Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes)

message: I think that durability is important such as playing a number of games in the top level of your sport for a number of years. As it reads, I think that it is too restrictive as compared with WP:BIO. Making a representative team is another indicator of notability. Capitalistroadster 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a hard standard for Bios is too complicated for a genre with that can have so many variables.  Obviously, I must say, I'd prefer to see most full and part-time pro athletes with articles... as well as National heroes... as in Olympic athletes and such...  DMighton 08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you.  Hell, from the looks of things, it would be impossible to include any baseball team's 25 man roster to completion.  This feels completely misguided. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I support Ravenswing's proposal wholeheartedly. BoojiBoy 00:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Two major problems.  (d) is extremely open-ended, which I encourage only because it gives me a shot to actually have the articles we should have already, and this fails to account for obviously notable minor leaguers who don't fit (b):  top prospects, minor leaguers who do rare/notable things, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well ... (d) needs to be open-ended, because you just can't have one explicit set of criteria that applies to hockey and baseball and tennis and NASCAR and cricket and swimming, etc.  Leaving it up to the various Wikiprojects also creates the flexibility in (b); after all, there are many sports in which the concept of a "top prospect" doesn't exist - either you've done something or you haven't.  Ravenswing 06:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone playying ONE game is NOT notable - they must achieve something. Unless that one game is a final and they score the winner I see that suggestion as being an attempt to simply fill WP with stubs that have no content of merit.  Similarly individuals whose career extends to rookie, minor, junior leagues is not notable in the vasy majority of cases - they are also rans and journeymen and should not be on WP> Robertsteadman 05:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A note regarding (c): with a couple of exceptions (such as rowing), British university teams, unlike US college teams, are not usually the highest level of amateur sport. Oldelpaso 19:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: The current WP:BIO provision referring to athletes who play in a "fully professional league" is too inclusive. Minor league baseball is fully professional in the sense that all the players are paid to play, but that doesn't make their players notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - and, probably, not about each separate team either. Robertsteadman 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * But of course; I'm thinking that in order to be notable, a minor leaguer must be a significant and perennial star at that level.  I'd just like a place for the Guyle Fielders of the world on Wikipedia.  Ravenswing 20:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Beyond that, many big leagues just used to be a lot smaller.  North American big league football, basketball and baseball have doubled in size from the Sixties on, hockey's increased fivefold, and soccer's come into existence.  Many of today's great pro stars would have been doomed to minor league careers in 1950.  Ravenswing 14:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fully professional league 

message: WikiProject Football has a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability. Oldelpaso 18:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related discussion

message: I'm thinking about making a proposal for a sports wiki, similar to Wikispecies in http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed . A wiki like that will help end conflect on non-notable minor league baseball players and college athetes by giving them their own wiki. Any thoughts. Jaranda wat's sup 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might eb a solution - but, really, if they are not notable they're not notable - shunting them elsewhere won't make a difference. I think the question to ask is: If someone wants to find out about X, will they think to use WP, or, because of the subject's achievements (or lack), will they look elsewhere? Robertsteadman 07:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I demonstrably disagree with Mr. Steadman on his definition of notability, I agree that Wikighettos aren't useful.  Frankly, if someone wants to look up an obscure minor leaguer that badly, he's not going to use Wikipedia at all; he's going to go to SABR, where researchers of somewhat higher qualifications than your average Wikieditor are doing their thing.  Ravenswing 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And if someone wants to look up about a Junior ice hockey team.... WP or somewhere else? It's quite a good rule of thumb for whether WP is the right place for an article. Robertsteadman 21:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The main merit of Wikipedia is its comprehensiveness, so it's shooting ourselves in the foot to split it up. In any case, all that would do is move the debate from "Who gets in" to "Who gets in here, and who gets in there." Golfcam 00:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports wiki 

message: The proposed policy is really restrictive. Even as a deletionist, I find this one goes way overboard. In my mind things as basic as making an all-star team in a professional league or winning major individual awards should clearly be sufficient. I'll add these. Pascal.Tesson 18:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not go nuts 

message: It would be good to have your input into this debate re: the notability of a youth ice hockey team and whether they should have a separate article or be merged into the league article (of course, youth leagues are notable enough!). Look forward to your comments. Robertsteadman 15:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To all interested in notability and sport issues

message: My personal criteria for keeping college athlete articles is if they earned All-American status.  Should we include this?  If so we need to mention if only first team is allowable, or if second or third team, or if an AA honorable mention is sufficient.  I don't think all-conference should be sufficient enough.  Also, we need to determine if we should count Academic All-Americans to this criteria. Someone could be Academic All-American of the year but not be an All-American athletic wise.  See: Chelle Flamoe (who IMO only qualifies for an article of her own for playing on the olympic team...if she hadn't I don't think she would quite make my personal notability standards) VegaDark 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My inclination would be to say no for academic All-Americans, and I'm also a bit skeptical for second- or third-team conventional All-Americans. I think a conference "player of the year" or the equivalent would clearly qualify (even for small conferences), as would finalists for major national awards and holders of national or conference records. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good.  They must either have won conference Player of the Year, won a national honor, been a finalist for a national honor, or gotten first team athletic All-American status from a major organization. VegaDark 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All-American honors

message: This is an issue for us because of the very large number of small clubs  putting articles on Wikipedia. This is presently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#When is a club notable?. I invite anyone who is interested to join in the discussion. To avoid splintering the discussion may I ask that this specific case be delegated to this forum  so that the conclusion we reach can be added to any other results from this policy review (provided it is compatible, of course - we do not expect a blank cheque :-))? BlueValour 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of English football clubs 

message: I know people are more likely to comment on stuff like this if they disagree with it rather than agree with it, so I just want to say that I think the current version of the proposal is very good and that I would support anything close to it. The current BIO guidelines for athletes are terrible and this is a big improvement. Keep up the good work! Recury 13:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem with what's currently at WP:BIO? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This is an invitation for interested parties to contribute to the above discussion in order to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players]]

message: I disagree with the current criteria of notability of athletes; more specifically that of youth footballers.
Notability meriting an article in Wikipedia seem to stipulate first team appearences. 
I would suggest that:
1. Being a member of a youth international team (such as Gavin Hoyte, Fran Mérida and Nacer Barazite of Arsenal) merits notability in it's own right, or at least under under the criteria of athlete notability p2: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (or in analogy thereof). 
2. Prominent members of important youth academies merits notability in the same way as above.
It can´t seriously be argued that a player who has made a couple of appearences for a League 2 team is more notable than a player such as Bojan Krkic, Giovani dos Santos, Fran Mérida etc wich most probably will be playing first team football (if not already be big stars) in just a few years. Look at the attention G. dos Santos' selection of national team or proposed transfer has attracted in the football community. Or look at Theo Walcott who was included in the english WC squad without having played for the Arsenal first team. He never played during the WC, so before his first team debut at Arsenal, was it only his appearences for Southampton in the Championship that merited an article about him? Surely not! 
There are players in a youth international squad that may never turn professional, but at the same time there are players that with high probability (on the verge of certainty) will be first team players if not big stars. I'm not saying that membership of a youth national squad automatically constitutes notability. My point is that there are youth players that may haven't yet broken in to the first team at a big club such as Arsenal or Barcelona, but nevertheless still are more notable than a player that may have appeared for a low-level first team such as Accrington. The requirement of first team football shouldn't be carved in stone. BTW ""fran merida" arsenal" generated 44,100 hits on Google, ""robert grant" accrington" generated 294. Sebisthlm 16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent youth footballers

message: Can we rephrase it to say that "Competitors who have contributed significantly at the highest level in amateur sports" ?  The way it reads now, I think it maybe leaves the door open for walkons and the mostly bench players.   Corpx 16:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) Corpx 07:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports

message: I removed the inactive tag, as this is a guideline that is obviously needed, right now it's fairly moot and out of date, also should it be moved to Notability (sports) as indiviual sports seasons should be mentioned. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 01:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline is fine as it is. The background to this attempt to reopen discussion is that it is an attempt to get an endorsement for applying higher standards of notability to baseball players than are applied to people in any other walk of life. The existing long-established guideline for athletes is excellent as it is, and does not need to be changed in any way. The criteria set out in this draft are totally out of line with community consensus, as they would exclude the great majority of athletes with articles, and are therefore of no value as a starting point for any further discussion. Golfcam 00:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Above user comment is stuck out as he was blocked indef for very abusive sockpuppetry. Jaranda wat's sup 14:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm writing my own proposal at User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports), with the help of some of the experts of the subjects. Thanks  Jaranda wat's sup 23:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retalk 

message: Hugo Kuranda was an Austrian skeleton who participated in one "highest level" competition and neither started nor (obviously) finished. Of the four sources for him available at the time of this writing (ie. before all the mirrors spread him across the interwebs)
*1 is from the English Wikipedia
*1 is from the German Wikipedia
*2 have nothing to do with this Hugo Kuranda that I can tell
A search of the library catalog at the University of Texas and Jstor yield no results. Even within the context of "every Olympian ever is notable," do we really need a page on him when he's already mentioned at Skeleton at the 1948 Winter Olympics since he didn't technically "compete" or "participate"? Cheers, CP 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also posting this on the general notability talk page. Cheers, CP 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is literally no further information about him available, I can't see a redirect to Skeleton at the 1948 Winter Olympics being controversial. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hugo Kuranda]] 

message: Folks, before I nominate them for deletion, just wanted thoughts on a couple of articles: Christa Harmotto and Megan Hodge. Both are obviously successful college athletes, but as I read it, they do not meet WP:ATHLETE. Views please. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think winning Big Ten player of the year (2007 & 2006 respectively) would come along with newspaper article and the like that could establish independent notability.  So even though may fail WP:ATHLETE, each may pass general notability standards.  I am new to this conversation, but have been considering it regarding the afd for Jonathan Lade.  Not to go all "other stuff" but how about the entire roster listed here: Template:Syracuse basketball.  A major conference player of the year in a minor sport, is more notable than a bench-warmer in a major sport, in my opinion. Mitico (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So as the person responsible for the Syracuse basketball page, I will give my standard response: In the USA, members of Division I NCAA men's basketball teams play on a national stage. Each member of the team receives national (or at least regional) media coverage by reliable, third-party sources, which is what our notability guidelines for people are meant to guarantee. Trying to determine who's a star and who's unlikely to see much court time is an invitation to speculation by Wikipedia editors, of the sort we're institutionally committed to avoid. Thoughts? GoCuse44 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you proposing every starter of every D-I college basketball team in history should have a page? We shouldn't have pages for college athletes unless they won some sort of award, or at least are an All-American or conference POTY. VegaDark (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he is proposing that every player (not just the starting players) on a D-1 college basketball team should have a page. Essentially allowing BLP's (players) to inherit notability from the team.  Mitico (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, under no uncertain terms, a horrendous idea. VegaDark (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree to disagree. Thanks for answering back, though. GoCuse44 (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I once partook in an AFD where an article about a singer with 6 trivial news accounts for the subject was kept. Lorrenzo Wade has about 200 Google News hits which I have not reviewed.  WP:BIO says, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Wade does not automatically meet WP:ATHLETE. At what point does coverage of a college athlete like Wade cross the bar to non-triviality? Currently, CSD does not require an assertion of meeting one one the many notability requirements-- just an assertion of significance to disqualify an article for deletion. This article asserts significance, and is therefore not speediable. Truthanado prodded; creator deprodded. Here we are.  Truthanado is right, clearer guidelines (with seamlessness between the three deletion processes) would  be helpful. Cheers,   Dlohcierekim  16:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more time with feeling: [[WP:ATHLETE]], college athletes

message: As can be seen here in an AfD WP:ATHLETE is being used as a reason to delete a professional footballer who plays for Cork City F.C. by stating that it is not a fully professional league. This is IMO wrong and needs to be changed to accomodate all the professional players that play in this league. So I am just opening this discussion up for suggestions on how to remedy this problem. BigDuncTalk 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that the rules need adapting to allow them to be included. I would say this needs changing for any nation"to allow players from its top division to be included but particularly in the case of an english speaking country. I believe football fans from Ireland are likely to come to english wikipedia and look up their favourite players, and that information on them should be here. These teams may not always be fully professional but they are able to qualify for and compete in the UEFA Cup and UEFA Champions League and perhaps the criteria should include allowing players on teams who able to qualify for these competitions, i.e the highest division in each European nation. I don't wish to actively encourage thousands of articles about semi-professional players but I don't think they need deleteing if someone has gone to the effort of making a decent, and by that i mean sufficiently sourced, article. Basement12 (T.C) 16:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should also be noted that the Paul Zammit (footballer) page is up for deletion and so I wondered if Number 57 thinks the Irish league (Eircom League) is as good as the Maltese league. Well, last season, Floriana finished fifth in the Maltese First Division. Their stadium is only a 3,000 terraced place, meanwhile, Shamrock Rovers finished fifth over here, with a stadium of 9,700 (Tolka Park), and will soon move into a completely new stadium (Tallaght Stadium), with a capacity of 10,000. This stadium would a small League 1 stadium or a medium-sized League 2 stadium in England, so if those teams like Crewe Alexandra, Southend United or Luton Town are considered to be suitable for Wikipedia, then by all means FAI League of Ireland teams should be as well.--CorkCityFCRebelArmy (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously equating player notability to the size of the stadium that the club plays in? There is a club at level 12 of the English league that plays at a 25,000 capacity stadium. Does this make them equivalent to Fulham? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, the guideline should be altered to stop wholesale deletions of players in the top league in major countries such as Ireland, New Zealand, etc. Nfitz (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guidelines are just that - guides. Each article, or individual, should be considered on their own merit. Wikipedia is not limited by storage space, and that is not the concern of editors. That is not to say that Joe Bloggs who once played for Ballybackanowhere Reserves should have his own article, but common sense should be a good guide. --Setanta 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, that being said, we also must have a significant amount of independent sourcing covering each article. Regardless of professional status or otherwise, an article on an athlete or an anything is unacceptable without that. Conversely, an amateur athlete who has been covered significantly over time might be notable despite not passing ATHLETE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of FAI league players