Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 19

• I do not know much about baseball. But from the little information I have I think qualifying as notable under
  WP:BASE/N.--BabbaQ (talk
  ) 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think the right question is being asked here. Do bullpen catchers who are not already notable for other reasons (i.e.: former player) generally receive enough reliable source coverage to meet
  WP:V? If yes, then it would be appropriate to include them in BASE/N. If no, then they should be treated case by case. SNGs are meant to reflect notability, not establish it. Resolute
  23:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer to the above question is ... no. We've had at least a dozen AfDs for bullpen catchers, and I can only think of one example where people claimed the subject passed GNG, and that was a rather absurd example where there was only ONE article about the subject on a team site. In every other case, people kept claiming bullpen catchers were coaches and then citing BASE/N. As someone said above, using BASE/N to presume notability for a class of people who don't generate substantial media coverage is the opposite of BASE/N's purpose. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not coaches; must pass GNG: I've likewise seen the assertion that bullpen catchers are coaches, without the slightest bit of evidence to support it. Let's take the Boston Red Sox, where its "Manager and Coaches" section lists a Bullpen Coach, but not a "bullpen catcher." That coach (whimsically enough, his father was my elementary school gym teacher) was the bullpen catcher ten years ago, and his entry says so, but is not now. Not even the "Staff" section lists a bullpen catcher. Boston's current bullpen catcher is a chap named Mani Martinez, and he's only mentioned once on the Sox's website [1] -- a news article about him cleanly catching a David Ortiz grand slam in the bullpen where an outfielder had tried to snare it and fell into the bullpen at Martinez's feet. This doesn't suggest that Martinez occupies a notable position in the Red Sox organization.

  Now some teams do list bullpen catchers in their coaching rosters (the Yankees and Giants do, anyway), and that's fine: if they want to designate more coaches, that's one thing. But there doesn't seem to be anything about the profession of bullpen catcher that's so universally identified with "coach" that it's worth a presumptive pass on NSPORTS. Ravenswing 23:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, the guideline for coaches could probably use revisiting. Once upon a time, coaching jobs were often sinecures for retired players, so notability rested solely on the coach's playing career. Though I won't say this is no longer the case universally, competitive pressure in today's game has resulted in many if not most coaches needing to fill specific roles in preparing an MLB team to compete. However, the vast majority of them do their work anonymously, with little independent, non-promotional coverage in reliable sources. Given this, perhaps the guideline should not be a standard of one MLB game coached. isaacl (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be down with that. For any NSPORTS criterion, the basic building block should be: "Do those who meet this standard generally meet the GNG?" The basic test should be: "If I were to take every Strength/Conditioning Coach on a MLB roster and ran him through the GNG, would I get 90%+ success?" If the answer to that test is "No," then the standard is broken and ought to be revised. Ravenswing 00:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with the first sentence of the above (I'm not convinced the entire coaches guideline needs to be revisited), but I agree with the rest of the above. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong, isaacl, but I'd be surprised if many, if any, current MLB coaches are relying on BASE/N. These days, coaches tend to get a lot of coverage, especially with MLB.com and all of the various team sites out there. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The baseball-related notability guideline is mostly used in two ways: to defer deletion on articles for persons who played during a period for which sources are more difficult to locate, and as a trigger for editors who like creating new articles to create a quick stub for the latest players in MLB, without adding sources. I'm not convinced that there is adequate independent, non-promotional coverage of coaches in today's game (the team's website and fan sites are not independent, and personally I'd prefer a more general source than MLB.com, which still serves a promotional purpose for MLB even though it is editorially independent), and I think in the past, there were many coaches who weren't notable for their role as a coach. Thus I think it is problematic to have a guideline for coaches, on both counts. (As an informal test for contemporary coaches: How many coaches can you name on teams other than the one you follow regularly? How many coaches who are not pitching, hitting, or bench coaches?) isaacl (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not coaches - usually no significant coverage. No need for inclusion in the SNG. MLB.com team pages sometimes list them as coaches, but they also list people like "senior baseball advisers". I'd support removing them from the WP team roster templates too, as most should be red links I'd think. I noticed that the bullpen catchers for the Rangers and Yankees have WP entries, but I think the notability is tenuous even in those cases. Note that bullpen coaches and bullpen catchers are separate roles, with many bullpen coaches passing GNG and NBASEBALL as former pitchers anyway. I know there are a couple of teams with former MLB players as bullpen catchers, but it's much less common from what I can tell.
  HOWDY!
  01:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I do not feel passionately one way or the other on this -- I suppose my inclusionist tendencies might lead me to give them the benefit of the doubt. For what it's worth, this article, entitled "Phillies retain entire coaching staff", mentions that the Phils' bullpen catcher,
  Jesus Tiamo, is the longest-tenured member of the Phillies coaching staff: "the longest-tenured member of the staff; he's handled the bullpen catching job in each of the last six seasons." At least in his case, I think he can reasonably be considered part of the coaching staff, and thus notable per BASEBALL/N. Go Phightins!
  02:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we'd want to assume notability because one writer referred to a bullpen catcher as "part of the staff" when wrapping up a recap of a press release. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Tiamo isn't a coach because a sportswriter says he is; he's a coach because the Phillies' website says he is. Ravenswing 05:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not coaches; must pass GNG - Not players, not coaches; they're support staff. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not coaches must pass GNG- I'm not really familiar with Baseball but everything I've researched and statements from the MLB itself seem to go against them being coaches.--Church ^Talk 05:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not coaches; must pass GNG - As with the Wikipedian above, I too was not too familiar on the subject so I did some research. Every baseball player I found to be a "bullpen catcher" was not a Coach. -A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 06:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not coaches; must pass GNG (as everything must) -- The beauty of guidelines like
  WP:BASE/N is it provides standard "rules" to govern most cases, but the guideline is based on what normally would pass WP:GNG, we shouldn't extend the presumption of the guidelines to situations that don't fit. I'm an inclusionist, but I was rather surprised at the vote tally in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Cilladi, one puff profile really does not meet WP:GNG. There is no history to show us that bullpen catchers are typically notable and thus should be included in the presumption of notability of WP:BASE/N.--Milowent • ^hasspoken
  12:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not coaches; must pass GNG (as everything must) -- Are there any sources showing that show that a bullpen catcher is more than a person catching a ball? There is a pitching coach and a bullpen coach. So, how many more coaches do the pitchers need? Kingjeff (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not coaches; must pass GNG Per above
• Must pass GNG - Ravenswing makes an important point in this discussion. ANY criteria included in a SSG should indicate someone who in the vast majority of cases would meet GNG. The whole purpose of the guidelines are to help avoid unnecessary deletion discussions and help editors quickly make an assessment of notability. I have seen a lot of creep lately where these guidelines are expanding to the point where they don't meet this purpose (adding leagues where the players don't always or even usually meet GNG), and it undermines the credibility of all sport guidelines. If someone wants to make an argument that bullpen catchers meet GNG, do this. Take he last 3-4 years and assess each person against GNG. Would they all meet it? Being a bullpen catcher in and of itself doesn't make you notable, but are all of these guys coming down a career path that at some point makes them notable? This is why first and second round NBA draft picks are included under
  WP:NBASKETBALL. Being a second round pick doesn't make you notable, but pretty much every second round pick meets GNG through their college and/or pro (Europe, etc) careers. Rikster2 (talk
  ) 14:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The last addition I see to the list of leagues was in November 2013, where the number of leagues listed was reduced and the catch-all "top-level national league" was removed based on this discussion. The only change I found after the initial changes that were made during the first few months of this guideline was in January 2011, and it was reverted in May 2011. So I don't see any expansion of the leagues being listed, and in fact they were reduced in number. isaacl (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I was not referring to baseball, I was referring to sports guidelines in general. Anything done on one that waters down its credibility reflects on the rest of us when non-sport editors want to make the case that sports editors have low notability standards. Rikster2 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks for the clarification. Most complaints seem to centre around baseball, hockey, and association football, thus it's helpful to know which areas are specifically of concern so appropriate efforts can be focused in the right places. 15:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Sorry for the confusion. As an FYI, I just picked a random MLB team (Cleveland) and did a Google News search on their two bullpen catchers. At first glance, neither appears to meet GNG (maybe a deeper search would show something different). I liken bullpen catchers to graduate assistants, video coordinators or S&C coaches in college basketball - they are "on the staff," but they aren't really full assistants. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• If the team says they are a coach, they are a coach, if not then they aren't. However, regardless of whether they are or not, I do not think that bullpen catchers are coaches within the context that was intended for WP:BASEBALL/N. I think most people had in mind more traditional coaches like 1st/3rd base coaches, hitting/pitching coaches, bench and even bullpen coaches. So I think that even if they are coaches, bullpen catchers should probably be exempted from the notability presumption for coaches. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not a coach, must pass GNG Bullpen catchers are just bodies to catch pitchers when warming up. Some may be notable, but none should be inherently notable. Most of them have had no coaching experience and are typically minor leaguers not good enough to cut it. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Even people who meet WP:BASE/N must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Epeefleche (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Must pass GNG as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not coaches; must pass GNG - per Ravenswing and Rikster2, above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• must pass GNG I don't believe that bullpen catchers are what people have in mind when they talk about either major league players or coaches. Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Must pass GNG I've made myself clear in the recent AfDs. The coverage of most bullpen catchers is scarce to non-existent. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Must pass GNG, not auto-notable. This should be the obvious default position for anything unless convinced otherwise, and none of the arguments above tell me we should make an exception, especially when sourcing is scarce. Wizardman 17:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Must pass GNG bullpen catchers are not inherently notable and I agree with Rikster2's comparison to grad assistants, video coordinators and S&C coaches. I think the consensus is pretty clear and the discussion can probably be closed. Most of the contents of Category:Major League Baseball bullpen catchers will probably be disappearing over the next week or two. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The current notability criteria for Cricket reads as follows:

A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she

1. has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire

2. has appeared in at least one ICC World Cup Qualifier match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, as a player or umpire

3. has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Five status or above since 2007 as a player or umpire

Points 2 and 3 above are quite specific and easy to follow. My difficulty lies with the phrase "major cricket match" in point one. This is too imprecise and open to interpretation. I believe we need to be much clear-cut in our list of what sorts of matches fit within this phrase. This is currently a point of contention in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Clube.

A current suggestion is that the phrase refers to "first-class, List A and Twenty20 cricket" matches. If that's the case, then let's state that specifically. If there are other match types that need to be added then let's include them as well. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The term "major cricket" is currently defined on the

• Support Expanding the definition to list what "major" cricket matches are. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Seems sensible and consistent. Johnlp (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've

WP:CRIC#MAJOR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

12:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I got distracted by other things and have only just back back to this. Looks good. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a guideline for when teams are notable? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ORG." A WikiProject for a specific sport may have guidelines like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Notability. PrimeHunter (talk

) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

FIFA is the worldwide authority for organised football. Other authorities (such as the N.F.-Board) are not considered official by the IOC or wider world and their member teams are mainly non-recognised countries which also don't have formal selection criteria for players. For example, Sealand national football team has had many celebrities play for them in tournaments. See also Non-FIFA international football. Nanonic (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. FIFA is currently recognized by the IOC, but before 1904 FIFA did not exist.

1. How do you solve notability for prior to 1904 international games? Can we reword the sentence for pre-1904 games?
2. What about games that are currently scheduled by national teams outside of the FIFA calendar? If a player is selected for those games, but no longer is selected, the current wording would not allow for this player to be included.
3. The non-recognized countries are not necessarily privy of a formal selection criteria. For instance Kosovo is allowed to play international games only if they are amateurial, but if you look at the Kosovo roster, you'll realize that very few players are amateurs: they all play in professinal leagues, or they are young promises, who will soon play in professional leagues. This entails a problem: for instance an editor, duly insists in removing from wikipedia Alban Bunjaku, who is a young player and hasn't played in professional leagues at all, but has played with Kosovo. Kosovo does have a national team in 2014 (and so did England before 1904), but players of neither team for the respective players (before 2014 and currently), would be eligible to be noticed in wikipedia. Can we make a rewording for certain national teams in the policy, for instance for national teams which predate FIFA, as well as for teams, such as Kosovo or Catalonia, which are allowed to play friendly international games by FIFA? --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Prior to 1904, there were very few international matches. Most of the major ones were between the Home Nations, and those were officially sanctioned by their FAs for the most part I believe. As for those that are allowed to play in friendly international games, then the guideline already permits that as it is worded right now, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Here's my answer to Bunjaktorollak's question: why should we? The purpose of NSPORTS isn't to set up a back door for otherwise non-notable athletes to qualify for articles, but to set forth circumstances under which athletes would likely meet the GNG. Teams which play exhibition matches (in any sport) often load up their rosters with fringe players who wouldn't otherwise appear on the regular rosters, and if those fringe players haven't managed to be discussed in reliable sources as per the GNG, then there's no reason to have articles on them. If Bunjaktorollak would care to demonstrate that there are a lot of players slipping through the cracks, who do meet the GNG, then I agree that the guideline needs revision. Otherwise, this a solution in search of a problem. Ravenswing 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Playing in any non FIFA-sanctioned game does not make you notable. As Luke says, before 1904 and the forming of FIFA there were very few games. The guideline is fine as it is. GiantSnowman 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Also note that this proposal is almost certainly linked to this comment and related AFD. Sigh. GiantSnowman 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• It certainly is linked and Alban Bunjaku will fall in the cracks because of a wikipolicy that I find incorrect in its exclusion. So will Mentor Zhdrella (already in Italian and Albanian wikipedias) and Kushtrim Mushica (already in the Italian wikipedia), who keep being deleted. The policy, as is, is excluding several national team players to be in the English Wikipedia. Sighing is not necessarily good logic. --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Alban Bunjaku will "fall in the cracks" not because the guidelines are wrong, but because he doesn't qualify for an article. Show us some evidence that he meets the GNG, and votes will change. Otherwise, I'm adamantly opposed to any watering down of the guideline for no better reason than there's a player you like who wouldn't meet it. Ravenswing 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am here merely to discuss the guidelines. Alban Bunjaku's GNG is a long discussion, and this is not the place. That will be done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alban Bunjaku (2nd nomination). --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The priority should be to demonstrate a subject meets

WP:GNG, particularly when they fail a subject-specific guideline. Hack (talk

) 02:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The examples I gave don't fail NFOOTY: all three of them have played for Kosovo. The wiki guideline is worded wickedly though: it says that the FIFA would need to sanction as if its vetting is necessary to confer legitimacy to NT A games: my opinion is that we don't need the FIFA part. However even if we accept the FIFA part, Kosovo's games are allowed by FIFA as per this source. No one has so far given a plausible explanation as to why the Kosovo players shouldn't be included in wikipedia because of the current guideline. Bunjaktorollak (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The definition of an international senior match is generally held to be what FIFA call a "Tier 1 International Match", also known as an "A International" match. This is a match between two FIFA member associations. As Kosovo is not a FIFA member association, any match would be a "Tier 2" or "Tier 3" match.[2] Hack (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's been stated more than once, actually; you just don't accept the explanation. Your privilege, of course, but Wikipedia is run by consensus, and so far consensus seems to be running unanimously against your position. Ravenswing 07:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I'd support a change in the wording from a "senior international match" to a "tier 1 international match, as defined by FIFA", or something similar, just to prevent any confusion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• No objection here to any such change. Ravenswing 11:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with this proposed language clarification. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with this clarification as well. CRwikiCA talk 17:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Pinging User:GiantSnowman here, just to see if they agree. Regardless, I'd say there's probably a consensus here that the wording should be clarified. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping didn't work but I saw this on my watchlist - I am fine with this proposed tightening of the wording, however when/if introduced it should include a link to a definition of a 'tier 1' game i.e. any FIFA-sactioned match between two senior international teams. GiantSnowman 15:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• I had every intention of adding that link in. I'll go and make the change now. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose including junior athletes who win at the highest international level to be included in this guideline. The main reason for this edit is that with extreme consistency, articles on junior athletes who win prestigious international junior competitions who are nominated for AFD, with WP:NSPORTS as the rationale, survive AFD by meeting WP:GNG. Note I wrote the initial WP:GYMNAST guideline, and I held the strictest view on exclusion during the discussions. The guideline did not get much discussion here, but one member of the gymnastics project complained that the guideline was too restrictive especially for junior athletes. Note that in gymnastics, professional competitions are age restricted, like figure skating, and quite often athletes in the junior ranks are more notable than their senior counter parts. The gymnastics community is small, so there unfortunately was little input from them so I didn't want one voice to make the guideline too lax (Since by definition WP:NSPORT guidelines need to error on the side of strictness). However, after reading multiple AFDs, for example this one it has become clear that the initial input from that user is at least partially correct. Note that the guideline is still very strict. Only allowing winners of elite international junior competitions. A survey of the pacific rim individual junior champions shows that all of them meet WP:GNG at the time of their pacific rim championship win. This addition is necessary because these athletes are going to AFD when they are clearly not AFD worthy, even a lazy google news search would have shown these athletes to pass WP:GNG. MATThematical (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I contributed to an

I think referees should be held to a very high standard of notability, because they tend not to get the same type of coverage that athletes get. The requirement for notability in WP:NSPORTS needs to basically guarantee there is WP:GNG coverage. So yes, if it seems like there is a bunch of referees that don't meet WP:GNG they could be nominated for deletion. NSPORTS is not a loophole to get around GNG, it is meant to prevent the deletion of athlete articles who very likely meet WP:GNG if considerable effort was undertaken to look for the appropriate sources. In general WP:NSPORTS should be stricter than WP:GNG to prevent it being used as a way to circumvent WP:GNG requirements. MATThematical (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I see no reason why we should seek "wider coverage" of referees; our task is to determine what level of involvement is likely to guarantee referees a GNG pass. Since, in my observation, it is vanishingly seldom (and generally only as the result of an infamous call on the field) that they get any coverage at all beyond routine match mentions explicitly debarred by

WP:ROUTINE, I'd suggest we don't trouble ourselves with any guideline at all specifically covering game officials beyond the GNG. Ravenswing

23:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually why are any referees at all considered notable on this project? Do all refs who have officiated at a Tier 1 international fixture meet WP:GNG? There is no sport in the United States, at it's highest league (e.g. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) that has all of it's referees get non-routine coverage. Do refs get more none routine coverage in football or rugby? I'm inclined to delete anything mentioning refs on the project page. What do others think? Is this worth starting an rfc for?MATThematical (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Referees in football (soccer) and rugby do perhaps get more coverage than the other sports you have listed, for different reasons. The outcome of the encounters of sports teams aren't just determined by physical prowess but whether rules are transgressed; when there are lots of people moving at speed and bumping into each other the performance of the referee does assume importance. In football some matches may have only a few scoring opportunities and the referee's history of decision making is often discussed by fans and commentators, especially where decisions are seen to have been controversial (and video playback is often available to fans afterwards but not to assist the match officials during the game). There referees do get a significant amount of media attention, especially at the upper levels. In rugby the ability of the referee to maintain discipline and keep the match moving is often scrutinised by commentators and fans, although the introduction of video analysis to assist the referees in charge of top-level matches has meant there is less controversy around decisions made during these games. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone claims the names of officials are never mentioned in the press. I just don't feel -- and believe it's the general consensus -- that except under extraordinary circumstances it rises beyond the level of routine match coverage explicitly debarred by

WP:ROUTINE from supporting the notability of the subject. Certainly the coverage of the BBC's soccer pages mentions officials in passing, if at all, for example. Would you, perhaps, care to post links of coverage of officials, from reliable sources, you feel rise above routine match coverage, by way of example of your point? Ravenswing

13:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess my point is that the relationship between the match officials and the media is more complex than between players and the media. I would cite a few newspaper articles that explore this: In 2009 the SFA attempts to explain decisions without having refs in spotlight, the guardian consider post-match interviews with officials and interview form 2009 with a very prominent referee (who was releasing an autobiography). Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not the most powerful of examples, I'd suggest. The first link doesn't mention match officials at all. The second does so only in passing (at least I infer that the names dropped were, indeed, match officials). The third? It's a piece on an official who just came out with an autobiography, who attempted suicide because he was gay, who is a presenter of a TV show, and who was the referee of a game so infamous as to merit its own Wikipedia article (in which article he is, nonetheless, not mentioned) ... the very type of "extraordinary circumstances" I've cited. Nigel Owens has an article not because he's passed some measure of NSPORTS bar, but because he plainly meets the GNG with flying colors. Ravenswing 14:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The first two links were provided to give examples of why match officials might be deliberately left out of interviews with journalists, including specific efforts that sporting organisations might put in to try to keep referees out of the media spotlight. And yes, the third link was a deliberate example of the sort of person who is off the scale in terms of notability, such that significant media exposure seems inevitable (even when his involvement in a major match controversy was not in fact related to his refereeing performance). Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The previous guideline was officiating in a single tier 1 match. If you randomly sampled 20 officials who ONLY officiated ONE match, would at least 19 of them meet WP:GNG? I doubt that officials need to me mentioned at all, but if they do, can we agree that a tigher guideline than officiating one tier 1 match needs to be in place. If so what guideline would have nearly all of it's satisfy-ers also satisfy WP:GNG? MATThematical (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that sports leagues have a powerful incentive to keep referees out of the media spotlight, and generally succeed in doing so. Where I differ from you, I believe, is in finishing that with "... and that's why referees don't generally meet the GNG, and therefore shouldn't be considered presumptively notable." Ravenswing 00:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Perfect summary. It would be like saying, there are important FBI and CIA agents who don't satisfy WP:GNG but are really really important. They deserve pages. My opinion is that while WP:GNG may at some level distinguish people who are important from others, it is mainly in place so that only people who can be written about objectively with credible independent sources have pages. It is more about protecting the content and the article than it is about importance. It is not our job at wikipedia to figure who is important or not. We just want good, factual, encyclopedic articles written about our subjects. If refs do not get the coverage needed to write such articles they shouldn't by default get pages written about them. MATThematical (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if we were to grant that many tier 1 officials get non routine coverage in the press, that doesn't mean that all tier one officials, especially ones that only officiated one game should get mentioned here. Only if almost every tier 1 official gets significant coverage should officials make it into NSPORT. This is not to say there aren't many notable officials, just that they need to be judged solely based on WP:GNG. MATThematical (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In the debate

As always, the question has to be asked: Can we reliably assume that nearly all college All-Americans receive enough coverage to meet GNG? If the answer is no, then NCOLLATH is wrong. Resolute 23:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that it's highly dependent on the sport. Obviously a football or basketball All-American would meet the GNG. But cross-country? Fencing? I doubt it. Honestly, NCOLLATH has been overly broad for years -- all head coaches are notable? -- and could use some serious work. Ravenswing 23:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How far down does that go too? Are there Division III All-Americans? Even in the case of football or basketball, at that level, I would have a very hard time believing it. Resolute 23:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I would limit it to Division I first-team members of recognized bodies or their equivalence (e.g., national champions in wrestling or swimming). I do think there is enough coverage with even some of the lesser followed sports at the US college level to reliably assume that nearly all of these members meet GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As a basketball editor I have yet to see a first, second or third-team Division I All-American from a nationally-recognized team (like those used to determine the consensus All-American teams) who didn't also meet GNG – and that goes back to the turn of the century. My guess is that this is true of football too. The reality is that not all sports are created equal as it relates to press coverage. A first-team football All-American will always be notable, but will a first-team field hockey All-American? Any way we can segment by sport? Anecdotally, I would think first-team D1 All-Americans in baseball, men's hockey, women's basketball and soccer would probably meet GNG too (though we'd need to check that). the reality is that not all sports get equal press coverage. Can a guideline reflect this reality? Rikster2 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering the number of professional sports guidelines I think that it would be too cumbersome to create and manage a number of different college sports sets. Further, this really only applies to US college sports so I think the college section should remain (as opposed to adding US-college specific guidelines to each sport). I 100% agree that all sports are not created equal, but this is just talking about a guideline. If the guideline says only 1st-team All-Americans meet the guideline, that does not mean a 2nd-team basketball All-American is not notable. It just means the guideline is not used to create a presumption and GNG is the final metric in all cases. I do think with all the sports-specific coverage out there a field hockey, rifle, or rowing 1st-team All-American is likely notable enough to create a presumption. Again, no one is saying that a water polo 1st-team All-American is as notable as a football or basketball 1st-team All-American, but that their notability in that sports circle is enough to presume notability.RonSigPi (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• We don't have to create independent and separate college sports sets. The
  WP:NHOCKEY guideline, for instance, incorporates college hockey in it, and I see no reason why not (and good reasons to implement) do the same for other sports guidelines. Ravenswing
  04:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is presently no presumption of notability built into WP:NCOLLATH for college All-Americans. As someone who edits articles on Division I FBS college football All-Americans, my experience suggests there should be presumed notability for individuals chosen as first-team All-Americans by one or more of the major selectors (e.g., AP, UP, Sporting News). I suspect the same also holds true for college basketball All-Americans. I don't have the same level of certainty as to whether All-Americans in other college sports would also warrant presumed notability. Cbl62 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree that there is no presumption of notability for college All-Americans currently in the current NCOLLATH. The guideline very specifically states "Have won a national award (such as those listed in
  Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport)." All-American is featured prominently on this template and the companion one for basketball. That said, tightening it to be more specific would be fine, but All-American honors are some of the most significant awards you receive in college sport and are the ones most likely referenced after the fact (eg "Jones was an All-American fullback at Notre Dame"). Rikster2 (talk
  ) 13:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• I would also support a presumption of notability for both consensus All-Americans and first-term All-Americans who were selected by one or more of the major selectors (presently, AFCA, AP, FWAA, TSN and WCFF for Division I FBS football; and AP, TSN, USBWA and NABC for Division I basketball). I do not support a presumption of notability for Division I FCS football All-Americans, or any "little All-American" basketball or football selections in Division II or III. I would consider supporting a presumption of notability for consensus All-Americans in Division I baseball, after a careful review of the evidence. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I might also add that the All-America selection criteria varies widely for other college sports. I edit a lot of articles about U.S. Olympic swimmers, most of whom had significant NCAA careers. All-America honors are given to the top eight finishers in each swimming event at the NCAA national championships, and it is possible to accumulate a maximum of 7 All-America honors in a season, or a maximum of 28 in a four-year college career. Track and field has a similar All-America honors system. Clearly, these are not the equivalent of consensus All-American status in Division I football or basketball, and I would not support a presumption of notability for All-American athletes in other sports for these reasons; fairly or unfairly, the same volume of significant media coverage does not accrue to All-Americans in other college sports. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with DL that first-team and consensus NCAA Division I All-Americans in football and men's basketball (FBS in the case of football) are going to meet GNG and should be specifically included in whatever guideline is adopted. I think you can say "consensus AA status or named first team by a selecting body used to determine consensus teams for the year in question." Example, today the Sporting News is one of the teams used to select consensus basketball All-America teams but a UPI first-team selection from 1970 should fall under the same guideline. Ravenswing makes an interesting point about just eliminating NCOLLATH and folding this into the sport guidelines. In principle I could get behind this, but one of the key issues is there is a huge segment of European editors who just don't understand that some major college sports are covered at the same level in North America as professional leagues in most countries. This was at the heart of the Alex Bono case. In some ways NCOLLATH serves a valuable purpose to educate editors that many college athletes are going to be notable. But maybe just a note to that affect and direction to see the relevant sport guidelines would suffice. Rikster2 (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

One last thought. My take-away from the Alex Bono discussion was further validation that

USL Pro, which is included in their list of fully professional leagues that assumes notability. Take a look at this AfD for James Kiffe. Most Footy project editors were ready to keep solely on the guy playing 4 games in USL Pro. Fast forward to Bono and many of those same editors were adamant that Bono was not notable because he hadn't played his first pro game (even though he's signed with an MLS club) - in truth both subjects had about the same level of independent coverage in my estimation. After the Kiffe AfD, I did a back of the envelope analysis of USL Pro - when I looked at the entire roster of the Dayton Dutch Lions (worst team in the league), only half that roster would meet GNG by my view. We don't give a blanket notability presumption for those playing one game in any other minor league sport in North America, why do we do it for soccer? I get that a third division footballer in England or Italy might get that kind of coverage, but that is because the sport is more prominent there. Rikster2 (talk

) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, when

WP:NCOLLATH was written back in 2007, the college football awards template did not include All-Americans. The awards template has expanded considerably since then. All-Americans were added to the template in November 2011 with this edit. In the past, we have had discussions at the college football project about establishing a presumption of notability for first-team All-Americans. There has been broad consensus with the project that first-team All-Americans are notable. Whether or not such a presumption exists now, the presumption is appropriate and should be clarified. I would support such a presumption for first-team All-Americans (as designated by one or more of the NCAA-recognized "official" All-American selectors) in top level college football and basketball. Based on the discussion above, it sounds like Rikster2, Dirtlawyer1, Ravenswing and I all support such a clarification. Does anyone object? (Frankly, as someone suggested above, not all college sports are the same, and it probably would make sense to have different standards for (i) football, (ii) basketball, and (iii) other college sports.) Cbl62 (talk

) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would actually clarify NCOLLATH a bit due to the changing of that template. But I would put any mention of All-Americans into individual sports sections like

WP:NHOCKEY which handles its own college athletes separately from NCOLLATH. -DJSasso (talk

) 17:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If the standard is tied to a template, and that template changes, then the guideline has also changed. I'm all for re-writing NCOLLATH, but if the basis is going to be another article/template then part and parcel of that is that it can evolve. there are tons of examples of awards that were later added to these templates being used to support meeting NCOLLATH, that matters just as much as what was on a base template eight years ago. All that said, let's figure out what makes sense today and go from there. Rikster2 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That is sort of my point, nothing in these guidelines should be tied to an article space template as those don't get the scrutiny that are guideline like this gets. If we want to list awards it should just be a link to a subpage of this page so it gets more eyes on changes to it, sort of like the league lists some of the guidelines use. I never would have thought to watch that template for additions for example and I am sure many others are the same. Frankly I would revert to what the template was at the time it was written on this page and then discuss anything that has been added since. If there is consensus on what has been added since then there is no issue. If there is no consensus to include whatever had been added then it won't be on the new list. These guidelines aren't set in stone, stuff that meets it one day may no longer meet it in the future. Hockey for example drastically tightened up its wording awhile back and many many pages no longer met it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For purposes of comparison, this is what the awards template looked like when WP:NCOLLATH was adopted. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It just doesn't matter. The decision tying a notability standard to a template opened it up to this sort if creep. The good news is that I believe that the way All-America status has been supported via NCOLLATH has been wholly consistent with the original intent of the guideline and the wording being proposed now. Rikster2 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed language

While a broader rewrite may or may not have merit, there is broad consensus that first-team All-Americans in college football and basketball are notable. Accordingly, and as an interim step, I would propose adding the following clarifying language to WP:NCOLLATH.

• Division I college football and basketball players who have been selected as a first-team All-American by one or more of the major selectors designated by the NCAA for the season in which the selection was made. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Instead of a single line like that in NCOLLATH I would put a line in both of those sports sections. Because people looking at basketball notability or football notability are going to look there first and because it doesn't apply in general to all college athletes which I believe was the reason for that section. Stuff that wasn't specific to one sport or another in college. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it fits best in WP:COLLATH as that's where folks look for clarification on college athletes. (All-American status is strictly a collegiate award.) That said, my proposed language makes it clear that first-team All-American status creates a presumption of notability only for football and basketball, not other sports. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Right but the primary purpose of this guideline is for the actual individual sports. A person is going to go to the sport they are looking at first for clarification before they go to the catchall at the bottom of the page. I think it makes it considerably more difficult to find by doing so. However, I suppose you could put it in both. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

How about wording NCOLLATH to cover every other sport, calling out that basketball and football have a lower threshold and directing people to football and basketball to get the details (hockey too)? I do like having a college athlete section if for no other reason to educate editors that many college athletes really will meet GNG. It is a big issue with the Global nature of English Wikipedia, it is the origin of many inappropriate AfDs. Rikster2 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Rikster2 on there being a need for a separate college athlete section due to lack of familiarity outside the US with the immense popularity and coverage of college football and basketball in the US. Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

New proposed language

The whole point of this debate was about a college soccer player. While I understand the desire to clear up football and basketball, it does not address the original problem. In view of the comments of above I would suggest either 1a) or 1b) below:

College athletes are presumed notable if they:
1a. At the NCAA Division I level, were selected as a first-team All-American by one or more of the major selectors designated by the NCAA for the season in which the selection was made or for individual sports were individual national champions.
1b. At the NCAA Division I level, that were for selected as a first-team All-American by one or more of the major selectors designated by the NCAA for the season in which the selection was made in football, basketball, baseball, soccer, or ice hockey (east or west) or for individual sports were an individual national champion.
2. Have won a national award (such as those listed in

This addresses the issue at hand and still satisfies the concern about football and basketball. As said above, I think due to the number of sports and the NCAA/US specific nature of college sports there needs to be a college-only requirement.RonSigPi (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Using a template as the basis needs to stop. We need to create a list that can be watched instead of an active template. Rikster2 (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

All-Americans in baseball have never been presumed to be notable per past discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_11#College_baseball_All-Americans and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_17#Second_Team_All-American_baseball_players. I'd be wary of any sports besides football and (men's?) basketball having AA's being presumed notable.—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hockey has had it as part of our notability for a long time so I would leave it, its held up in a number of Afd's where we asked for proof of notability. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree completely with the concept that 1st team all Americans should be presumed notable. This may be true in football and basketball (although I question whether this is actually the case, for example all american punters etc. don't necessarily get WP:GNG coverage due to the fact that most don't make the NFL) but for most sports, such as gymnastics, wrestling, golf, equestrian, cross country, skiing etc. this is certainly not true at all. It should be discussed within the context of some of the sports specific guidelines not the college athlete guidelines.MATThematical (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with MATT as an exclusive claim to notability. I will suggest that for some lesser athletes it would be part of an additive equation. We have a line drawn here, achieve this and the subject is notable, fail and its not. We have a lot of gray situations where an athlete is a perennial near miss. I think we should have some way to allow these multiple near misses to add up to achieve sufficient notability to write an article about someone. In fact, someone with that kind of track record might have a more interesting story to tell (as opposed to our numerous stub articles). But I know I wouldn't work that hard to put together an article if I could anticipate it would just get wiped out at AfD. In that regard, All American status should be one of those criteria. Trackinfo (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine to say that first team All-American isn't notable across the board. Truth is, first, second and third team probably are for football and men's college basketball and I'd bet first team is for women's basketball and baseball. Rikster2 (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: It would be a complicated formula, and easier just to demonstrate GNG outright for those borderline cases. I dont think they come up often enough to justify

more written rules.—Bagumba (talk

) 00:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Have appeared in at least one competitive international match between Full members of the
   RLEF
   ^{(see Notes 1 & 2)}, or
2. Have appeared in at least one match at a Rugby League World Cup tournament, or
3. Have appeared in at least one match of a fully professional club Rugby league competition:
   • National Rugby League ^{(see Note 3)}, or
   • Super League ^{(see Note 3)} including Challenge Cup appearances, or
   • Co-operative Championship

Other players and personalities surrounding the game are notable if they meet

With the current growth of the RLIF and RLEF I think point #1 is now too broad (see [5] and [6]). Playing in a Ukraine v Serbia match is unlikely to create enough coverage for a player to meet the GNG. I would propose that points one and two be modified to read; Have appeared in at least one match at a

Hard to disagree with much there. The growth of the RLIF would to lead to the inclusion of bundles of players who wouldn't come close to meeting

WP:GNG. I wonder if there should be some inclusion of pre-World Cup French international players?Doctorhawkes (talk

) 06:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point, happy to include France to that list. Mattlore (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points… prior to 1957 Great Britain versus France were not considered Test Matches (at least by Great Britain), but I would say players from either side in these matches would be considered notable. Also, the

RFL Championship players (A couple of issues… Other Nationalities players versus Sydney Colts in 1964, and Other Nationalities players in 1974 "English" County Championship, but likely covered as National Rugby League, or RFL Championship players). Best Regards DynamoDegsy (talk

) 15:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, I don't think playing for an affiliate member of the RLEF should be considered notable, but it's difficult to know where to draw the line. I appreciate it's for historic reasons, but if playing for Wales/France is automatically notable, then why not Scotland, Ireland, Fiji, Samoa, PNG? (etc.) To be honest, I think the bar needs to be raised for club players as well. While there are some players in the

Championship that are notable, I certainly don't think everyone who plays one game for Hunslet or Batley warrants a Wikipedia article. J Mo 101 (talk

) 22:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we leave Other Nationalities out, as you say if they have played for that side then they have likely played in the RFL Championship or NSWRL/NRL. Perhaps the sentence should read "Have appeared in at least one match between Great Britain, England, Wales, France, New Zealand or Australia prior to 1995." (or some other cut off?) This will emphasis it is only there for historic reasons. Also I agree that playing in the Championship could be dropped as an automatic qualifier, if there is consensus? Mattlore (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's sounds reasonable. I imagine the vast majority of notable Championship players will have played in the Super League anyway at some point in their career. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Will all players in the

The Qualifiers be considered notable, or just those players who were in Super League teams at the start of the season? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk

) 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Difficult to say until we see how much coverage the "middle 8" games get this year. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on these discussions, I'll change the guidelines to the following unless there is objection in the next few days. Mattlore (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Have appeared in at least one match at a
   Rugby League European Cup
   , or
2. Have appeared in at least one match between Great Britain, England, Wales, France, New Zealand or Australia prior to 1995, or
3. Have appeared in at least one match of a fully professional club Rugby league competition:
   • National Rugby League ^{(see Note 3)}, or
   • Super League ^{(see Note 3)} including Challenge Cup appearances.

Other players and personalities surrounding the game are notable if they meet

It would be nice if we had a guide specific to the notability of pro volleyball players. This would help editors such as myself that don't have much knowledge about how volleyball operates at the top levels, and who should be considered notable or not. For example, while patrolling new pages I came across the article Yacine Louati, a quick Google search reveals that this person really does play Volleyball and at the least has some coverage (mostly foreign language websites), but other than that I have no idea how to gauge their notability in the volleyball world. Any experts that could help out in this area? -War wizard90 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Does pro volleyball even get enough coverage in mainstream media to warrant a notability guideline outside of GNG? I know some beach volleyball players do but regular volleyball players really would just be the olympians I assume. Spanneraol (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So you don't think players in leagues such as USA Premier Volleyball League, AVP Beach Volleyball, and other professional leagues would not be considered notable? Also, college volley ball I know is broadcast all the time on ESPN, I don't think lack of coverage is the issue here. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Its not that they can't be notable, its just will they all be notable. The idea behind this page is that if someone meets these standards there is a 99% likelihood that they meet

WP:GNG. This page doesn't judge notability, it judges likelihood a player meets the GNG. -DJSasso (talk

) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment I just dug up an archived discussion that never seemed to lead to anything on the sports notability page - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Volleyball#Notability_guide_for_volleyball -War wizard90 (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the Italian professional league receives extensive coverage, but I have no personal knowledge of whether or not typical coverage of its players warrants an rule of thumb that Wikipedia's standards for inclusion is met for them. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)