Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Notability

Archives

Archive Notes: "Alpha" is the archive talk of the prior notability essay that has just been replaced. "Beta" is the archive talk page of the current page while it was under development.
Alpha closed out 12:28, August 8, 2007
Beta launched major re-write

Untitled

Major Re-Write Launched: As JKBrooks85 has suggested, I have decided to be WP:BOLD and launch the new WikiProject College footbal/Notability essay. We have been workinging on this essay for quite some time now and believe it is ready for the world of Wikipedia to benefit from the effort.

Thanks to all those who contributed to this re-write, in both comment and content. Now, let's all join in to take this project further!

For your reference, the beta development page is here. It will be marked as depreciated but not removed, as there are pages that link to it for AFD discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the work you've done here. I never would have thought it possible to concisely state notability in such a form. I would only like to add that part of the justification for season pages, even for "non-top 25" teams is to encourage writers/editors to join and create about a topic they know, and in the end they may be more noteworthy and we would be better off. Sure, we may end up with lots of unfinished and/or "lesser-notable" seasons, but we're better off in the long run. For example, someone starting a 2007 Hawaii page at the start of the season (where most of of would perhaps laugh at the thought), we would end up with a better 2007 Hawaii page than if we started at the end and tried to incorporate the same things. I'm sure there are things that I slightly disagree with (NAIA) but the same could be said for others and things I would strongly disagree with. Nevertheless, I find this to be a very good summary of what college football is about and what should be on Wikipedia. MECU≈talk 02:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MECU! And I believe you are right about the importance of starting season articles. I don't know of any season articles for NAIA programs (or NCAA DivIII for that matter), but if someone were to get enthusiastic about that, it could lead to a robust article indeed. Consider also the fuss from the Talk:Tim Tebow article from several years ago--twice nominated for deletion.

I think we have a ways to go to clarify notability on players and seasons, but it's a big start. Any comments you (or anyone else) have are welcomed and encouraged.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that All-Americans are notable and deserve a page, and I would also say that just because a player has multiple third party sources about them does not make them notable. The local paper here does pieces on players all the time that don't deserve articles. VegaDark (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All-Americans I've been thinking about All-Americans some, and the challenge that I run into is "who decides" the "All-American" status? It's my understanding that multiple organizations give the award out--unlike the Heisman which is trademarked and the process is documented. Maybe we could go with an "AP-All-American" or something like that... or maybe a "list" of all-Americans...--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Players with multiple articles yeah, that's a tough orange to slice, isn't it? Where do we draw the line? --Paul McDonald (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rule could be "school recognized" All-Americans. i.e. ones mentioned in the media guide as AA's. There are hundreds of non-notable publications that release their own AA lists that obviously shouldn't be included, but there are more than just the AP list that are notable. I think schools generally do a good job of keeping track themselves. The next thing to decide would then be if we should include second team, third team, honorable mention, or even academic AA's. I'm thinking yes to the first two and no to the latter two. VegaDark (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be against a "School-recognized" All-American award, because one school might recognize an all-american award from one organization where another school might not. While schools "now" might be very good at that, has that happened for all time (remember, notability is not temporary) and will they continue to do so in the future. Also, what about academic all-Americans?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solid, but not a standout

I'm involved in a heated AfD regarding a former-and-hoping-to-once-again-be-current WVU player who, although he may be a solid performer, really doesn't meet the standards of the essay as it currently stands. Good play in a bowl game may or may not rise to the level of "completed a special noteworthy play or achievement", especially when others in the same game made much more significant plays. Four tackles in a game is good, but when the same game has a play that goes down in local legend (search "runaway beer truck" on YouTube), it's not the same. DarkAudit (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Player Notability

It has been mentioned above that "all-Americans" should be notable, and I'd like to get some more feedback on that.

Also, I would like to get some more conversation going on exactly what does make a college player notable? We've got guidelines in place like "Plays in the pros" or "goes on to coach" but the only guideline we have for notability of a "current" college player is if they win a major award. Sure, college players that go on to the NFL are notable, but that's not because of their college time--it's because they're in the NFL! What can a "current" college player do to be notable? Can we have some guidelines or discussion? Records? All-Time Leading rusher? Lead the season in tackles? MVP of a bowl game?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some ideas. Not all of them are good ideas, but remember bad ideas can lead to good ideas. I fully intend for some of these to be scratched off. Project members and guests are encouraged to comment below each statement with ideas:

I don't think the vast majority of these criteria can displace overarching WP policies on notability, reliable sources, and biographies of living persons. The vast majority of college players don't warrant articles besides those who win major awards, are drafted to professional teams (clearly, the second often presupposes the first), or hold significant records. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sample Discussion

This is a sample discussion so that editors and guests can see the recommended way to make comments

Support I think that having a sample discussion is a good idea because it will help people to have clear answers. I Agreee (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no reason to have a sample discussion because we are all smart enough to figure it out on our own. I Disagreee (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Win a major award

Current players who won a major award such as the Heisman Trophy are notable.

Support contingent upon expansion What awards? Madcoverboy (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A list of generally-acceptable "major awards" can be found at Template:College Football Awards, as referenced from CFB:AWARD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for best-player-at-a-particular-position awards. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This seems incredibly obvious. A player of this caliber would obviously generate significant media coverage. matt91486 (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Returning starters

Players who started in their position for at least one game in the previous season and return to start in the same position are notable.

Oppose. I'm not convinced this a notable achievement. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Certainly not notable --MATThematical (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Year Starters

Players who started in their position for at least three seasons are notable.

Oppose. I'm not convinced this a notable achievement. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not sure this garauntees substantial non-routine coverage. --MATThematical (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four Year Starters

Players who started in their position for at least four seasons are notable.

Oppose. I'm not convinced this a notable achievement. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - those who have achieved this level will likely have sufficient media coverage to be considered notable. The level is a threshold because for older players, this will require archival research, but I'm confident that anyone starting for four seasons can easily be achieved. matt91486 (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionally support/oppose. I would only support this for any team that was nationally ranked in the BCS during any one of the 4 starting years. Its not clear that just any starting player of the a random school would get sustantial coverage if we excluded school papers, and WP:ROUTINE coverage. However, I am convinced that a 4 year starter on a nationally ranked team would likely have non-routine coverage. --MATThematical (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All-Americans

Anyone declared an All-American is notable.

Populate a List of All-Americans. Then populate a List of All-Americans in football. Maybe then I could support a criteria for four-time Academic All-American as a notability criterion for individual player's articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, however, I think these individuals would likely pass WP:BIO anyway. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic All-Americans

Anyone declared an Academic All-American is notable.

Make a standalone Academic All-American article first. Then populate a List of Academic All-Americans. Then populate a List of Academic All-Americans in football. Even then I don't know that I could support anything but a four-time Academic All-American as a notability criterion for individual player's articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although the "four-time Academic All-American" suggestion is a good one. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, even 4 year for D3 school doesn't seem notable to me, how does this guarantee non-routine coverage. I would say 4 year academic all American for a D1 NCAA school, would be acceptable for me. --MATThematical (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Champion Team player

Anyone who played in a national championship game is notable.

Oppose The vast majority would violate WP:BLP1E and any coverage would be trivial. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl Game team player

Anyone who played in a recognized bowl game is notable.

Oppose The vast majority would violate WP:BLP1E and any coverage would be trivial. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, but is MVP of a bowl game in your list of awards, if not this could be added, I think --MATThematical (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starters

Anyone who started in their position is notable.

Oppose The vast majority would violate WP:BLP1E and any coverage would be trivial. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Leaders

Players who hold season leading statistical data (such as leading rusher, leading tackler, etc) are notable.

Oppose The vast majority would violate WP:BLP1E since this changes weekly, the statistics can be invented to fit the criteria, and the majority of coverage would be trivial. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --MATThematical (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conference Leaders

Players who hold leading statistics positions at the conference level are notable.

Oppose The vast majority would violate WP:BLP1E and any coverage would be trivial. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School Leaders

Players who hold leading statistical positions at the college or university are notable.

Oppose The vast majority would violate WP:BLP1E and any coverage would be trivial. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Record Holders

Players who hold (or held) national records are notable (most tackles per season, most tackles per game, most safetys per game, most yards gained per quarter, longest field goal, etc).

Oppose Its altogether too easy to start inventing statistics to fulfill this requirement: "most sacks per conference game when trailing by 24 or more points while playing away." as just an exaggeration. I'd recommend a List of American college football records or some such thing instead. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. There is the possibility of too many "trivial" statistics. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conditionally create a list of statistical categories which are notable i.e., sacks, longest field goal, total yards. Stats would not be notable could be as simple as "most fumbles". Then any athlete that holds the NCAA D1 record, I would consider notable. --MATThematical (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conference Record Holders

Players who hold conference records are notable.

Oppose The vast majority would violate WP:BLP1E and any coverage would be trivial. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - players who achieve these records will almost certainly receive enough media coverage to be notable. Any older players might require archival research, but it can be obtained. matt91486 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not sure this guarantees non-routine coverage. Maybe if you included the list above, and said any NCAA D1 conference record, I might support that. --MATThematical (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School/University Record Holders

Players who hold school records are notable.

Oppose The vast majority would violate WP:BLP1E and any coverage would be trivial. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --MATThematical (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drafted players

Players who have been drafted into the NFL are notable.

Oppose. Those who are drafted and play in the NFL achieve notability per WP:ATHLETE, however, this would specifically address those who are drafted and are cut before playing in the NFL. I'm not convinced that in and of itself that this a notable achievement. The concerns noted elsewhere about WP:BLP1E and trivia would apply. Location (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of college players

after discussion on this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macho Harris I want to know why there are so many articles about non notable and marginally notable college football players. Just because there's some stories in local papers about how they played in a game, doesn't make them notable. Players notability should be individual not from the notability of their sport. It seems like since college football is so popular that more atheletes have wikipedia articles. "Some of the football articles mention things like considered one of the top prospects..." That is opinion and speculation WP:NOTCRYSTAL. All of the other college sports don't have nearly as many articles and many are very strict about creating articles for regular players and even top draft prospects. Most players in the other sports dont even get articles as draft picks until they play professionally or in major international competition WP:ATH.

I think the college football wikiproject needs to undertake a major overhall of these articles and major deletion of players who don't have other notability criteria such as winning a major award, key player in a bowl game, etc...--Bhockey10 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's been a while since I've poked around here. You're absolutely right! The trick is... where do we draw the line? Seems like we keep coming back to WP:GNG as the best rule... and a lot of WP:AFD work has been ongoing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Games Notable?

Even as a college football fan, I am surprised by this statement. How is this not directly against WP:ROUTINE. I agree that some (maybe even many) college games are notable. But not all of them. Not every game ever played by a college team gets significant coverage in a broad scope for an extended period of time. Can we at least restrict this some how. Note that if the game passes general notability guidelines it will be notable no matter what. Our goal should be to establish a guideline that is strongly correlated with non-routine significant coverage. So how can we restrict this without restricting it too much? Well I can think of a few, I am ok with every bowl game being notable, I am also ok with any game amongst two nationally ranked teams (by the BCS) being notable (and we could even make this so that if at any point in the season the teams were nationally ranked that would count). --MATThematical (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All seasons notable?

Again I view this as against WP:ROUTINE. Seasons are only notable if they are regularly re-analyzed. I would say any season that ended in a bowl game is going to be notable. Any season by a team that was nationally ranked at some point during the season is going to be notable. Any season where the team played in at least 3 notable games is likely notable. But there has to be broad scope coverage beyond that season in order for it to pass WP:ROUTINE. --MATThematical (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbosity of the Essay

Its very wordy, with tons of explanations examples and precedent. I disagree with a lot of it, most strongly the two sections above. But in general there is too much in this essay for it to be useful to people at AfD. Lets make it better by trimming it down, so people can actually read through it. --MATThematical (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got rid of a sentence

Lets discuss this sentence for the individual player section. I have deleted it, but we can reinsert an edited version. "completed a special noteworthy play or achievement." This is really vague. By noteworthy play does this mean originated a new type of play and is widely accredited as the first to use it by reliable secondary sources? Not sure what "noteworthy play" means in this context. Also I am not sure what counts as a noteworthy achievement. --MATThematical (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also its not clear to me that a player who participated in a noteworthy play is notable. Wouldn't just the coach be notable for coming up with the play. Perhaps if the play is impovised the people completing it would be notable, but then the coach would necessarily be. Wouldn't a better requirement be who is widely accepted as origninating/creating the play is notable? --MATThematical (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of changes here. Some of them good, some of them I disagree with. Might be time to peel back on changes to the notability essay some and start some more discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant Coaches

I propose that division 1 assistant coaches, at least coordinators and assistant head coaches be considered notable. This is for the same reasons that head coaches are presumeed notable. 1. For many schools, coordinators and assistant head coaches are amongst the most well known members of the faculty. With some assistants now making more than $1 million/yr, they are not only among the highest paid members of the university faculty, many of them make more money than other division 1 head coaches at smaller programs that are considered notable. This is especially relevant at state schools. 2. Especially at top programs, a substantial portion of the media coverage now discusses coordinators and assistant head coaches, not just the head coach himself. 3. Assistant coach information is notable because statistics on the program are compiled and maintained across all time, and are readily available from multiple sources both on and off the internet. 4. There is more and more coaches "inter-connect" between colleges. Coaches may start at one school, then take a coaching position at another, and end up at a third or fourth school. 5.Creating even a stub article promotes collaborative editing over time. Coaches move on to new schools, editors become enthusiastic about their new coach, historical information surfaces, and so forth 7. Universities often market their assistant coaches, such as Auburn selling Trooper Towels in honor of their assistant coach Trooper Taylor.

Assistant coaches at top programs are very visible, highly paid, and highly prized commodities. Every year, there are a number of them that either lateral or are promoted to other programs. Having their own biographical pages allows football fans to keep an eye on who may be comming or going. It also allows for the quick determination of how much peer schools are paying assistants. For all of the Criterion listed in WP:CFBCOACH as to why head coaches are notable, coordinators and assitant head coaches of division 1 schools should be considered notable as well. --Aub2010bcsnc (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]