Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Project pages |
---|
|
Old definition of WP:FOOTYN is don't true
I think don't true for old definition of WP:FOOTYN. It is fixed national cups such as Thai FA Cup, Chinese FA Cup, Emperor's Cup and etc. to determine Notability of Football club. It doesn't true because a lot of clubs don't join any national level of the league structure in countries can play national cups. especially knock-out national cups. You must fixed national league structure in countries and don't fixed national cups. Aquaelfin (talk) 4:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you're wrong on this. It's been long established via AfDs that clubs don't have to play in a nationwide league to be considered notable. Number 57 14:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia notability is wrong defination. It is fixed national cups more than team in national level of the league structure. knock-out national cups such as FA Cup is joined by non-Amateur and non-Professional teams. It's call Out of league teams such as Traill International School in 2018 Thai FA Cup. Do you think this team has wiki article more than Amateur team ? Aquaelfin (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's long-established that non fully-professional clubs playing in the FA Cup are deemed notable. There will always be a few exceptions to the rule, and a school team playing in a cup competition might be one of them – as the school itself has an article, the football team could be covered there. Number 57 18:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why Pualand F.C. articles pass ? This teams don't appeared in national public news but join in 2018 Thai FA Cup. This teams has wiki articles !!!!!!! It doesn't make sent and fail Ameteur club standard which can or cannot wiki articles. Thailand Amateur League started after Thai FA Cup. I don't know each team which join or don't join Thailand Amateur League. I think to changes WP:FOOTYN defination teams which has wiki articles to must play in national level of the league structure. It prevents to create teams don't join Thailand Amateur League and more. Teams in Thailand Amateur League which have wiki articles must appeared team history in National public news. Aquaelfin (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- As I said earlier, it's been well established that clubs do not need to play at the nationwide league to be deemed notable, so you're not going to get this changed. And it makes no sense to have such a rule as different countries regionalise their leagues at different levels – some countries (e.g. the Faroes) have national levels all the way from top to bottom; some regionalise at a very high level. Number 57 19:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Number 57 is right, it hasd long been established to apply that same rule for cups to all cases equally. FkpCascais (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- but it doesn't true if you fix national cups to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles. You see teams which isn't Amateur teams in national leagues but this teams have wiki articles ? Why do you fix Amateur teams in national leagues to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles ? For Amateur teams in national leagues which have wiki articles standard. I introduce see history teams of Amateur teams in national leagues to get standard. If you choose any way to Amateur teams in national leagues which have wiki articles standard, I don't problem. I would like to fix Amateur teams in national leagues to base for determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles.
- Number 57 is right, it hasd long been established to apply that same rule for cups to all cases equally. FkpCascais (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- As I said earlier, it's been well established that clubs do not need to play at the nationwide league to be deemed notable, so you're not going to get this changed. And it makes no sense to have such a rule as different countries regionalise their leagues at different levels – some countries (e.g. the Faroes) have national levels all the way from top to bottom; some regionalise at a very high level. Number 57 19:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Why Pualand F.C. articles pass ? This teams don't appeared in national public news but join in 2018 Thai FA Cup. This teams has wiki articles !!!!!!! It doesn't make sent and fail Ameteur club standard which can or cannot wiki articles. Thailand Amateur League started after Thai FA Cup. I don't know each team which join or don't join Thailand Amateur League. I think to changes WP:FOOTYN defination teams which has wiki articles to must play in national level of the league structure. It prevents to create teams don't join Thailand Amateur League and more. Teams in Thailand Amateur League which have wiki articles must appeared team history in National public news. Aquaelfin (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's long-established that non fully-professional clubs playing in the FA Cup are deemed notable. There will always be a few exceptions to the rule, and a school team playing in a cup competition might be one of them – as the school itself has an article, the football team could be covered there. Number 57 18:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia notability is wrong defination. It is fixed national cups more than team in national level of the league structure. knock-out national cups such as FA Cup is joined by non-Amateur and non-Professional teams. It's call Out of league teams such as Traill International School in 2018 Thai FA Cup. Do you think this team has wiki article more than Amateur team ? Aquaelfin (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- such as *England: Clubs that play or have played at step 6 (level 10), or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup or FA Vase generally meet WP:GNG criteria. I accept this example.
- for *Thailand: Clubs that don't play or haven't played T1 to T5 generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Aquaelfin (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- We don't need country specific guidelines, where a guideline is not clear we can look to WP:GNG. What we're seeing at AfD recently is fifth or sixth division Thai clubs do not meet GNG, especially when they are brand new organisations. Amateur status isn't relevant here, though a professional team almost certainly will generally pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 15:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't aganist clear. It isn't true and haven't standard to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles. We must decide new Amateur teams which have wiki articles definition. SportingFlyer. Aquaelfin (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, I may not agree with Aquaelfin on much, but in the need for country specific guidelines I absolutely agree 100%.
- Which step/level is sufficient to satisfy the criteria in each country, Category:Football league systems by continent?
- Is the Tajikistan Second League a truly national league or a bunch of regional leagues operating under a national label?
- Is participation in the FA Cup what it says, or is participation in a qualifying round sufficient? The implementation of this differs from the wording, and you reverted my previous effort to clarify without offering any better clarification yourself.
- What about Australian teams in the years when there was no national level cup, Template:National soccer cup competitions in Australia?
- Without the country specifics the guidelines as they currently stand aren't so much a useful guideline as the brief for a research project. As such they're not fit-for-purpose. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just worth noting that Cabayi's edit to include qualifying rounds was correct – this is how the guideline is interpreted. Number 57 13:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think the guideline is interpreted that way - for England. Other countries have different cup formats. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Essendon_Royals_SC which was a keep, but notes every single FFA affiliated team is eligible for the FFA Cup qualifying rounds. In New Zealand it's the same if you pay a fee. Does this mean every football team there is notable? In Croatia there is a "preliminary round" which is clearly distinct from a "qualifying round" since teams win their county cups to qualify. The U.S. Open Cup has a qualifying tournament. Do teams participating in the county cups or in the qualifying tournament qualify for the SNG?
- Also, I disagree in terms of country-specific guidelines. The test I've been using is: does the league level receive secondary press coverage? For instance, every team participating in the Croatian Treća HNL should pass WP:GNG since that league is covered by the press, and every African top division I've seen is also covered locally (I've been improving a number of these articles recentl), whereas teams in the 4.HNL or a second division in Africa may well pass WP:GNG – but not necessarily. To answer the questions above: *The top division, a division in a national structure of the league, or a division which receives continuous and comprehensive press coverage; *A bunch of regional leagues; *The lower level press coverage in England exceeds any other country, as far as I can tell, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to require teams who have only played in the qualifying rounds to meet WP:GNG; *I'd say an Aussie team who played in a non-national cup and isn't otherwise notable would need to pass WP:GNG. WP:GNG is not a difficult hurdle to pass, either... SportingFlyer talk 23:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just worth noting that Cabayi's edit to include qualifying rounds was correct – this is how the guideline is interpreted. Number 57 13:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, I may not agree with Aquaelfin on much, but in the need for country specific guidelines I absolutely agree 100%.
- It doesn't aganist clear. It isn't true and haven't standard to determine Amateur teams which have wiki articles. We must decide new Amateur teams which have wiki articles definition. SportingFlyer. Aquaelfin (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- We don't need country specific guidelines, where a guideline is not clear we can look to WP:GNG. What we're seeing at AfD recently is fifth or sixth division Thai clubs do not meet GNG, especially when they are brand new organisations. Amateur status isn't relevant here, though a professional team almost certainly will generally pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 15:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- for *Thailand: Clubs that don't play or haven't played T1 to T5 generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Aquaelfin (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- for goodness sake folks, stop calling it a guideline. It isn't, and if you want it to be, you need to get support at WP:NSPORT. The simple thing to ask is, do all the other teams at this level usually pass the GNG? if so Then it might be ok to state that generally teams at that level pass the GNG. But again... not a guideline. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- https://mgronline.com/sport/detail/9610000064108, http://www.siamsport.co.th/football/thai-fa-cup/view/72173 They are sample news of T5-club has played in the FA-cup. A lot of news are draw or results of Thai FA Cup only. don't have clubs webpage. don't have history of clubs. don't have any national news report clubs to scoop. while some T5-club only has played in T5 but have clubs webpage, history of clubs scoop, catching up with the national news feed. Do you think what team have wiki article ? Aquaelfin (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Those two sources wouldn't qualify any club for an article per WP:GNG. WP:GNG requires significant coverage of the team, that is coverage of the competition. SportingFlyer talk 22:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, Which one do you think pass WP:GNG in the above passage ? Aquaelfin (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- No team passes WP:GNG in the above passage but the competition does or is well on its way. SportingFlyer talk 17:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, Which one do you think pass WP:GNG in the above passage ? Aquaelfin (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Jordan Archer of Bury (currently on loan at Southport)
Hello. A couple of questions here. This guy has not yet played in an EFL match but he did play as a sub (for Southport) in two FA Cup matches this season, one against Tranmere and the other against a non-league team, Borehamwood. Does that qualify him for an article? If he does qualify, what should the article be called given that he was born in 1993 and so was Jordan Archer of Millwall? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @No Great Shaker: - yes, his FA Cup game for a league club against another league club confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. I actually have a draft article ready for us to move into mainspace.
- Article location is another question. Soccerway has his DOB as 1995, while Bury have 1993. If the 1995 date is correct then have him at Jordan Archer (footballer, born 1995). If the 1993 date is correct, then his article should be located at either Jordan Archer (forward, born 1993) or Jordan Archer (footballer, born November 1993). Whatever happens the Millwall keeper article should also be moved similarly. I'll ask at WT:FOOTBALL for input here. GiantSnowman 13:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Soccerbase also has 1993 and I'm inclined to go with that. I suggest the articles are moved to Jordan Archer (forward, born 1993) and Jordan Archer (goalkeeper, born 1993) because the positions are more likely to set them apart for a reader than month of birth, and nationality is ambiguous given that the 'Scottish' Archer is English born and bred... GiantSnowman 14:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- (I'm going to be bold and make the moves...) GiantSnowman 14:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Uh, shouldn't Jordan Archer (goalie) stay where it is per WP:2DABS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? He's clearly more notable than a guy who's played one game of note. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- PRIMARYTOPIC applies if "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". I don't think that applies here. GiantSnowman 14:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Primary Topic does apply here and the goalie should be at Jordan Archer with a hatnote to the forward. The international player has far more mentions / incoming links than the non-league player. Spike 'em (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- PRIMARYTOPIC applies if "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". I don't think that applies here. GiantSnowman 14:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Uh, shouldn't Jordan Archer (goalie) stay where it is per WP:2DABS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? He's clearly more notable than a guy who's played one game of note. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- (I'm going to be bold and make the moves...) GiantSnowman 14:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Soccerbase also has 1993 and I'm inclined to go with that. I suggest the articles are moved to Jordan Archer (forward, born 1993) and Jordan Archer (goalkeeper, born 1993) because the positions are more likely to set them apart for a reader than month of birth, and nationality is ambiguous given that the 'Scottish' Archer is English born and bred... GiantSnowman 14:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: you're way ahead of me. Thanks very much for your help. From my knowledge of the players at Bury, I'm sure that our Jordan Archer is more than 23 and I think the club is right about his date of birth, making him 25. As Soccerbase agrees, then I'd say that's adequate confirmation. I don't know what to say about the primary topic but I doubt if Jordan Archer of Millwall can be the subject of many searches, so I agree with you that the titles should be Jordan Archer (forward, born 1993) and Jordan Archer (goalkeeper, born 1993). Thanks again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've just done a bit of research on Jordan Archer. The FA player registration bulletin for July 2018 states his name is Jordan McFarlane-Archer. A search on Findmypast gives one result with a year of birth of 1993. I would therefore be inclined to go with 1993. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Spike 'em, LTFC 95, and No Great Shaker: - comments on the page names should be made here please. GiantSnowman 19:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: Hang on a minute - "This guy has not yet played in an EFL match but he did play as a sub (for Southport) in two FA Cup matches this season, one against Tranmere and the other against a non-league team, Borehamwood. Does that qualify him for an article? [....] yes, his FA Cup game for a league club against another league club confers notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. I actually have a draft article ready for us to move into mainspace." - but he hasn't played an FA Cup game for a league team!! Both his FA Cup games were for Southport, a non-League team (as the OP in fact specifically states). So he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL at all!!! Unless I'm missing something really obvious...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I think a mistake by me has caused some confusion. When I originally submitted my questions, I said he had played the two FA Cup matches for Bury but, as I well know, he did not. I realised my mistake when I wrote my second post and corrected it. I can only apologise. Should the article be cancelled, then? No Great Shaker (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Given this, I've AfDed him. Spike 'em (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I think a mistake by me has caused some confusion. When I originally submitted my questions, I said he had played the two FA Cup matches for Bury but, as I well know, he did not. I realised my mistake when I wrote my second post and corrected it. I can only apologise. Should the article be cancelled, then? No Great Shaker (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Help at DRV?
Hi folks, there is a Thailand football club that I at least am having problems evaluating the notability of. If any of you who know Thailand football (and ideally speak the language...) could take a look, it would be quite welcome. [1]. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Notability for national cups
Hello. I have a question. What round does it have to be for a match to be considered a "professional" match in a cup competition? For example, is a round of 64 match in the Coupe de France considered a professional match? Because one team may be fully professional and the other may be a team of amateurs playing in semi-professional football. I am just curious to know at what stage a match becomes professional in a national cup competition. Thanks and best regards. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Paul Vaurie: The round is irrelevant; in order to confer notability on a player, the match they play in must be between two clubs from fully-professional leagues (the occasional meeting of two non-league clubs in the third round of the FA Cup would not make the players notable). Number 57 17:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Number 57: What if a non-professional team is playing against a professional team in the final of the cup? The final surely has to be considered notable... The same thing must go for the semi-finals, no? I'm just a bit curious about this. Because for example, FC Saarbrucken made the semi-finals of the DFB Pokal last year, and lost to Bayer Leverkusen. Would the players who played for FCS in that match be considered notable enough to create Wikipedia pages about them? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Paul Vaurie: They wouldn't be notable under WP:NFOOTBALL, which specifically states the game must be between two teams from fully-professional leagues. They might pass the WP:GNG, but I think WP:BLP1E might apply. Number 57 18:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I would make sure you have found reliable sources for the players in the match which directly discuss those players that pass WP:GNG, but I do know we have articles for players who played for Quevilly in that cup final, so there will likely be some coverage, especially for the more prominent players. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Paul Vaurie: They wouldn't be notable under WP:NFOOTBALL, which specifically states the game must be between two teams from fully-professional leagues. They might pass the WP:GNG, but I think WP:BLP1E might apply. Number 57 18:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Number 57: What if a non-professional team is playing against a professional team in the final of the cup? The final surely has to be considered notable... The same thing must go for the semi-finals, no? I'm just a bit curious about this. Because for example, FC Saarbrucken made the semi-finals of the DFB Pokal last year, and lost to Bayer Leverkusen. Would the players who played for FCS in that match be considered notable enough to create Wikipedia pages about them? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)