Proposal - NFOOTY#2 - raising the bar

At present NFOOTY criteria #2 states - "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.". I suggest modifying this to "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in ten competitive games between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.". While a single international match should suffice (given the wide coverage of such matches, and players in such matches usually having a tracking record) - the same is not true of a youth player who subbed in a game or two (or an interim stop-gap manager for a single game) in EFL League Two or 3. Liga. Such a youth player may only have minor local coverage (if that), and would not be even close to reaching WP:GNG. Setting a higher bar - of multiple games - will trim the excess here. Obviously, a top-tier Premier League prospect may be notable prior to playing 10 games - however such a prospect is often notable prior to playing a single game, and could still get in by meeting WP:GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have notified WP:WikiProject Football about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: I have notified Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) of this discussion. Icewhiz (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I notice there are three AfDs currently open or just recently closed discussing players with one substitute appearance - would adding clarification that the player has either a) started a match, b) played at least 90 minutes, or c) otherwise can be shown to pass WP:GNG be palatable to anyone? SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support that proposal for sure. I think 90 minutes of play is much more likely to produce GNG compliance than something less than 90 minutes of play. See my note below for some additional thoughts. Jogurney (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
So you think somebody playing in the top league in, for example, Guam or Samoa is more notable than somebody playing in the 2nd division in, for example, England or France? GiantSnowman 14:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
No what I would do, like most other sports do is figure out which of those top flight leagues are the ones that truly 99.999 percent of the time meet GNG and use only those instead of every country and leave the rest to GNG. Ice hockey for example does a good job of this. They take the top flight leagues in the countries with the most hockey coverage and allow for 1 game. Countries that aren't covered so much by the press have a different level needed and so on and so forth. Down to the point where in the really low level leagues only winning something like MVP will get you in. I should also point out per WP:N there are no degrees of notability, you either are or aren't. So someone who meets GNG in Samoa is no less notable that someone who plays in England. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
But that's what happens in football - WP:FPL is a list of leagues in which 1 appearances confers notability. GiantSnowman 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Except that is a list of every league that is fully professional, which isn't the same. What I am saying is you shouldn't be including every league that is professional because most professional leagues won't live up to the standard of 1 game. That is the reason the footy criteria have often been looked at as a bit of a joke. A number of years ago every other sport said hey lets get rid of WP:ATHLETE which said that every player that was professional that played a game was notable and replace it with something a bit more specific and nuanced because 1 game in any pro league no matter how low of a fully professional league is not a good indicator of meeting GNG. And at the time football fought against it and kept the old criteria. 1 game played in the 4th level of soccer in England is not at all a guarantee of meeting GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The 4th level of English soccer is exceptionally well documented for a minor league, though. Which criteria would you use for determining which leagues make the SNG "cut" if not professionalism? SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That doesn’t shock me as England is football crazy. But you know what? The second level of US soccer isn’t well documented at all, and it is possible that the Malaysian first level isn’t either. WP:NFOOTY needs to be evaluated, every professional player isn’t notable. Rikster2 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Rikster2: I just went through a full team's worth of player profiles for Phoenix Rising FC (picked at random) and FELDA United (picked since I've seen them play) and while not all players were bluelinks, I didn't see any player which would fail WP:GNG. Both the USL Championship and the Malaysia Super League seem to be quite well documented. SportingFlyer T·C 03:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, try the worst teams in the USL League One (also in WP:NFOOTY) and get back to me - with specific ref for 12th men. I pulled the Malysian League out of thin air, and it’s possible players appearing in ONE GAME (I’d want to see refs) might meet GNG, but I don’t for a second believe that all players getting paid for one professional match meet GNG, You’d have to prove it to me. Rikster2 (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I’d be interested in what sources you think show someone like Brandon Keniston meets GNG. I hardly did a comprehensive search, but didn’t see anything on an intial scan that indicated he met GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Keniston also fails WP:NFOOTY and is redlinked for a reason. It appears he's a 17-year-old new signing per [1] and [2], but even those insignificant mentions give a hint into the level of coverage the league receives. SportingFlyer T·C 04:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I randomly picked the 4th English league. Admittedly England was probably a poor example, but that is definitely not the case for every minor soccer league. That being said the very first guy I looked at randomly Harry Benns is sourced completely with passing mentions, non-independent or routine sources and after a look I couldn't find any that weren't those things so he would fail GNG so I am not completely convinced that level is covered as well as you think it is. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I think Benns clearly passes WP:GNG with articles such as [3], [4], [5], along with coverage in dozens of match reports. Perhaps the first step should be defining what qualifies as passing coverage for sportspeople under the WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Match reports are the very definition of WP:ROUTINE coverage. So much so they are often used as the example of routine coverage when people are talking about it as a concept. It says as much in the first section of NSPORTS. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Given that the usage of this SNG is used as an argument in these consensuses it's a bit self-generating - the discussion has to be held outside of the AfDs where it can't be used to defend itself (given that we put so much focus on AfD participants not deciding on what policy should be, just what it is) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Coming from the GNG/WP:N angle, I want to stress that the key to be looking for is at what tier where we can have an article more than just "primary" data (where a player grew up, went to school, what teams he played for, and his box scores) but why we should have an article on that player - effectively being able to have significant coverage in independent secondary sources. We are not a "Who's Who" for athletes or any other profession. This is why the 1-game requirement has always been iffy because there's no strong indicator this significant coverage comes from just one single professional play. I would argue that at least for a SNG inclusion, we're looking at players who have been with a team for all of at least one professional season and has played at least a quarter of the games of that season (eg as to cover potentially notable second-stringers). This doesn't players that don't meet that can't have articles, but those athletes need to meet the GNG otherwise (or another factor of NSPORTS). --Masem (t) 16:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't take into account the different numbers of games played in different professional leagues across the world (meaning that "a quarter" is going to be different for different players) or international-level players who do not play for a professional club/in a professional league. GiantSnowman 16:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Right, I know that would create several levels of distinction by sport, but reflects the nature of some sports. Take MLB baseball - teams play well over 100 games a season. Playing 10 games may be just a temporarily minor leaguer brought up to fill in for an injured player after which they are sent back again, where as playing 10 games of NFL football in a 16-game season is much more significant. So using some percentage of games typical for that sport is a better measure. --Masem (t) 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think a fixed percentage is the way to go for all sports. For example, in the NFL, as it lacks a corresponding minor-league structure, the line between NFL player and non-player is thinner, though that too varies by position. Baseball has an extensive minor-league structure and so there's a much smoother gradation from minor leaguer to major leaguer in terms of appropriate coverage meeting English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. isaacl (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe then it is not a percentage, but it should be a per-sport or per-league number that considers the volatility of player movement to minor leagues/etc where they exist. If there's little possible mid-season movement, then the rough percentage or number can be lower, while it should be higher in leagues where player mobility is readily there. --Masem (t) 22:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you are really barking up the wrong tree worrying about truly top-level leagues like the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB and a handful of top-tier soccer leagues. In those cases it really is the case where 99% of players meet WP:GNG and the SNG is fine at one game. I really don't think that is the problem here. Rikster2 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm using those as examples of games-per-season counts, and why a flat X games is not necessary a good measure. --Masem (t) 18:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the above. I have no doubt that a player appearing in one Premier League or La Liga match meets WP:GNG based on the interest level and coverage of those top-level leagues. The problem is you have second- and third-tier leagues included on the same list using the same standard. I live in the city of a USL League One club and I have a very difficult time believing that any player appearing in one game meets WP:GNG. In fact, I will just come out and say it - they do not. The level of coverage and interest for that league in the US (and probably USL Championship as well) is similar to minor-league baseball, ice hockey or basketball - and there is no "one-game standard" for minor-league players in any of those. Break WP:NFOOTY into tiers and we'd all be better off. Rikster2 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That is exactly the argument I have been trying to make above. It's the one game in those low level leagues that is the real problem. It isn't the 1 game in the premier league etc. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Do any of the opposers believe NFOOTY needs improvement? If so, what are their suggestions on how to proceed?—Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Levivich: As I've mentioned, a showing of an imbalance does not mean a bias exists towards football. At this current moment, there are tens of thousands of players currently playing in fully professional leagues, all of whom typically receive press coverage significant enough to pass WP:GNG. (Some don't, as we've seen.) It's possible we're at the "correct" number of football articles, but other areas are lacking. SportingFlyer T·C 05:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
BUT what I would really suggest is that we do something additional--make this the only rule in this field, and eliminate the option of using the GNG. It will at the least immensely simplify the discussions. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. GNG must always remain an option where the requisite significant coverage is present. NSPORT was adopted only on the premise that it was to be an inclusionary standard and that athletes who satisfy GNG also warrant stand-alone articles. This is as it should be. Cbl62 (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
there is no MUST about the GNG: it is not policy. The only relevant policy is NOTINDISCRIMINATE. We can use whatever guideline there is consensus for. I have been suggesting this for many years now in all fields where there is some numerical value for accomplishments that can be determined unambiguously. Some fields it won;t work, some it will. I would think sports is one where it will/. Tell me, one what basis would multiple news articles be written about a player who had not won several professional games, if not for the purposes of publicity? DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
GNG has been, remains, and IMO should remain our central guidepost for determining notability. Consensus strongly supports it, and it works well. If an athlete has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources (excluding such things as mere simple statistical databases), then an article is warranted. The problem here is not with athletes who pass GNG; rather, the issue is whether soccer players who have played only one professional game are likely to have received the depth of coverage upon which we can or should presume that GNG is satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@DGG: Do I misunderstand your point, or do you really assume there are 70,000 footballer biographies on Wikipedia with only one professional game played? SportingFlyer T·C 07:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
It would follow from the usual Zipf distribution of accomplishments in all other fields. But if I admit I am basing my number only on generalities, not an analysis i of the subject, about which I have a totally neutral position. If I am wrong, the cutoff should be at some other number--my suggestion is to make only a small change in the qualification at first, whatever numerical value. But I do know that the ones that typically outrage the people who want to reduce the coverage here are those with only one or a very few games played, and eliminating those examples might depolarize the issue a little.
Fair. I don't think it's that big of a problem, to be honest - there will be some players who fail WP:GNG but pass the SNG we still have articles on. I've proposed tightening it to 90 minutes played as opposed to one appearance above as a starting point. I don't like the idea that only the SNG would cover the topic - we recently had an Irish player who had played over 500 games in the Irish leagues, which does not get a notability presumption under the fully professional leagues list, who passed WP:GNG but would have been excluded under the SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Modified proposal

Per SportingFlyer's note above, I do think a significant improvement could be made by clarifying "played in a fully-pro league" means the following: a) started a match, or b) played at least 90 minutes as a substitute. Most of the articles that fail the GNG miserably are players who made a handful (or less) of cameo appearances in a national cup (where the club fielded a below-strength side) or in a late-season league match with no real consequences. This would limit the presumption of notability for such players. Jogurney (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues... to:
Players who have started a match or played at least 90 minutes, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues...
and gonna pitch one more time that we replace "fully-pro" with "top tier". Leviv ich 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A player making an appearance on a club notable enough for their own published historical player directory would still likely pass WP:GNG, we deal with WP:TOOSOON articles all the time including in instances where the appearance didn't count towards WP:NFOOTY, and any article that comes close to the 90 minute mark (especially if there are multiple appearances) should probably still be analysed on WP:GNG grounds anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The number of players who have suffered a career ending injury in the first 89 minutes of their professional soccer career has to be miniscule, and honestly any player would probably be notable for that very reason. 90 minutes is the length of one game excluding stoppage time, and the "started a match" adds clarity for when the number of minutes played cannot be found. There were no substitutes in the World Cup until 1970, and no subs in the English league before 1966-67, and no subs at all apparently before 1958, so this doesn't create a huge problem for the pre-Soccerway era. SportingFlyer T·C 08:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we've spent quite a bit of time at AfD (yes, I'm mostly to blame) dealing with stubs on players who played once or twice in a fully-pro league (typically in a cameo role) and then flamed out. Most of these comprehensively fail the GNG and do not belong in Wikipedia. I haven't seen a lot of BLP violations within these stubs, so there isn't a pressing need to cull them, but who has the time to do so? I think this would save a lot of time at AfD, and when the GNG can be met for such stubs, those articles can be improved and saved. If I believe that 90+ minutes of play doesn't frequently yield GNG-compliance (which has not yet been my experience), then your concern will play out - but shouldn't it eventually if these BLPs are about non-notable footballers? Jogurney (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fenix down and Jogurney: - I disagree, ardently, that clarity and applicability are anywhere close to being sufficient. Obviously a tightening of rules would cause various problems - 1 of which would be defining various things (I'd actually like to spin this out and have some wide discussions on several factors and be done with that aspect). However, NFOOTY is so weak as a notability requirement that it gives an absurdly easy ride to footballers. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • One of the biggest issues here is the perception WP:NFOOTY can be a low bar in terms of notability guidelines. I don't think changing the presumptive rule from "1 appearance" to "90 minutes or one start" will make all that big of a difference, but it does solve the problem of "this guy made two substitute appearances but doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG." We vote on footballers at AfD almost exclusively on passes/fails WP:NFOOTY, and I don't see any problem in making it more difficult to do that for marginal players. Finally, whatever change we make or don't make will create problems. SportingFlyer T·C 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is someone who made ten 1 minute substitute appearances more notable than someone who made 9 nintey minute appearances? Doubtful. The person who played 10 career minutes would almost certainly be less notable than the person who appeared in 9 games for a total of 810 minutes. The former should not be "presumed notable". Hence why I think this guideline should be changed to 90 minutes instead of 1 game. Leviv ich 18:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Disregard that. I accidentally posted this to the wrong place. Sorry.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


Top-Flight *Preliminary* Discussion

As an aspect of both proposals as well as in the general discussion, there has been the suggestion of narrowing the league requirements for assumed notability from simply "fully-professional". Generally the suggestion has been to "top-flight", but with standard agreement it would need to be broader, in aspects, than this. GNG would be used for footballers from other leagues.

Obviously, there would be various complexities in deciding how to go about this, some of which have already been identified.

In the vein of solving one problem at a time, it would be preferable to consider this suggestion as separate (or an optional bolt-on) to any other tightening of NFOOTY.

Hoping for some thoughts, other problems, solutions etc etc, before considering if worth scripting into a proposal form. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Top flight doesn't necessarily have to mean the top league in every country. In most of the other sports only the top leagues in a few countries meet the grade. Being that soccer is more popular around the world there will likely be more countries whose top leagues meet the grade. I would also point out again NSPORTS doesn't determine amount of notability, it only states how likely a player is to meet GNG. It is very well possible (though I am in no way saying it is true as I haven't looked) that someone playing in the top league in Samoa is covered in its media more than someone in the English 4th division. That doesn't mean one is more or less notable than the other. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The list at FPL isn't really the same thing, its just a list of all fully pro leagues. The idea here is to cut the list down to be less than every fully pro league, to only those where we can show that those 1 game players will meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That's quite a bit of additional research then as identifying full professionalism has been quite a challenge already. I understand the idea here now, but I'm a skeptic on implementation. Jogurney (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not to be facetious but for some of these if its that hard to identify if a league is even fully professional, then I think it highly likely that a 1 game substitution player in that league probably didn't get significant coverage to meet GNG. But that is just conjecture. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's a problem of lacking editors knowledgeable in local languages or online sources. Take the Saudi Professional League - the governing body (AFC) for its national association has analyzed its level of professionalism for us (in its efforts to determine club eligibility for the AFC Champions League). Accordingly we can be confident that the league is fully professional (at least in the past 10 or so years since the AFC performed its review). However, it is challenging to find online English-language sources providing in depth coverage of the league. There are online Arabic-language sources but I don't think we have enough editors with the language skills to use those sources effectively. Trying to determine if these sources provide in depth coverage of a footballer whose highest achievement is playing in the Saudi Professional League won't be easy. Jogurney (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

NOLYMPICS question

Apologies if this has already been answered before, But I was just wondering: is simply being named to an Olympic team enough to qualify under NOLYMPICS, or do you actually have to participate in Olympic competition? The reason I started thinking about this was because of this article, Will Borgen. Borgen was a college ice hockey player when he was named to Team USA to compete in ice hockey at the 2018 Winter Olympics. He was named to the team, and traveled with the team to Korea, yet he was a healthy scratch and did not play in any of Team USA's games in the Olympic tournament. Would he qualify under NOLYMPICS, or not? (Side note, in the case of Borgen's notability, this is very much a theoretical exercise. Since the Olympics, Borgen has since played in games in the NHL, thus meeting WP:NHOCKEY #1, regardless of whether or not NOLYMPICS is met. But, it would seem to me that there could be other athletes that could be similarly affected, like alternate swimmers who never actually hit the pool in Olympic competition, or an athlete who suffers a training injury and withdraws before competition actually begins. Would they be notable under NOLYMPICS, or not?). Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've always interpreted competed at/competed in requirements as requiring participation in the specified event, and not merely being listed as part of a team at the event but never playing in it. Iffy★Chat -- 21:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Short answer: No. They will have needed to have actually started an event in order to meet the notability requirements for the Olympics. However, as you state, they already meet other sporting notability. And I also suspect that anyone selected to compete at the 2018 Winter Olympics, but didn't start, would probably meet WP:GNG, with coverage of the individual on the lead-up to the Games. Plus, you'd have to assume that they achieved something to be in with a shout of competing at the Olympics too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
For modern-day players, I'm sure they meet GNG. But, what about historical athletes, like, say, Stanisław Pastecki? As far as I can tell, his only claim to notability is being an ice hockey player at the 1928 Winter Olympics, but stat sites show zero Olympic games played. Does Pastecki meet NOLYMPICS, or not? Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd say he fails WP:NOLY. He's not listed as playing on Sports Ref, but he was named there back in 2012. I guess they've updated their records to show he didn't actually play in a match. I don't know if he meets any other notability requirements though. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to go solely based on stats sites for players that far back. Because often a lot of the stats sites have not the greatest info for that time period. Often listing players with zero games only because they don't actually have any stats for that team/event. But they do have a list of players on the team so they list the player on the team but without any stats. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
That was my thought, too: that the stats might not be all that accurate that far back (though several of Pastecki's 1928 Olympic teammates, like Aleksander Słuczanowski, Karol Szenajch, and Kazimierz Żebrowski do show as having played in Olympic games). But, then, how do we deal with this? How do we verify if Olympic games were actually played for historical players? And, should we be creating articles for these historical players if we can't find statistical verification that they actually played in games in Olympic competition? Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
If I was to solely look at the current wording (... are presumed notable if they have competed ...), it would seem that they would have actually had to have been participants in a competition, not simply named to the roster. Meeting WP:GNG would be more straightforward.—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I would expect it to work like any of the other criteria. A game has to actually be played. -DJSasso (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC about independent sources for academic biographies

An RfC which might be of interest to watchers of this page has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability to decide the following question:

Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.
Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.

Shall the wording in the section Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria be changed to the proposed wording above?

Editors are welcome to join the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Motor sports question - does one race make a driver notable?

I'm curious because the guideline says "Have driven in a race in a fully professional series." Does that mean they have to have driven in a full series (like, an entire NASCAR season) or is racing in one NASCAR race enough to make them notable enough to justify an article? JimKaatFan (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I read it as one race in any given series, assuming that the series itself is notable too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Question about golf notability

Asking because of the Draft:John Axelsen who doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, but won Eisenhower Trophy and McGregor Trophy. He seems to have won Danish International Amateur Championship three times (we don't have an article on it), and appeared on Youth Olympics. Are any of those enough to meet WP:NGOLF? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Competing at the Youth Olympics does not meet the notabilty requirements for an individual. I don't know about the other tournaments though. Looking at the draft, are there other resources online above and beyond him playing in certain tournaments, such as interviews and other press coverage? That could be enough to pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Easily his most significant performance is as part of the 3-man Danish team that won the 2018 Eisenhower Trophy. This is one of the few "elite" events in the World Amateur Golf Ranking: see World Amateur Golf Ranking#Men. The trouble with WP:NGOLF is that is extremely vague. Normally section 1 of WP:NGOLF (which covers playing in team events) is thought (for amateurs) to just include the Walker Cup (men) and Curtis Cup (women) - for which he, as a Dane, would not be eligible. Normally 4 (which covers amateur wins) is thought to include Elite events (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_30#Proposed_change_to_WP:NGOLF_(2) where I tried to start a debate about this section - clarifying the wording). At the moment section 4 tends to imply an individual win, although it doesn't explicitly say so. Personally I would say that being in a winning Eisenhower Trophy team should be sufficient. Nigej (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Softball?

Hi everyone,

I was wondering what the Wikipedia policy would be regarding notability guidelines for softball players. And if anyone happens to have that information, please add it to the page.

Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently no special notability guideline for softball. Accordingly, WP:GNG would govern. That said, I recently suggested developing an SNG for softball here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Softball#NSPORTS. Feel free to continue the discussion there if you would like. Cbl62 (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as SNG's for individual player notability, here are my thoughts:

1.) For men's international softball players, playing in the Men's Softball World Championship ought to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, i.e. "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level."

2.) For women's international softball players, playing in the World Cup of Softball or the Women's Softball World Championship ought to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, i.e. "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level."

3.) For American women's college softball players, being named an NCAA Division I All-American or winning some other major, national-level NCAA D-I individual award ought to meet WP:NCOLLATH #1.

4.) For women's professional softball players, the National Pro Fastpitch does exist, however, I'm not sure that every single player who played 1 game in the league is automatically going to be able to meet WP:GNG. However, players who had a long playing career in the league, or were named All-NPF, or who won some other major individual award from the league will probably meet WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ for some guidance on developing criteria for a new sport. In particular: Note the "nutshell summary" and the "Basic criteria" section are high-level descriptions of the type of criteria used by each sport. This does not mean that any criteria that fit these descriptions are suitable. You must demonstrate that the proposed criteria are effective as a way to determine if a subject meets the general notability guideline. You should be testing your criteria to confirm that they are highly reliable predictors of the subject being able to pass the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mrbeastmodeallday:, I encourage you to write one. Start by proposing something here. You will get comments, mostly good constructive ones. It took me a while to have the criteria for orienteering accepted. The criteria should be quite strict, to ensure that you will find third-part, secondary sources. Remember that relevance for team does not imply relevance for a player nor vice versa.Per W (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Question about association football

Does one international youth (U-17/U-19/U-20;U-21) match or tournament make a player notable? I did read the FIFA regulations from the cite but I didn't get anything about youth players. Thanks for the info in advance! --LV1000 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep; playing at youth level (club or coun try) is not sufficient. GiantSnowman 13:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Paralympic athletes, and 2 other questions

Two questions. First, if memory serves me, an athlete who medals at a continent-wide competition (e.g. European Games) are considered notable. I had thought it was here under WP:NOLYMPICS, but it's not. Anyone know if, and where, that is so stated? Should we amend this guideline? Same question for national champions in a sport. Final question is regarding Para-athletes. If they medal in the Paralympics, notable is conferred. But what about those who medal at the World Para Alpine Skiing Championships, currently that is not listed here. Shouldn't it be? Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

For the European Games, I'd defer it to the sport-specific guide, if there is one. So in track and field, for example, they would meet WP:NATH (point 2, inished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games ...) I would suspect that virtually ANYONE at the European Games would pass WP:GNG, with both editions being in the golden age of online news coverage. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree Lugnuts - I just can't find it written anywhere. And not every sport has a SR (e.g. skiing). Onel5969 TT me 17:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

ANOTHER question about association football

Minor League? Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Karani. Does playing in a minor-league equivalent automatically make an individual player or coach notable? Comparatively, that would mean that every minor league baseball player would also be notable... it doesn't seem to me that this guideline is being appropriately applied at the given AFD. Please advise.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTBALL says "fully-professional league" - there is no such thing as 'minor league' in association football. We happen to maintain a list of such leagues at WP:FPL. What is the problem here? GiantSnowman 13:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Beyond that, that's a false equivalency: no one's suggesting that rookie-league baseball players are presumptively notable any more than anyone's suggesting that English National League players are presumptively notable, however much they're getting paid to play. They're just not buying into the North American WP shibboleth that nothing-below-top-flight-counts. Now if you want to argue that particular leagues don't receive enough coverage so that all of its players should not be considered presumptively notable, that's a valid argument, if supported by evidence. Ravenswing 20:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There's definitely a difference between an academy footballer and someone on the parent team, just as there's a difference between someone in the minors and on the major league team. So not all academy players are notable - many/most are not in the same way that many/most minor league players are not notable. However Karani has played for a fully professional league and that tends to mean there'll be enough sourcing to support an article hence our SNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Two concerns: 1) The Kansas City Star refers to the team in question as a "development team for Sporting Kansas City." That indeed is a "minor league" team, even if they don't call it that by name. 2) a "guideline" which has at least some oversight among the community has a portion of that guideline dependent on the contents of another article Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues which has much less oversight. It seems to add WP:UNDUE weight to the list.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
You are clearly ignorant about the level of oversight at WP:FPL. A quick glance at the history and talk page show it is studiously monitored. GiantSnowman 11:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
And to address your first point, surely you are not suggesting that your interpretation of the language in a newspaper article should have any bearing beyond your own opinion on the matter. Ravenswing 02:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
First and foremost, if I were not ignorant on an issue like this, we would call this the PaulOpedia and that isn't the case. I'm here to ask questions and voice concerns, and a freaking TALK page is the right place for that. So do us all a favor and ditch the name-calling and instead just solve the issue. Second: If "development team for Sporting Kansas City" does not mean "minor league" what would you say it means? Substandard? Lower-level? Entry-level? Beneath? Bush league? Feeder? Junior Varsity? Even the league itself claims it is "Division II"--but you tell me. And remember-it's not my opinion that matters, and it's not your opinion that matters, and it's not the opinion of any other Wikipedia editor (or group of editors) that matters because such opinions would be original research--it's the opinion of the expert writers from third party reliable sources of whom we cite entries in this encyclopedia that matters. And the expert in the most critical position calls it a "development" team. Third and final--if the oversight at WP:FPL is truly as good as you indicate then it needs to be clearly labeled as such to avoid concerns like this. As it stands, it's just a loose list. How loose? The source for the verification of the United Soccer League is the league itself--not an independent source. So I would argue that the page is not really "studiously monitored" as has been stated. Looks to me like that list could do with some independent oversight.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why the term "minor league" (or whatever other term we might choose) is relevant here. WP:FPL includes many leagues which are not the top level in particular countries. For instance, it includes EFL League Two, which to someone of my age is the old "Fourth Division" (pre-1992), i.e. the 4th tier (teams effectively ranked 69 to 92 in England). I know were talking about a US team here but the footy project has taken on board the FPL concept and applied it worldwide, even in the US. Nigej (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the "minor league" issue is a problem here either, and I also don't understand why the primary source makes a difference. Swope Park Rangers is effectively a reserve team, but the inclusion of a reserve team in a league doesn't disqualify a league from being listed at WP:FPL - if this were the case, we'd lose several prominent leagues, including seasons of the Segunda División in Spain. Furthermore, the WP:FPL list exists in project space as a sort of "civil law" factual determination that a league is professional. SportingFlyer T·C 06:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it be an issue? WP:NGRIDIRON states ": Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not presumed notable"; WP:NBASE states "Some active minor league players receive some coverage from reliable sources, but not enough to satisfy the notability criteria for an independent article"; Why should players of this sport get a free automatic pass?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Because it's based on how much coverage the league gets, not on the status of the league (or the teams in the league). If fully professional "minor" leagues didn't get significant coverage in reliable sources, we wouldn't be having this discussion Iffy★Chat -- 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Iffy-we quite often have oodles of discussions about articles that are not considered notable. Just because it's in Wikipedia does not mean it should stay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The other distinction here is that "minor" leagues in the United States are almost always purely developmental, whereas lower division soccer leagues are not, and still receive significant coverage. We do not include fully developmental leagues as part of WP:NFOOTY, such as the U23 leagues which are hosted across Europe, or the English Premier League reserve leagues, which are separate leagues than the English league structure. However, for leagues such as Spain and Germany, where the best teams have reserve teams which play in the greater league structure, those players would be considered presumptively notable for appearing for that team, as those leagues do receive significant coverage. The USL is a bit strange, since MLS had a separate reserve league (not notable if you appeared) which merged with the USL, so you have teams like New Mexico United which are completely independent and have an average attendance over 10,000 along with Swope Park Rangers who average 400, which is likely one of the largest variances in attendance in the world. I could see a Swope Park player failing WP:GNG if analysed, it would be harder for a New Mexico United player to do so. SportingFlyer T·C 22:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that SportingFlyer has made my point for me here--there may likely be some teams in the league that have achieved notability, but giving a "blanket pass" to all teams is giving undue weight to the league and to every team in the league, and to every player in the league.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to be absolutely clear, are you only talking about the USL Championship here, or are you saying a Barcelona B team player shouldn't be notable either? I completely disagree with you on the "undue weight," by the way. The USL Championship is generally well covered. SportingFlyer T·C 02:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
To quote myself from above, "they're just not buying into the North American WP shibboleth that nothing-below-top-flight-counts." We're quite aware that the gridiron football and baseball projects consider leagues below the top flight beyond the pale (though I'm darkly amused at the irony of all this coming from a fellow who a decade ago was arguing that college football coaches were presumptively notable). The whole reason, however, that WP:ATHLETE was devolved to the individual sports Wikiprojects was that one size does NOT fit all. You could just as readily -- and accurately -- argue that there's no way that sixteen year old athletes could ever qualify under NGRIDIRON or NBASE, let alone as a blanket thing ... but there are several sports represented in NSPORTS in which they can and do. Ravenswing 04:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
You know, I'm tired of all the personal attacks. Do whatever you want.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Dilemma The link to the WikiProject page on pro leagues has existed in the guideline since 2010. I have no opinion on its accuracy or level of oversight. However, to an "outsider", it raises the question of whether it only reflects WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Should that page have ((WikiProject notability advice)) on it?—Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a sourced list - that isn't really a LOCALCONSENSUS thing. Number 57 12:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Striking part of my comment. I incorrectly interpreted that the project page was a list of leagues the project believes makes a player notable. Instead, it's just a list of fully professional leagues. Therefore, it's NSPORTS/NFOOTY (and not the project) that states that players from "fully-professional leagues" are generally notable.—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

FAQ on second sentence

I have added a new frequently asked question to the FAQ list regarding the intent of the second sentence in this guideline. Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this comment was meant for this section. Assuming that it is, the second sentence is the one sentence that continues to get used as proof that this guideline can replace the general notability guideline, in spite of what the rest of the guideline says and what was agreed upon at its genesis. It truly is a frequently asked question. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If the sources we use are appropriate for establishing notability for some but not others, this is hypocrisy to the highest level and should have been settled 15 years ago. Bobo. 23:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not understanding what you mean. The second sentence says the article must cite sources backing whatever guideline is being used to presume notability (in the English Wikipedia sense). It is basically a restatement of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. So yes, the second sentence was settled a long time ago. isaacl (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
If you disagree with the fact that the sources we quote establish the eligiblility of an article by the subject-specific guidelines, and can find verifiable evidence to prove this in any given article using secondary sources of your own, feel free. Bobo. 23:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think I disagree. Can you tell me what I've said that gives this impression? I haven't changed the guideline, and the FAQ I added was to underscore that the second sentence is unrelated to whether or not the sports-specific notability guidelines supersede the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
If the sources we quote, and have done so for 15 years, to prove a subject passes an SNG, do not provide evidence that a subject is notable via the GNG guideline - whatever the GNG guideline attempts to prove - then please provide suggestions of alternative sources we can quote, given your knowledge of the subject(s) and the verifiability of the sources we use, and the verifiability of the sources you would exchange in each case. Bobo. 23:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how to answer that because different articles cite different types of sources. Most articles pass the general notability guideline without any problem, and cite completely suitable sources. Players who have just passed a sports-specific notability criterion will sometimes have stub articles created for them by eager editors, and it might just include the one fact that made them pass the sports-specific criterion, with an appropriate source. When others come by and flesh out the article, they'll usually provide evidence that the general notability guideline is met. However, none of this is related to the FAQ. isaacl (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "just passed". Subject-specific notability guidelines relating to team sports covered on Wikipedia are absolute. That's the advantage of bright-line criteria. Bobo. 00:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: Please forgive me for mixing up what you mean. All too often I see arguments which claim that an individual "barely passes" a certain criterion. This implies some kind of woolly interpretation of a subject-specific notability guideline. Bobo. 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
An MLB player meets the baseball-specific criteria after appearing in one game. Before that one game, none of the other baseball-specific criteria are applicable (at least not for on-field reasons). isaacl (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
And no other subject-specific guideline regarding individual players in baseball matches is relevant as long as the single-game criterion is met. Bobo. 00:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the confusion is when I said "just passed", I meant the event causing the player to meet the sports-specific criterion just occurred. isaacl (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
As long as a database is well-maintained then these statistics will hopefully be amended as soon as possible. Bobo. 00:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Added a modifcation above just in case you don't see it. Bobo. 00:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Weightlifting Notability

Hi All. Can someone help me out with defining notability for weightlifting? Looking in the archive [[6]] the latest suggestion seems to be:

I'm asking as my article Rosina Randafiarison has been given the dreaded 'notability' mark. Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose, what would ultimately be necessary is substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Source #1 is not independent or in-depth. #2 is not in-depth; just a directory. #5, same, just a brief name drop. #6 again is just a list entry. Do any of the other sources, or others in existence, cover her in better depth? If not, the notability tag is correct. Just mentions and name drops do not lead to notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I got hold of the other three references. #4 is a blurb with about a paragraph about her, #5 is a mention in passing, and #7 doesn't have her name in it at all is a brief mention. That is not enough source material to write an article, especially a biography of a living person. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
In some other sports on the project page, there are specifications that people are "presumed notable if they meet any of [certain] criteria" - it was that sort of formulation I'm looking for. I just find it a bit difficult to see that a continental champion in a mainstream sport is not "notable"! (But I shall accept the wisdom of more experienced wikipedians) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
What I can see of #7 has "Du côté de la Grande île, le président de la fédération malgache, Harilenina Randriamanarivo, a confirmé la participation d’une équipe visiblement très compétitive. Finalisée durant le premier week-end du mois, cette sélection comporte en effet des leveurs d’expérience et déjà médaillés, souligne la presse malgache. À l’instar des frères Tojo et Eric Andriantsitohaina (hommes), ainsi que l’Olympienne Vania Ravololoniaina et Rosina Radafiarison (dames)." - not that that's going to tip the balance in favour of notability BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Not remotely; that's a casual mention. What the GNG requires is "significant coverage" of the subject. Ravenswing 19:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Fencers

I saw that there is no fencers section. What would you say if I created it by entering as minimum requirements the participation in the Olympics or the World Cup (as for other sports) and at least an individual podium in the Fencing World Cup? --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

in many other Wikipedias (fr:, it: notably), to be on a podium at World Cup is enough for notability requirements. 99 % of the winners of World Cup are also Olympians (except in the few countries where the fencing level is very very high, like Russia or Italy, because the federations must make a choice of 4 fencers only.-Binbaksa (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Binbaksa: In my observations, other language Wikipedias appear to be less patrolled when it comes to upkeep/review for guidelines and policies leading to many unsourced or poorly sourced articles. So that just seems like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I believe they also have different general notability guidelines, or at least have their own interpretation of what is consider coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yosemiter:. In “your” observations, do you speak Italian or French? Because if you don’t, I could simply reply that creating a fencer 🤺 in WPfr: is much more difficult than on WPen:. To be Olympian is not enough and at least one medal at a World or Continental competition is compulsory. It is not a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but a benchmark to see that the English part of the world is not alone and that Nations where fencing is an important sport took into consideration different criteria.-Binbaksa (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Binbaksa: I can read the articles, I can read the content of the sources on the pages, but what I was merely pointing out there are differences in how guidelines are interpreted by their community of editors. Neither is right or wrong depending on how they draw the line, its just that the English language Wikipedia has tended to have more strict leanings on WP:SIGCOV, such as disallowing WP:ROUTINE transactions or how some define WP:SUSTAINED. No need to get offended. Yosemiter (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not offended (for myself) but I could certify that your reading is quite inaccurate and incomplete (on fencers). When you do affirm that some guidelines are not “as well done as”, I can reply that: it depends. Who could judge? It is the same stuff saying that ”all Black people is less clever” (than White). The main big difference is only one: the English speakers are more than the French or the Italian speakers. And so? I am not better if I am a White man that speaks English (with some mistakes). And nobody may judge (by just reading) the contributions on Wikipedia.-Binbaksa (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Lacrosse

Why isn’t there a standard for lacrosse? And am I allowed to make one that follows the other notability rules since there isn’t?Twooeight (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Twooeight, you can suggest one but any formal change will need to be done through consensus - likely an WP:RFC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Twooeight In addition to Barkeep49's comment, any suggestion given should provide evidence that the brightline for players will meet WP:GNG over 95% of the time. Not sure that is possible with such a niche sport with no fully pro leagues. Of the two countries in which it is actually popular, the US barely covers the MLL or NLL, much less its players, on a consistent basis. Yosemiter (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it is possible. Regional papers cover the sport, for example here. And there is a thriving lacrosse press, US Lacrosse Magazine, Inside Lacrosse, College Crosse, Lacrosse All Stars, to name a few. The game exists in 62 countries and World Lacrosse is a provisional member of the IOC. Finally, the PLL is fully professional. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 12:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mnnlaxer: Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Lacrosse players are inherently non-notable and many meet the WP:GNG. I am just saying making a generalized statement like "Played in a fully professional match" or "competed on top tier national team" may not be applicable right now. The PLL has played for about one month now as a travelling league. New leagues often get coverage at first, and then peter out lacking WP:SUSTAINED coverage of players (see PRO Rugby as an example of "first professional league" for rugby union in the US, where the coverage just died about half way through the first season, and then so did the league). I'll leave it to others to address whether content-specific publishers would satisfy GNG, but your Baltimore Sun article is about a player who easily clears GNG. He also is one of the most accomplished current players and the founder of the PLL (and having a SNG of "Founded a professional league" is a bit restrictive). What would you suggest be the SNG for lacrosse players? Yosemiter (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mnnlaxer: Expanding on Yosemiter's comments, the NSPORTS criteria really do boil down to nothing but "Is this an accurate guide for whether a player that meets this criterion can meet the GNG?" The number of countries where a sport is played is irrelevant (how many play gridiron football, after all?). That regional papers give match coverage is irrelevant (that cite you give would not support the notability of any single person). Provisional IOC membership or players receiving paychecks is irrelevant. Niche media needs to have broad circulation and a reputation for fact checking to be relevant. The GNG holds that "[i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." That's the bar that needs crossing, and it'd be no small undertaking to come up with criteria that could meet it. Ravenswing 14:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Ravenswing, I will tell you, I took on such a challenge. I successfully found about ten sources each from a random selection of articles. But because I was proving the point for inclusion, do not underestimate the forces of destruction within our midst. They will nit pick and place extenuating demands that are well beyond reason. What is GNG? 10 sources? If you make that, then suddenly the bar will move to 20. If you are successful with 20, it might jump to 50. Or the quality of the sources will be questioned. I've been in AfD fights where the entire country of India's major daily newspapers were discounted en masse by an editor claiming they were all corrupted. Against an India based article. And it worked for him. He got his deletion brownie points. We have to use lesser sources, localized sources and sport related sources. Some entire countries run their media through Facebook as the prime method of online output. The fact is, the New York Times will not cover these lesser sports. If they do, it will be an oddball feature. Look at what this freak does. Dissenting editors will attach, whether true or not, the term "trivial" or "routine" to sources so they will be discounted. Then the echo chamber of negative ivotes will come in from deletionist oriented editors who didn't really read the sources, only the fallacious categorization. The will here for exclusion is massive and easy. Inclusion takes far more work for minimal results. And its not just an uphill battle, the mountain keeps growing. Am I cynical or what? Trackinfo (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Suggested SNG

Some suggestions: 1) in one of three halls of fame: Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame, List of National Lacrosse Hall of Fame members, National Lacrosse League Hall of Fame, 2) Professional league all-star 3) College national award winner 4) Championship winning coach --- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 14:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenswing and Mnnlaxer: The halls of fame seem exclusive enough. Extend pro league notability to all players of a pro league and you're good. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@FoxyGrampa75: I disagree with the "all players of a pro league". The only fully pro league in lacrosse has played a grand total of 18 matches to date, highly doubtful that requirement meets WP:SUSTAINED GNG-level coverage for players. At the very least, I would like to see proof that the 10 players with the fewest minutes played in the PLL meet GNG before considering that. The Hall of Fame requirement might work, but again proof would be nice to see as well. Yosemiter (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mnnlaxer: Seems reasonable, but there are hundreds of people that would presume notability for just based on the HOF lists that do not already have articles. Is there any evidence, just for example, of William "Whoopee" Arthurs (Canadian HOF 1997) or Denise Wescott (National Lacrosse HOF 2018) with GNG-level coverage? The award winners might be a more exclusive list, but the same logic applies. Please provide examples where there is sustained coverage of any the people in those lists, maybe even just an entire induction class from a random year (like NLHOF 2010 or 1986). Yosemiter (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I took your challenge re Denise Wescott, and yes she appears to satisfy WP:GNG. See, e.g., [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cbl62: Very nice, but my challenge for the HOF criterion was actually "maybe even just an entire induction class from a random year (like NLHOF 2010 or 1986)". The names I linked were chosen completely at random, without any sort of WP:BEFORE. I never stated the names I picked as not likely to meet GNG. I was simply indicating that before creating the HOF as a SNG, we should probably show that a large percentage from the HOF lists (which in its current form is mostly people that do not have pages right now such as the random two I picked) actually meet GNG before giving them presumed notability in an SNG. It looks like you have started, but one person meeting GNG is not the same as the hundreds of people in those lists meeting GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Yosemiter about this sort of evidence being useful, as would AfDs about people who met these criteria and were kept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe for the hall of famers it should only be players inducted since 2000 or another year (kinda just made that year up) because they would have significantly more coverage than a player inducted in like 1966 who likely played in the 1940’s. Anyone who has won major college awards, such as The Tewaaraton Award, will definitely have enough coverage for an article, and the same with PLL all-stars. Coaches may be harder, so maybe if they have won multiple championships instead of just one. Twooeight (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
+1 to Yosemiter: demonstrate that 90-95% of the players in the National Lacrosse HOF can meet the GNG, and I'll sign off on presumptive notability for it. Seriously, folks, the fundamental criterion is whether players can meet the GNG. We can't just assume that belonging to a hall of fame, playing in X league or any other "this seems important/exclusive" factoid does so. I know it's a pain in the ass to do the legwork to acquire proof first, but that's the bottom line. Ravenswing 04:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
More