Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability of footballers

Threshold number of appearances

Various references to a threshold number of appearances for league/continental competitions in order to be regarded as automatically notable are being mentioned, but as yet, no discussion of how figures could be arrived at could be made. Whilst it may be OK to have text saying "X number of appearances" for now, we need to be satisfied that we can come up with meaningful thresholds which have a basis with regards reliable sources. Eldumpo (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

X games in Y competition is workable, and in my view we should arrive at X through discussion. Trying to work out what X should be using a complex extrapolation of how good a given league was in a year is taking it too far, IMO. In theory it would be fair, but in practise it's completely unworkable. —WFC— 14:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Coming up with a figure of X appearances will not be easy, and as I posted at Footy, it will need to be combined with hard evidence. It might be useful to start thinking of this now, rather than making some progress with an arbitrary figure, and finding out there is little evidence. Eldumpo (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can stats websites/books be regarded as providing significant coverage

What's the view on whether stats/player directory websites can be regarded as providing notable coverage for GNG purposes. I'm thinking sites such as Soccerway, Soccerbase, Zerozero, Soccernet ESPN, Neil Brown Football League etc. Also, books such as Rothmans/Sky Sports, News of the World/Nationwide annuals, and the Michael Joyce player records book. If these are not to be regarded as proving notablility in order to meet GNG purposes then they shouldn't really be used as the sole notability sources for those players that may meet the football-specific criteria. Eldumpo (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Solely statistical books are there solely for WP:V. They have nothing to do with notability. Substantial coverage in Who's Whos and league annuals might go some way towards showing notability, although ideally in a sub-threshold article there would be something else to go on as well. —WFC— 14:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the wording at GNG: Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Perhaps it is difficult to argue that stats/database entries conform to this but then it can be argued that the author/website has determined that person notable enough to include, despite there being hundreds of thousands of footballers. Do you accept that if consensus is that these sources are not enough to prove GNG notability, that they should not be the sole sources for player articles that meet the football-specific criteria? Eldumpo (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair conclusion. Perhaps some player records books like RSSSF (along these lines: [1]) provide closer to significant coverage than a Soccerbase or comparable site. However, I agree with WFC that these sources are primarily useful for verifying details about a player's career, not in actually establishing notability. Jogurney (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ranking status of national leagues

The reason I previously removed the "Ranking status of national leagues" section (I'm still minded to remove, but will not do so because I don't want to edit war), is that it's unworkable. X games in Y competition is workable, and in my view we should arrive at X through discussion. Trying to work out what X should be using a complex extrapolation of how good a given league was in a year is taking it too far, IMO. In theory it would be fair, but in practise it's completely unworkable. —WFC— 14:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be the consensus is to cut it, but the issue was specifically raised at a recent NSPORT discussion. My concern is that we're continuing down the existing road of using the professional status of the league as the sole determinant of specific notability, rather than using the opportunity of using other means as well. Eldumpo (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is an opportunity to explore alternative avenues. And I'm not saying that the comparison of relative strengths of leagues is completely baseless (although I'd still advocate simplicity as far as is feasible). But I think there's a difference between acknowledging the differing strengths of leagues when setting thresholds, and putting the method used into the guideline itself. —WFC— 14:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Another problem that came up during that discussion was that these coefficients are temporary and change year in year out. After a few bad years in European competitions, leagues can find themselves falling over 20 places and shedding champions league and europa league places as they go (like Romania's is doing). It's difficult work out at what ranking each league was when a player played for them. It just seems way too complex. Delusion23 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the points being made above. I don't see why a section on the ranking can't be included within the page even if it isn't directly used, but really something like league ranking should play some part in determining notability (yes, noting it is subject to change). For completeness here is the link to the NSPORT post I referred to [2] Eldumpo (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The NSPORT thread I meant to include was [3] although I think the above also has relevance. Eldumpo (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Notable international/regional club competitions"

I believe this section should be scrapped as clubs from non-professional leagues occasionally make it through to the proper stages of the competitions. However, any first-team cup appearances (domestic or continental) should count towards the appearance threshold for players of clubs in fully professional leagues (as they do at the moment). Number 57 10:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is the whole point though of additionally having criteria for some regional club competitions. It is recognising the importance of these competitions, but trying to cover players who play in the competition but not in a professional domestic league. For example, isn't it more likely that a player may reach general notability by playing for a Bosnian top level team that plays in the Champions League, rather than a player who is at a lowly-placed team in the Macedonian top flight? Eldumpo (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Then that can be addressed by the GNG. The placing of the club is irrelevant because clubs can qualify for Europe from any league position by winning the cup (which several second tier clubs have managed). Number 57 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

True, it can be addressed by GNG, but you could say that about all the leagues in the FPL list as well. My example was referring to the Champions League, so a team from the lower reaches of the Macedonian League would not be able to qualify for that. I can't see why we would be prepared to confer automatic notability on all players in the Macedonian top level, but not to those playing in the Champions League. Eldumpo (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Match reports and line-ups

Do people agree that simply being mentioned in a line-up for a match is not enough to pass general notability? What about a brief mention in the match report e.g. "Smith came on for Morris, and Hunter then moved to play at right-back"? What about more significant mentions in a match report, where someone is marked out as playing well, or is termed as a very good player, or is noted as changing the game when they came on? Eldumpo (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources should be acceptable and consistent for both GNG and football criteria

Further to my posting on this under stats websites above, is there a consensus that if a source type is not regarded as conferring player notability from a GNG perspective (say, an entry in a stats database) then that source type should not be used (as the sole claim to notability) for a player that does meet the football-specific criteria? Eldumpo (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)