ten starts in professional leagues that are not the top division J2 League
LigaPro
Uruguayan Segunda División
I Liga
USL Championship
(4) Must have played in at least one tier one international senior match FIFA World Cup
UEFA European Championship
AFC Asian Cup
Starts v subs won't work - are you saying somebody who starts 1 game is notable but somebody who comes on a sub 50 times isn't?! GiantSnowman 09:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That is why I have set that to such a low amount, knowing partially because of my thinking about it because let's be honest if they only did ten minutes on the field in a league match that wasn't big are they really notable. HawkAussie (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
We go through this every few months and nobody has ever been able to justify the number chosen for 'notability', other than the clear bright line between 0 and 1. GiantSnowman 10:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
And the (unlikely) scenario of player starting, but being subbed off after one minute due to injury, and the sub playing the remaining 89 minutes. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Has there ever been a player who has subbed 50 times, never started, and is notable? – Levivich 13:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Probably. But Snowman's partially right: no one's ever justified the numbers chosen. I concede it's a daunting task to do so, but I really do want to see some evidence first that isn't anecdotal ("there are too many FOOTY bios/FOOTY AfDs") -- to wit, an examination of what percentages of players at what level actually do meet the GNG. Without that, my vote would be to reject any change in the current standards. Ravenswing 13:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
There are players known for being "super subs" (eg Ole Gunnar Solskjær). Oh @Lugnuts: that has happened - see this where the goalkeeper was subbed after 3 minutes. GiantSnowman 13:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Ole Gunnar Solksjaer would get in under HawkAussie’s criteria #4. Are there any players that wouldn’t make the grade under HawkAussie’s suggested criteria that should? – Levivich 14:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I think an SNG should have as small an error bar as possible - that is people who are either presumed notable who are not or who are not presumed notable who are. For sports I think that a truly small error bar (no more than 3-5% either way) is achievable. My preference would be that the error bar be made in presuming people are not notable (requiring GNG notability) - because these are mostly BLPs. Am I correct Giant and Ravens that you would prefer the opposite - that the error bar be made in being overly inclusive? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ravenswing: I think your evidence-based approach is the right one, and it’s the reason I’ve been tracking AfDs this year. To me, the evidence suggests that players with less than 10 games in lower-tier leagues almost always fail GNG. Do you think the data collected so far (on my table) supports this? If not, is it a matter of more data, or different data? – Levivich 14:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: I completely disagree with the "10 games in lower tier leagues almost always fail WP:GNG," especially in the bigger leagues. If a lower tier league is fully professional, there's almost always coverage. I think the bigger issue is some of the leagues on the fully pro list need to be looked at again (no way is the Albanian second division a fully professional league, for instance.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
IMHO several of the leagues that are listed at FPL are in fact semi-pro or close to being semi-pro. It's one thing to include leagues whose average wage is, say, over 10 times the average wage in the country. Our current bar - includes leagues that pay an average wage that is similar to the national average wage (and even lower - e.g. in some of the US farm tier-2/3 leagues) - that are far from venues that get covered intensively (in the US case - these actually get less coverage that top-tier college teams). Leagues that have low average wages (close to the national average wage) - are usually there either as development parking zones for upper leagues, or have players who concurrently pursue other careers. Icewhiz (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there any evidence for the conclusion that if a lower tier league is fully professional, there's almost always coverage? So far this year, the community has looked at 39 articles of players that played in fully-professional leagues or otherwise met NFOOTY, and the found GNG-satisfying sources for like maybe five of them. What do those five have in common? 100+ games. Out of the group of 39, 16 articles were deleted. What did those 16 all have in common? Less than 10 games (most, less than 5 games). – Levivich 16:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with SF that a far better use of time would be to try and refine WP:FPL rather than WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that would be a great approach, but editors tried to start the conversation in April and again just last week at WT:FPL#Clear and Objective definition, but it didn't seem to pick up steam. – Levivich 21:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, isn't this misleading in the sense that the ones that end up at AfD will overwhelmingly be at the bottom of the quality scale? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Except there's more than 5 which pass WP:GNG on that list, you have an admitted bias and you're cherry picking to suit your point of view. Of those 39, 16 were deleted, 5 of which were from a US league whose professionalism at the time the players played is at least questionable. 7 were edge cases, who were substitutes who played only in one or two matches, including some which arguably passed WP:GNG. There's Narong Kakada, who has lots of English language coverage but only as a youth international, so a WP:TOOSOON. So looking at WP:GNG seems to be working in these edge cases. For the ones that you claim WP:GNG is not satisfied for, I disagree with you. See Arturo Rodríguez (footballer, born 1990) or Ma Sang-hoon. Even in the withdrawns your WP:GNG analysis is incorrect, for instance Paul Arano needs to have a better article but a quick search shows there's plenty of coverage available, especially since he was named to a Copa America squad. There are only two results on your list which I believe should not have been kept which were on WP:GNG grounds. It actually shows the current ecosystem works, especially when you look at WP:NFOOTY failures. The few which were kept were notable on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this sample set isn't ideal for determining issues with the SNG. However, it also doesn't help show that the SNG is correctly calibrated - if Levivch's contention 8 July is correct and there are 5 reasonable AfD targets out of a pool of 28 created articles well that's a bad sign. But one day of data is not enough for me to say conclusively that this SNG is miscalibrated especially not all of us may agree with even the 5 that Levivich identified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: I likewise agree that gauging off of AfDs is poor methodology. The only way I can see to do it properly is to test NFOOTY randomly, at the lowest level of presumptive notability. Grab 25 random players at the lowest notable tier who've played just a single game (I recommend using the first surname at letters of the alphabet), and see if that player can meet the GNG, and do it in the most marginal leagues on their list: let's say the Belarusian First League, the Gamma Ethniki, the Myanmar National League, the South African National First Division and the like. If you get, say, 90-95% notability, the guideline's just about right. If you get 100%, it's too tight. If you get, say, 80% or worse, then it needs tightening. Ravenswing 18:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@BK and RW: I also agree that the self-selection bias makes going by AfDs not very reliable. Random sampling by day of creation, or by league, are both interesting alternative methodologies for collecting the data. I think I might try both of those and I'll post what I find here. Thank you! – Levivich 21:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Of CptViraj's AfDs of biographies of living people, as mentioned by Levivich below, Niranjan Pujari was speedy-kept due to withdrawal, Ma Sang-hoon was speedy-kept, and Faisal Rahman was deleted because it was created by a banned user. Does it pass some kind of political guideline? I don't know the political guidelines at all. THIS was the AfD discussion in question and was deleted per CSD G5. Bobo. 03:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@SF: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma Sang-hoon was a "keep per NFOOTY" AfD. There was no discussion at all of GNG. It's the kind of thing that the FAQ above, Q2 and Q5, suggests shouldn't happen, but it does happen. – Levivich 21:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, Sure that's a not a great set of !votes but the 6th result of searching for the name (after which I stopped) in Korean gives me this which would be the sort of source I would expect to have that establishes notability. A SNG's value should come in giving the benefit of the doubt to people for whom showing GNG is hard but probably are notable. That doesn't mean that NFOOT is calibrated correctly but less than the platonic ideal of !votes don't suggest it's miscalibrated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion

  • This 'article', - for example. I know I keep droning on about this in various places, but this article is typical of the reason why I totally fail to understand why academics are considered non-notable by default until they have jumped through many, many hoops, but the quarter million bios about soccer players are nearly all like this. Something needs to be done about this kind of SNG. Popularity of the subject (as demonstrated here, unfortunately) is not a reason to debase our notability quality to almost nothing. Problem is that when this kind of thing goes to RfC, naturally all the soccer fans turn out to vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
    Your concern seems to be that it's too high for academics? So seek to lower it. The difference is (and struggle you will have) is that Average Joe will not be able to name acadmics, but will be able to name hundreds of 'soccer' players. It's the most popular sport in the world, get over it. Kind regards, a 'soccer' fan. GiantSnowman 07:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn't made for 'soccer' fans as a compendium for all things football just because it's popular. Kudpung has a legitimate concern, I believe there should be more parity in notability guidelines across all subjects to maintain quality of the project. Polyamorph (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    GiantSnowman, that's a pretty poor statement coming from an admin who should be committed to upholding the highest standards of articles on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    It was what your comment merited. The issue isn't that NFOOTBALL is too lax, the issue is that there are too many editors who don't apply it. Just because you don't like the sport don't dismiss its worldwide popularity (which should be reflected on Wikipedia). GiantSnowman 14:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    This guy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Lucas played for 10 minutes in an WP:FPL-listed league seven years ago, has no sources even coming close to significant coverage, and, um, well, shit, look at that AfD. "Keep, passes NFOOTY." That is so, so wrong. It is not happening because football is popular–Chris Lucas is not popular, or notable; nobody cares–it's because we have a stupid, arbitrary rule that is being used to create a complete professional football directory with enwiki's resources. – Levivich 02:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Given the media coverage of Lucas it's clearly not true to say "nobody cares", what you really mean is "I don't care or like football/footballers". Just admit your bias and move on. GiantSnowman 08:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    There isn't any significant media coverage of Lucas. If there were, it would be "Keep, passes GNG" instead of "Keep, passes NFOOTY". – Levivich 15:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sources have been located and listed at the AFD. Keep the discussion on individual notability there, not here. GiantSnowman 15:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    I totally agree about not arguing individual notability here, but that's not my point. My point is to debunk your point, that the reason there are so many footballer BLPs is because football is so popular. This is not true. The reason there are so many footballer BLPs is because we have a rule that essentially says every professional footballer gets his own Wikipedia page. At least, this is how NFOOTY is applied in reality, as can be seen at that AfD, where–contrary to what you wrote–sources have not been listed. In fact, there are zero independent, secondary sources (never mind in-depth) in either the AfD or the article, and yet there are many "Keep, meets NFOOTY" !votes, which demonstrates that people are !voting to keep footballer BLPs not because they're "popular" (or notable, in which case they'd meet GNG), but simply because they meet our own made-up rule (NFOOTY).
    The bottom line is, you argue that what we have here is natural, the natural result of following sources, because football is so popular and so well covered. And what I'm saying is, no, it's not natural, it's artificial. We are not following sources, but artificially creating notability (it's WP:CITOGENESIS, actually) by applying an invented (arbitrary) rule. – Levivich 16:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    No, because NFOOTBALL gives the presumption of GNG being met based on their professional status. You know that there have been multiple AFDs where NFOOTBALL is technically met and GNG is not and the article has been deleted. So what's your problem? If you want to scrap NFOOTBALL then you need to scrap every profession-specific guide and just replace it with GNG. But why aren't you going after other professions? Why are you fixated with football? GiantSnowman 16:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    My problem (well, one of many) is that it's not treated as a presumption by AfD !voters, as can be seen at that AfD. Why start with footy? Because it's the lowest-hanging fruit. It has the broadest SNG, and as an obvious consequence, the most stand-alone articles. And by a wide margin: like, more footballer BLPs than all other athletes combined. One in every six BLPs, and now (these past couple months) approaching one in three new BLPs being created. There are people using NFOOTY to stub out entire leagues, one league after another, literally creating a stand-alone page for every player in every pro league in the history of Earth. We don't see this volume anywhere else. 41,000 football BLP stubs. No one will ever expand all of them. Never. Something Must Be Done™. If it's any consolation, I'm only beginning at NFOOTY, I don't plan on stopping there, as you're right that this problem extends to other SNGs. It's just NFOOTY is the worst offender by number of non-notable BLPs. (By the way, we haven't even got to non-BLPs yet, which is a whole 'nother conversation.) – Levivich 16:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    For better or worse, English Wikipedia has chosen not to rely on the expertise of its individual editors, so it's crafted standards of having an article based on independent, reliable, non-promotional, non-routine coverage of a person. Popularity is a key factor in the existence of such coverage, which affects the mix of biographies in Wikipedia. While English Wikipedia decision-making traditions continue to be based on consensus, it may be hard to change this. But since the editing population has stabilized, a practical approach based on the number of articles that can be written annually might be considered. Yes, I know there's no deadline, but there's also not much use in having an indefinite number of stubs pile up, waiting. When the crowds come, the articles can be created. isaacl (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Some new info to share:
    • In response to comments from Ravenswing, Barkeep49 and others in the discussion above about methodology, I picked a day of the month (the 7th, going off of my listing of the July 7, 2019 article creations above), and collected a list of every footballer BLP created on the 7th of every month for the past 12 months at User:Levivich/sandbox2. I hope this will provide a better random sampling of article creations–but it's a ton to go through.
    • In the roughly six weeks between July 5 and August 18, 2019, the number of articles in Category:Living people increased by 6,339. Of those, 1,816 (29%, or 1:3.5) had Template:Infobox football biography. (details)
    • Léonard Mendy is an example of a BLP sourced to a single primary source. Page size: 2,311 bytes. As of today, 95,996 footballer BLPs, or 66% of all footballer BLPs, are under 5,000 bytes, and 41,752 footballer BLPs, or 29%, are, like Léonard Mendy, under 2,500 bytes. (details) – Levivich 03:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
      While I had trouble falling asleep I made this chart which looks at some info from the May pull Levivich did. I haven't looked at GNG at all but of the 24 men, I would be very confident of notability of 18, would be very surprised if 1 is notable (Bates - who I think qualifies under the current SNG but I would need someone to confirm that English League One was fully proessional the season he played), and the other 5 could go either way though I suspect 4 or all 5 would be kept at AfD, though importantly not all qualify under the SNG, though I think it less likely that the two USL players would be kept at AfD if we were to adopt Aussie's SNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the English Football League is and always has been fully-professional. Respctfully, this kind of ignorance from well meaning editors about football is causing way more stress and work than is needed. GiantSnowman 08:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I'm sorry that my question caused you stress. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Your question didn't, but I apoligise for my expression of frustration. What I'm trying to say is that non-footballer editors trying to mess with football is less than ideal, as you don't know the sport like we do. GiantSnowman 15:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
What is there to know about it when it's all about simply producing 7-word stubs and a source to a squad listing? That isn't the kind of in-depth, academic, and intellectual research some do for the more traditional encyclopedic articles articles. What I do notice is an abundance of behaviour among so-called Wikipedia footy editors that reflects the hive mentality in the stands. No one needs to know owt about soccer to be able to block the massive vandalism that happens every year around this time on soccer articles. FWIW, GiantSnowman, you'll be pleased to know that I never touch footy stubs with a barge pole when I'm on patrol at NPP. It would not be worth risking my life to PROD one of them... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@KP: ...and if you did BLPPROD them, someone would just remove the PROD and add a link to a primary football statistics database website, as happened with Léonard Mendy and, AFAICT, just about every footballer BLPPROD ever. So long as primary football statistics databases are considered "sources" for BLPPROD purposes, BLPPROD is useless for footballer BLPs. – Levivich 16:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
And speaking as a hardcore sports fan and editor who can look a few feet away and see my Wolverhampton Wanderers baseball cap, that's an unproductive attitude ... because the elephant in the room is this. Let's face the truth: not a single sports SNG was set up based on a genuine analysis of what constituted notability vis-a-vis the GNG. The best any project did was guess; as often, the resulting criteria reflected the prejudices of the editors involved. The footy editors (in a sport with rich traditions of sub-top-flight play and where a national champion one year could be relegated a few years later) declared lower tiers notable. The baseball editors went the other route, and declined to establish any sort of notability for even top minor leagues playing in major metropolitan areas. No one did any serious evaluation, and we haven't really earned the right to thump our chests and proclaim that our SNGs are above questioning because We Know Our Sport. Ravenswing 16:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
That might well be the case, but every few months we go through this song and dance - somebody doesn't like the sports SNGs (usually NFOOTBALL) causes a big fuss and nobody has ever been able to suggest a half-decent alternative. GiantSnowman 16:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Several half-decent alternatives have been suggested: increase the minimum number of games, change to minimum number of minutes, change from "fully pro league" to "top tier league", and–which I think may be the best one I've seen yet–there's HawkAussie's tiered suggestion above at #HawkAussie's suggestions. We have tried none of these suggestions, so far. – Levivich 16:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Because none of them work (and are therefore not half-decent). GiantSnowman 16:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't know that because we've never tried it. I wish you'd lend your support to at least trying something, but in order to do that, you'd have to believe that there's a problem that needs fixing in the first place. The unbridgeable ideological divide between us is that I think creating 20–30 footballer BLP stubs per day is a problem that needs addressing, and you don't. You're OK with the encyclopedia having 40,000 footballer BLP stubs. You want the encyclopedia to list the stats for every professional footballer that every played, and I don't. Neither of us is objectively "right" or "wrong", we just have two different visions of what the encyclopedia should be. Now, I say my vision is closer to the broad longstanding consensus documented at WP:NOT, and I don't really understand how you defend your vision in line with WP:NOT, but there we are. – Levivich 16:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
But what is working? The goal of any SNG is that 100% of notable people and 0% of non-notable people (where GNG=N) are included. No SNG achieves this perfection. The question becomes for FOOTY how well is the current SNG encompassing notable people and what percent of non-notable people are being presumed notable under it? The idea that 25%+ of all new BLPs are FOOTY is astounding to me but if the reason for that that is simply that FOOTY editors are expanding coverage of notable people faster than editors in other areas then the problem to solve might how do we help encourage creation in other areas not how do we stop FOOTY creation. I suspect that FOOTY fans passion is the overwhelming reason behind the number of BLPs created and that only a small percentage of newly created articles are not notable. However it could be that a different SNG criteria, like the one HawkAussie suggested above, would do a better job of reducing the error rate - that is fewer people are deemed notable who aren't while encompassing as many notable people. But I don't know if this is true. Nor does Levivich or anyone. This is where a good sample set could help us figure out where, if at all, the SNG could be refined. But that will take time. And it's understandable GiantSnowman that given your Wiki work, including fighting off vandals, that you'll not partake in the research and will instead just participate in the discussion. Personally that doesn't bother me as we can certainly benefit from the knowledge you bring beyond my roughly 500 hours of playing Football Manager. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
A key goal of the sports-specific notability guidelines is to promote stability: no use deleting an article that doesn't currently contain any citations that illustrate that the general notability guideline is met, if there is extremely good reason to believe that appropriate citations can be found. Accordingly, it's not necessary for 100% of sports figures who meet Wikipedia's standards of having an article to be covered by the corresponding sports-specific notability guideline. This would be ideal, of course, but even achieving a high degree of stability is a good practical approach. It is better to draw the line relatively conservatively in the other direction, though, to allow a deletion discussion to focus on the subject itself rather than re-hashing through the sports-specific criteria. So I think a sports-specific guideline should focus on avoiding false positives to a very high degree, and not putting as high an emphasis on false negatives. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
That sort of quick stability and acceptance is by far the biggest value that SNGs offer. It's nice, to pick something from my area of content creation, that I can create a Caldecott honor stub (example stub start), and return later to flesh out the article (example now. Well that's where the rubber hits the road. I would agree that I would prefer false negatives to false positives as the existence of the SNG can make deletion discussions more difficult. However, I respect those who might make a different value judgement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, to look at it from another direction: if someone is using any subject-specific notability guideline to decide upon creating an article, and an actual false negative is encountered, the author should be motivated to dig deeper for citations that will meet the general notability guideline. This will help avoid a deletion discussion. A false positive, however, can cause additional deletion discussions to ensue. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Eeesh. It's not that "no other alternative works." It's not that anyone has a fantasy that any standard will be 100% perfect -- can we stop being absurd about this? It's that no one's taken the bit in the teeth and done an actual survey to see whether a particular standard can hit 90-95% accuracy, and be prepared to tweak it as better data comes in. If there are as many footy-interested editors as all of that, there must be a critical mass of editors willing to cooperate on that legwork. This isn't a matter of that it's impossible. This is a matter of inertia, and it wouldn't hurt for the naysayers to be honest about that. Ravenswing 18:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I wrote the FAQ on testing any proposed criterion, so yeah, I agree. My main point wasn't the cutoff levels, but that I don't see sports-specific notability criteria as a symmetric test with respect to false negatives and false positives. isaacl (talk)

If we adopt HawkAussie's proposal (or even just test it), apparently making 1 start in the Premier League and being substituted after 45 minutes makes you more notable than making 20 appearances as a substitute and playing for 300 minutes? GiantSnowman 18:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. Given your knowledge, is there a real life example of someone who made 20 appearances as you described before they made a single start for a team in one of the big five? The players in this list all seem like they would have qualified in a reasonable manner (for instance the story's about Crouch but under HawkAussie's proposal he'd have qualified for his play with QPR). But again this is where I don't have the knowledge of the history of the sport to talk intelligently. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The sub scenario might be addressed by using language like, "1 start or 50 total minutes", "5 starts or 250 total minutes", etc. – Levivich 19:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Sure but simpler is better so is this an issue which actually happens? My 15 minutes or so of Googling found nothing (though I did enjoy learning about Carlton Cole) but I am not confident that this level of search can conclusively say much of anything other 15 minutes or so didn't find anything. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree simpler is better and my hunch is that there are relatively few "notable career subs" who fit this profile–that they're the exception that prove the rule–and thus this complication would be unnecessary. But if I'm wrong, and using just X number of starts would exclude many notable career subs, then it is possible to address this, either by specifying minutes, or even just with a footnote that says "for purposes of this SNG, X number of subs = 1 start", or some other tweak. But the possible existence of notable career subs isn't, in and of itself, a reason not to try HawkAussie's tiered approach (or some other change). – Levivich 20:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, simpler is better - hence the '1 appearance = notable' general presumption. Also yes there is such thing as a 'super sub' (just Google it). You have players who make regular 1st team appearances from the bench only - for example out of Oli McBurnie's 15 league apparances for Bradford City, only 2 were starts. GiantSnowman 20:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The proposals are too complicated and time-consuming for NPP to enforce. Lets keep it simple, as is but one sentence stubs could be discouraged by topic bans for the prolific offenders, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Could a compromise be that these one sentence perma-stubs be merged into lists. There are already many lists of people who play football (Lists of association football players) surely if an article contains little more than the information already included in these lists then there is no justification for an independent article. If sources provide sufficient content to expand individual pages then they can be expanded while maintaining their place on the list article. Polyamorph (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I am pro-stub, purely from a 'if we start it others will expand it' mindset. However I agree that having dozens/hundreds/thousands of one0line stubs about notable but minor players, with no real scope for expansion, is not ideal. GiantSnowman 07:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Circling back to this, I find the idea of "we don't want permastubs" an interesting starting point. According to the table on WikiProject football assessment 166k/352k (47%) of the articles are stubs (no telling how many of these are BLPs). By comparison the percentage for Baseball is 32%, American Football is 48%, Basketball is 25%, Rugby (combined) is 40%, Ice Hockey is 47%, and cricket is 59%. So FOOTY is in-line with other sports. I'm curious what the numbers would be if we could limit it to BLPs and what the age of those stubs are. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I can't figure out how to get football-BLP-stub counts, either, but I'm fairly certain someone who knows how to write SQL queries could get these counts. – Levivich 20:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_33&oldid=1073232710"