Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability

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

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

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

message: ===1st proposal: "A-list" clubs===
I'll make one suggestion to get us started. I think part of the problem with FOOTYN is that is not detailed enough, and so we end up having to decide delicate matters of notability with a large, blunt tool, as opposed to a precise one. I think the current notability criteria causes imbalance, because not all professional clubs have similar inherent notabilities. For example, a club playing in the Venezuelan second division is a lot less notable than a big international club such as Manchester United or Real Madrid. I would propose that simply being assigned a first team squad number for United is a more notable sporting achievement (and in fact probably one that makes the subject more well known to the general international public) than playing a full season for a club in the Venezuelan second division, but at present FOOTYN doesn't reflect that.
What I propose is compiling a list of "A-list" clubs, players associated with which have a lower threshold for notability than those associated with other teams. What does everyone think? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, media coverage tends to focus on a particular league rather than a particular club (even Atlético Madrid received less weekly coverage after its relegation in 2000). Accordingly, I believe the proper focus is on particular leagues that generate enough media coverage of the players plying their trade in the league. Jogurney (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough, that's kind of what I meant. "A-list" leagues could work in exactly the same way. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My limited experience suggests that current media coverage (English- or local-language sources) of football leagues is strongest for the following leagues: Premier League, La Liga, Fußball-Bundesliga, Serie A, Ligue 1, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Primera División de México and Primera División Argentina. There are several other leagues that appear to have strong coverage, but at a lower level, such as Eredivisie, Scottish Premier League, Russian Premier League, Portuguese Liga, Allsvenskan, Gambrinus liga, Superleague Greece, Süper Lig, Liga I, Ekstraklasa, A-League, Major League Soccer and J. League Division 1. I don't read Arabic, but I suspect that top-tier Moroccan, Algerian, Egyptian, Saudi, Emirati and Qatari leagues may have similar coverage. I'm sure I have missed some leagues which get a decent amount of coverage (possibly the Serbian SuperLiga) so please don't take offense. Jogurney (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason we have to be restricted to just two tiers. We could have a "top tier" consisting of the English, Spanish, Italian and German top-level leagues, for example, and several tiers below that. Alternatively we could keep it simple with two tiers, but the crux of what I'm trying to suggest is that I think the very top clubs (and thus their players) should be afforded special recognition in terms of notability. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

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

text: This issue was recently discussed at WT:FOOTY (here, and to me it looks like we have moved away from the fact that the season ends in June/July, since noone really knows this and the IP's are changing this right after the season ends. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True. We could establish that the league should be changed after the club in question's final game in their old league is complete, or whatever else. I'm not trying to dictate what the standard should be, I'm just suggesting that we should have an established standard which is documented and easy to refer to. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought it would be more tidy to work off the date of the last match in the league in which the team is competing. It's probably a bit pedantic but it is a clearly defined line in the sand. Hack (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Flag days don't work. Just accept that during periods of change, our coverage will be erratic. I should really write an essay on this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this free-n-easy approach is that players end up being quoted as playing in one league, and then actually play in another that weekend. This isn't erratic, it's plain old inaccurate. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhall per main project talk page 

message: I'll make one suggestion to get us started. I think part of the problem with FOOTYN is that is not detailed enough, and so we end up having to decide delicate matters of notability with a large, blunt tool, as opposed to a precise one. I think the current notability criteria causes imbalance, because not all professional clubs have similar inherent notabilities. For example, a club playing in the Venezuelan second division is a lot less notable than a big international club such as Manchester United or Real Madrid. I would propose that simply being assigned a first team squad number for United is a more notable sporting achievement (and in fact probably one that makes the subject more well known to the general international public) than playing a full season for a club in the Venezuelan second division, but at present FOOTYN doesn't reflect that.
What I propose is compiling a list of "A-list" clubs, players associated with which have a lower threshold for notability than those associated with other teams. What does everyone think? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, media coverage tends to focus on a particular league rather than a particular club (even Atlético Madrid received less weekly coverage after its relegation in 2000). Accordingly, I believe the proper focus is on particular leagues that generate enough media coverage of the players plying their trade in the league. Jogurney (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough, that's kind of what I meant. "A-list" leagues could work in exactly the same way. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My limited experience suggests that current media coverage (English- or local-language sources) of football leagues is strongest for the following leagues: Premier League, La Liga, Fußball-Bundesliga, Serie A, Ligue 1, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Primera División de México and Primera División Argentina. There are several other leagues that appear to have strong coverage, but at a lower level, such as Eredivisie, Scottish Premier League, Russian Premier League, Portuguese Liga, Allsvenskan, Gambrinus liga, Superleague Greece, Süper Lig, Liga I, Ekstraklasa, A-League, Major League Soccer and J. League Division 1. I don't read Arabic, but I suspect that top-tier Moroccan, Algerian, Egyptian, Saudi, Emirati and Qatari leagues may have similar coverage. I'm sure I have missed some leagues which get a decent amount of coverage (possibly the Serbian SuperLiga) so please don't take offense. Jogurney (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason we have to be restricted to just two tiers. We could have a "top tier" consisting of the English, Spanish, Italian and German top-level leagues, for example, and several tiers below that. Alternatively we could keep it simple with two tiers, but the crux of what I'm trying to suggest is that I think the very top clubs (and thus their players) should be afforded special recognition in terms of notability. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

text: You're missing the point. This isn't about WP:GNG - every subject must pass GNG. The point of additional notability guidelines is to establish a set of conditions under which we presume that the subject passes GNG. That is what we are trying to do here. I would imagine any player in the United first team would be easy to verify using reliable sources, and simply having a first team squad number for such a club is a strong indication that the subject passes GNG. Conversely, I don't think that appearing for a team in the Venezuelan second league is a strong indication that the subject passes GNG, and yet under our current guidelines the latter player is deemed notable and the former not. I don't think this is logical. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st proposal: "A-list" clubs

message: This has been well established in previous discussions and so is nothing new, but the project would still benefit from having it written into the proposed "constitution" that was discussed on the main topic page. Current consensus is that when a team is relegated from/promoted to a league, they do not officially change leagues until the current season ends (which is usually around June). We should establish a specific date for use on wikipedia for when clubs officially change leagues. Obviously exceptions will have to be made for leagues that run at different times of year to the European leagues and don't end anywhere near June. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue was recently discussed at WT:FOOTY (here, and to me it looks like we have moved away from the fact that the season ends in June/July, since noone really knows this and the IP's are changing this right after the season ends. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: True. We could establish that the league should be changed after the club in question's final game in their old league is complete, or whatever else. I'm not trying to dictate what the standard should be, I'm just suggesting that we should have an established standard which is documented and easy to refer to. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought it would be more tidy to work off the date of the last match in the league in which the team is competing. It's probably a bit pedantic but it is a clearly defined line in the sand. Hack (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Flag days don't work. Just accept that during periods of change, our coverage will be erratic. I should really write an essay on this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this free-n-easy approach is that players end up being quoted as playing in one league, and then actually play in another that weekend. This isn't erratic, it's plain old inaccurate. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Second proposal: promotion and relegation

message: I feel this essay needs major overhaul to bring it up to scratch. GiantSnowman 12:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, or at least, an overhaul/complete rewrite. I suggested this at NSport a few days ago and you seemed to think the wording was basically OK. Eldumpo (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Well it's made clear in the intro that player notability is determined via Wp:Nsport. We could delete the old wording for completeness. Eldumpo (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wording along the lines of "The relevant Wikipedia policies which focus on player notability is WP:NFOOTBALL, which says..." ? GiantSnowman 19:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a little bit concerned about pre-professional footballers who didn't represent their country and NFOOTY doesn't mention anywhere – they didn't play in a fully professional league, but some would deserve inclusion. Or it's a matter of passing GNG? – Kosm1fent 19:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We should match NFOOTBALL 100%, and any changes should be made on that page - but it would be down to GNG, again. GiantSnowman 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Everything should pass GNG ;) GiantSnowman 19:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the main one that needs sorting out. Different countries use different cup entry criteria so it just doesn't work to have a "rule" where cup entry indicates some kind of notability. At the moment there are too many non-notable clubs that just get a free pass because they played in a preliminary round of a cup sometime in the last 100 years, even though they don't receive any sort of independent coverage. BigDom 13:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I have now drawn attention to the Club Notability Tables (and Test) at WT:FOOTY. Kind regards. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think don't true for old definition of WP:FOOTYN. It is fixed national cups such as Thai FA Cup, Chinese FA Cup, Emperor's Cup and etc. to determine Notability of Football club. It doesn't true because a lot of clubs don't join any national level of the league structure in countries can play national cups. especially knock-out national cups. You must fixed national league structure in countries and don't fixed national cups. Aquaelfin (talk) 4:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Maybe the wording should change to say 'the main national cup' rather than 'national cups', as in the case of England the FA Sunday Cup would otherwise confer notability on a lot of sunday leagues. Eldumpo (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, of course. – Kosm1fent 08:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Our player notability should match WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's made clear in the intro that player notability is determined via Wp:Nsport. We could delete the old wording for completeness. Eldumpo (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wording along the lines of "The relevant Wikipedia policies which focus on player notability is WP:NFOOTBALL, which says..." ? GiantSnowman 19:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a little bit concerned about pre-professional footballers who didn't represent their country and NFOOTY doesn't mention anywhere – they didn't play in a fully professional league, but some would deserve inclusion. Or it's a matter of passing GNG? – Kosm1fent 19:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We should match NFOOTBALL 100%, and any changes should be made on that page - but it would be down to GNG, again. GiantSnowman 19:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player notability 

message: Perhaps here we should make it more clear that clubs articles, especially those about low division teams, should pass GNG? – Kosm1fent 19:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything should pass GNG ;) GiantSnowman 19:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the main one that needs sorting out. Different countries use different cup entry criteria so it just doesn't work to have a "rule" where cup entry indicates some kind of notability. At the moment there are too many non-notable clubs that just get a free pass because they played in a preliminary round of a cup sometime in the last 100 years, even though they don't receive any sort of independent coverage. BigDom 13:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I have now drawn attention to the Club Notability Tables (and Test) at WT:FOOTY. Kind regards. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think don't true for old definition of WP:FOOTYN. It is fixed national cups such as Thai FA Cup, Chinese FA Cup, Emperor's Cup and etc. to determine Notability of Football club. It doesn't true because a lot of clubs don't join any national level of the league structure in countries can play national cups. especially knock-out national cups. You must fixed national league structure in countries and don't fixed national cups. Aquaelfin (talk) 4:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Club notability 

message: I'm pretty happy with the wording there. – Kosm1fent 19:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the wording should change to say 'the main national cup' rather than 'national cups', as in the case of England the FA Sunday Cup would otherwise confer notability on a lot of sunday leagues. Eldumpo (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, of course. – Kosm1fent 08:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  League notability 

message: This is possibly the most badly written thing I have ever seen. When was the "pre-professional (amateur era)"? Which country are we talking about? Are countries that have never had professional football still in the amateur era, are players in the national divisions in those leagues notable? BigDom (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Undoubtedly referring to early British/European football (i.e. pre-1914?) GiantSnowman 09:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, I know that (not sure about the 1914 date though, I would have said pre-1890-ish) but I doubt our more international editors would have been able to fathom that. Have you ever seen this criterion used as a rationale for deletion/keeping? Does it really serve any purpose? Surely these players would just have to come under the remit of GNG anyway. BigDom (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I said 1914 purely because the criteria was probably written at the same time as this category was created. GiantSnowman 10:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player notability criterion 4 

message: I would like some clarification on point 1 of player notability, when it says that a player has played a game for a full-pro team does that include single testimonial games as well?  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, point 2, "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable"? And no, that does not mean testimonials, that is just a friendly match. GiantSnowman 19:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't. Point 1 says "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure" and that is what I was asking about. Is the original point made still valid?  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about WP:NFOOTBALL which is what we use nowadays. Nobody ever cites this essay, it's not fit for purpose. GiantSnowman 19:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player notability clarification 

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

message: I just had a  on FK Borac Ostružnica overturned because it previously survived an AfD in 2011. The reason it survived is because the club was in the Round of 32 in the 2011 Serbian Cup (I have added this fact to the club article to prevent further CSD nominations). My question is "At what point do we draw the line regarding national cup competitions?" I can agree that the Round of 32 in any national cup competition is enough to meet WP:FOOTYN, as that level should include most (if not all) clubs from the top tier and those from lower tiers skilled enough (or lucky enough) to advance that far. Any other thoughts? — Jkudlick tcs 02:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Playing in the tournament proper (i.e. not the qualifications) has always been deemed to be sufficient. GiantSnowman 09:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of club notability criterion regarding national cups 

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

message: Is there any chance we could set definite paremeters for the notability of clubs in England? For years we've had discussions regarding whether clubs that have competed in the FA Vase are notable. (here, here and here amongst many others).
The semi-agreed consensus has always been that a club that has competed in the FA Cup, Trophy, Amateur Cup or Vase is worthy of an article.
There are thousands upon thousands of clubs who have competed in one of the above four competitions. Hundreds of these will have played fewer than a handful of games in front of fewer than a handful of fans - and these are supposed to be notable?
Personally, I believe only clubs that have competed in the FA Cup should be notable, as this is THE national cup (not sure why the Trophy, Amateur Cup and Vase qualify for this)
If we are going to continue to allow clubs that have played in the Trophy, Amateur Cup and Vase to be deemed notable, I think we should at least have a cut-off point to weed out those who only played a few games in the qualifying rounds.
My proposal would be for clubs to have made it to the First Round proper of the Trophy, Amateur Cup or Vase to be deemed notable.
Clubs that have played in the Trophy should have played in the FA Cup anyway. Clubs that haven't reached the 1st Round of the Amateur Cup or Vase, and have never played in the FA Cup, should not be eligible for an article in my opinion.
Are we up for reaching a consensus on this one?
As shown in the links I posted earlier, there seems to be an appetite to change the rules, but we never seem to actually get anywhere! Kivo (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem with the current consensus, and certainly no reason why it needs to become more restrictive. I'm slightly bemused by the claim that there seems to be appetite to change the rules, as I don't see any. Number 57 13:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, here is a list of clubs who played just one game in the FA Amateur Cup -
*1st Kings Dragoons Guards (1932)
*1st Queens Royal Regiment (1926)
*1st South Lancs Regiment (1900)
*1st Welsh Guards (1924)
*1st Yorkshire Regiment (1900)
*2nd Royal Fusiliers (1904)
*2nd Training Battalion RAOC (1951)
*37th Company GRA (1910)
*5th Company BB OB (1925)
*12th London Regiment Rangers (1924)
*16th Company RGA (1910)
As you can see, the above is an alphabetical list of clubs (before you even get to A...) that played just one game in the FA Amateur Cup. Are they notable? There are hundreds of these clubs in the Amateur Cup alone, before even starting with the Vase. I think a cut-off point of 1st Round proper would cut down on the amount of pointless articles. Kivo (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  English club notability 

message: Can we have a section on them? I an looking at :Category:Association football referees and it's not pretty - most entries I checked are stubs, with next to no sources outside their homepages or tiny bios/profiles at their official organizations (FIFA and lesser ones). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this should be added - probably worth gaining consensus at the main WT:FOOTY page to decide what the guidelines are. GiantSnowman 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_98#Referee_notability, they have no inherent notability due to their position, so it's either meeting another NFOOTY/GNG req, or not-notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 19#Referees- criteria for notability led to the change at WP:NFOOTY. 04:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referee notability 

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

message: Two Eastbourne Borough season articles (2008–09 and 2009–10) are proposed for deletion, with the reason that seasons at this level are not notable, and links to AFD discussions. Another article, 2008–09 York City F.C. season is a "good article" - are the others potentially good articles similar to this and should be restored or does this also have to be deleted? Peter James (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There will always be exceptions to the rules, and this is probably one of them. However, generally there is agreement that these shouldn't exist (I believe the consensus developed after the York City one reached GA standard). Number 57 10:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it seems a little arbitrary to delete some seasons but not others. I can understand the reasoning that seasons at sub-FL level could be deemed not notable, but can't quite understand why some would be kept and others not? The 2008-9 Conference season has 8 teams with season articles, for the 2009-10 season there are 12. Yet only the two mentioned above have been proposed for deletion. Surely this general consensus should be generally applied or not at all? BoroFan89 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this proposal has been raised before - back in 2008/9. I would recommend deferring deletion based on the argument that the general agreement lacks clarity and consistent application  – therefore I find it not constructive to delete articles until there has been a proper debate and this becomes common practice. Further, it is worth mentioning that for the current season of the Conference National every single club has a season article. BoroFan89 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been numerous AfDs and the vast majority have resulted in deletion. Number 57 15:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of seasons 

message: I have had a few disputes with other users regarding whether players meet notability criteria. Can someone clarify whether a player who has only featured in a domestic cup competition for a professional club versus another professional club (but NOT featured in the domestic league) would be considered notable and thereby acceptable for a new page creation for that player?
Example: Ben Tilney featured tonight for MK Dons versus Peterborough United in an EFL Trophy game - both obviously professional clubs. He has yet to make his league debut. He does not have a page as yet, but would him featuring in the cup game tonight make him 'notable'? FilthyDon (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the consensus is that something like this does meet the spirit of the criteria, as long as the match is between two clubs in fully professional leagues, as in this case. I see that since the question the Tilney article has been (re)created without any problems. Jellyman (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - playing for a FPL team against another FPL team in a competitive match is enough for NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on player notability page creation 

message: After having read just somewhere into the Bs at least at glancing level of every article in the 1988 births (which has just shy of 15,000 articles), I have seen way to many one line articles on footballers sourced only to their club website. I am beginning to wonder if we have the resources to reasonable have even minimal quality articles on everyone currently considered notable under our guidelines. I am thinking that maybe there needs to be a revision of the guidelines to exclude from notability people who played in very few games and maybe some others who for whatever reason have not gotten much notice. I am not sure exactly how this would be worded, and I am not even sure if this is the best place to make the suggestion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The current guidelines are clearly the best reasonable option. Introducing a cut off point for the amount of matches would be ridiculous, why would a player with 50 games be notable but not someone with 49 for example? This seems more like an attempt to move the goalposts because your recent failed AfDs have landed you at ANI. Kosack (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles need improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 08:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need to tighten our notability guidelines 

message: This is my first AfD regarding a soccer/football club/league, and I'd like you guys to come and comment on it because yall will know all about the notability guidelines and precedence and what-we-agreed-on-for-other-articles. Thanks L3X1 (distant write) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naples United FC]] 

message: Item 1 in WP:NFOOTBALL says any player who has played in a Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, The reference behind that clause, in reference to tier 1 internationals says: These regulations apply equally to association football, futsal and beach soccer.. Does that mean all international futsallers pass NFOOTBALL once they play a match? Like These Kids come September? ClubOranjeT 12:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, NFOOTBALL guidelines apply to association football players only. GiantSnowman 19:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futsal Notability question 

message: Hi folks, there is a Thailand football club that I at least am having problems evaluating the notability of.  If any of you who know Thailand football (and ideally speak the language...) could take a look, it would be quite welcome.  . Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help at DRV? 

message: Hello. I have a question. What round does it have to be for a match to be considered a "professional" match in a cup competition? For example, is a round of 64 match in the Coupe de France considered a professional match? Because one team may be fully professional and the other may be a team of amateurs playing in semi-professional football. I am just curious to know at what stage a match becomes professional in a national cup competition. Thanks and best regards. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The round is irrelevant; in order to confer notability on a player, the match they play in must be between two clubs from fully-professional leagues (the occasional meeting of two non-league clubs in the third round of the FA Cup would not make the players notable). Number 57 17:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   What if a non-professional team is playing against a professional team in the final of the cup? The final surely has to be considered notable... The same thing must go for the semi-finals, no? I'm just a bit curious about this. Because for example, FC Saarbrucken made the semi-finals of the DFB Pokal last year, and lost to Bayer Leverkusen. Would the players who played for FCS in that match be considered notable enough to create Wikipedia pages about them? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  They wouldn't be notable under WP:NFOOTBALL, which specifically states the game must be between two teams from fully-professional leagues. They might pass the WP:GNG, but I think WP:BLP1E might apply. Number 57 18:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would make sure you have found reliable sources for the players in the match which directly discuss those players that pass WP:GNG, but I do know we have articles for players who played for Quevilly in that cup final, so there will likely be some coverage, especially for the more prominent players. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability for national cups