Knowledge talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4

1966:. I guess he feels that failing to make it to the final is sufficient cause to delete the article. Bad idea, against the standards we have already established. Or maybe they were just too short and incomplete. Well they've had their run, nobody has lifted a finger to improve the articles so that must be all there is to them - - delete them. Why do people complain or nominate for deletion first? Google. Its the number one search engine. Or use #2 or #3, I don't care, but try. I googled all three of these guys, found vital statistics for them, further information and the layout for the 800 metres at the 1908 Olympics. It was particularly tough, well beyond the standards we use today. Only one person from each semi-final (or really trial) goes to the final, Most importantly, I was able to improve all three of the articles. One guy even had a lengthy, successful music career which can be elaborated further. These are examples of articles that need to be chucked? Do not substitute your laziness for a blanket statement that 5137:

looked at this proposal and at first thought, great, it's going to make some difference to the waste of space that is WP:ATH, but for the first article I look at it doesn't change anything. And no I didn't go to the fucking local archives, and it is idiotic to state that that is what WP:BEFORE expects. And you know what - neither did the person who created the article in the first place. All they did was go onto cricinfo and translate the stats into a stub of an article. They didn't look for any fucking sources and they created the thing in the first place. Now we have an article which boldly states that Ronald Eckersley is a first-class cricketer - it doesn't matter what he has done in the whole of the rest of his life, that one game for Yorkshire has him pigeon holed now. The sport specific guides are supposed to be indications that reliable sources are likely to exist. Are you seriously arguing that you think there will be significant coverage in reliable sources of this person because they played one game of cricket?

4027:

satisfy GNG. Of course Niteshift36 is right that it is a stepping stone. But my belief is that if a stepping stone makes them notable we shouldn't wait to grant them notability. I think this is the advantage of having sports specific pages is that we acknowledge that skating is different than track. That being said I do agree that making the free skate in the junior world championships is too lenient. That is currently only up there because it originally stated competed in the junior championships (without any qualifications). I changed it to free skate to make it more strict, but I would prefer something a bit stronger like finished top 6 or 10 and would be willing to go even as far as to say medaled. I even apologized to Niteshift36 on his talk page saying that my words became too passionate and that I was sorry if I sounded stubborn and dismissive, and that I would really appreciate it if we could come to some agreement, and for him to continue to offer his suggestions. However, he decided to not leave any input. --

2605:

basic statistics. some are earlier players, some are from the less informationally developed parts of the world, some are in languages almost nobody here can deal with. It would be much better to add the article with the supporting evidence for WP:V and for meeting the sports-specific guideline. On the other hand, if the intent is to make the GNG sufficient, even for players in no way notable by sports-related criteria, that's the present situation and I think it a poor one. It leads to altogether too many minor people being found notable in the information-superabundant parts of the world, and will become even more problematic here as Google news and books expand their coverage further. I'm only an inclusionist about people and other subjects that are intrinsically worth including. If they've done nothing important, they are not notable. We'd probably need an exception for really extensive publicity. A particular situation will be youth level players, who often receive great publicity in their locality.

1935:- So now we are requiring both GNG be met and the sports specific requirements be met. If that is the case then local papers should certainly count. The proposed requirements is much stronger than not allowing local papers, high school quarter backs will not make the requirements on this page, so it won't matter if they make the highschool paper. So the non-local sources is unnecessary. Also I am not sure I agree with this proposal. If this is the case, there should be exceptions where it says something for like "for historical figures, when online coverage did not exist at the time, lack of finding articles in Google searches is not deemed as evidence of lack of notability." Also if a person meets GNG in national or multinational sources they are notable, period. It should not matter what this page says. Before I oppose though, I will let people explain this to me. -- 2167:

competitive press, and on line hype, volume could be interpreted as a minor character having significant coverage. The slippery slope is if too many articles pass that weak standard and claim NSPORT as supporting that idea, then a new project will start rewriting new guidelines with much harsher standards to correct for the "problems" with NSPORT. I write a lot of articles about HS players. I try to write about ones who have accomplished something of significance. I wouldn't want them washed out on a blanket statement of no High School players, nor for them to be lost amongst some guy who won a local league title that happened to get covered in the L.A. Times. We have some psychotic people here on WP who like to find wholesale ways to delete large amounts of content. I'd like things to make sense.

2032:

to have this page so that people who do meet GNG get notability even if they obtained their notability before the Internet existed or currently they are only covered in print. The key as trackinfo pointed out is that notability is not temporary, if you were notable in 1908 you are notable now. There was likely a ton of articles about those 800 meter runners back in their day. Basically the requirements on this page is that the person has to be notable enough that sources exist out there (whether that be a paper back in 1908 or a current major internet source). If you look at the page and don't think its strict enough we need to talk about that, but I really don't like this proposal. --

2733:. What frustrates me about the AfD discussions I have been involved in, most decisions are made as a consensus of a few people who are mostly uninformed about the subject of the article they are discussing (usually battling against the expert author who is acting as his own defense attorney but is completely uninformed about the ways of WP defense). By having this kind of guideline, we give voice to the people who do know the subject. We also give advance guidance as to the type of article that is acceptable to be written for WP, which hopefully will inspire future editors (as it has done for me) to say "hey, there needs to be an article about . . ." 3186:- My primary concerns have been addressed, and I've withdrawn my opposition. It still seems unclear whether this is intended to be descriptive (topics that meet X, Y, or Z are likely to have sufficient coverage to merit an article under the GNG) or proscriptive (topics that meet X or Y usually do merit articles regardless of GNG, topics meeting Z usually do not merit articles regardless of the GNG), but as long as that is settled one way or the other (just so there's a resolution; I don't care that much which) I think this is a workable guideline, and an improvement over current standards in several regards. 3669:- I have two very specific concerns about this proposal. First, it needs to clarify that this does not replace or supercede the GNG, but that this is intended as guidance to clarify when the GNG is likely to be satisfied or to fail to be satisfied. (At least, that's my understanding of the intent.) Along with that, the "Basic criteria" section should be more in-line with the GNG, for example, while the GNG says "Multiple sources are generally expected", the "Basic criteria" section here says suggests that a single substantial source can be sufficient: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then 3557:

the Olympics." Some Olympians are amateurs and some are professionals, but I think it's likely that they all have (at least a degree of) notability. That general standard also appears to defer to sport-specific guidelines ("except as noted within a specific section"). The "Football" section seems clear to me: a person must either have appeared in a game in a fully-professional league, or have "represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition" (e.g., Olympics, World Cup). I don't see how that causes a problem with letting bunches of amateurs in.

2540:

provide a definition of what constitutes a notable sports figure. Its not about what sources might be available. Sourcing has the same responsibility of any other article, either reliable sources are established to verify the claim of the article or the subject fails at AfD--just like any other article. But once verified, we shouldn't pile on and say the subject needs to also be widespread. Conversely, how can any report like this say that any subject that has met GNG is somehow not notable? Lets take this confusion out of the discussion and talk about the contents.

2132:

III or even Joe Beer in the community softball league. If the supporters of such an article can justify it under WP:GNG, let them have their day. That's consistent with my contention that historical figures might not qualify under WP:GNG because history is not documented as well. But they should qualify for an article under NSPORT because of their accomplishment. For the folks who want WP:GNG to say and do all, then I challenge them to show me an on-line archive of major newspapers dating back 100, 200, 1,000 years or more.

3011:, in which editors try to balance ATH against GNG. Saying "oppose" here will not get rid of ATH. If you think you can get consensus to eliminate ATH and have GNG only, you are not being realistic about the community here. And if you think NSPORT is too inclusive, ATH is a gazillion times worse. Tweaks aside, this proposal is the best improvement on ATH that can actually get consensus. So you have a choice. You can say "no" to this, and get something even worse, or you can get an improvement on what we currently have. -- 2185:), (2) Set a major national high school record as established by reliable secondary sources, and (3) Gained substantial national media attention as an individual. I do not really see what those three things add. The first and third seem to be entirely contained within GNG, while the second is vague as to what does or does not constitute a sufficiently "major" record. As I've said from the start, I'm friendly to discussing this. Is there a specific way to make that list of three clearer, less ambiguous? -- 3078:- While I usually resist "instruction creep," in this case I think these standards are a step forward from the pretty awful guidance, or more often confusion, that has resulted from trying to apply ATHLETE in AfD discussions. By setting a higher standard than "fully professional" for sports where that standard is unclear (for example, minor league baseball) and by emphasizing the importance reliable sources, these guidelines should lead to more consistency in coverage and better articles. 31: 3003:. And I am someone who came to this page out of concern that we have way too many low-quality athletics pages, so I'm no pushover. But editors who have worked on this page have really worked together on something that has long been one of the "third rails" around here, and have been impressively cooperative in building consensus. I've read the opposes so far, and they very much miss the point. The result of rejecting this proposal will 2360:. I'm opposed to any guideline that would require athlete articles to satisfy both GNG and another, higher standard. Some editors view athletics as inherently less worthy than other fields of endeavor, but that's a value judgment that should not modify our general notability standards. Disparate notability standards based on those types of value judgments are, in my view, inappropriate. If someone meets GNG, that should suffice. 3580:

there's bound to be significant coverage for them, but they're clearly notable. Now, that's the problem here with NSPORT is that we're still not talking about how these athelets approach the GNG, but just "oh yea, there's info out there about them" even if it just box scores and the like. I've said it before but realistically, given how we do notability on WP, it is impossible to presume every athlete, even pro, is notable. I am

2054:

at GNG—which must be met whether or not NSPORT exists, and are not changed by NSPORT—must also be met. I don't think it does anything more than clarify the nutshell. It doesn't establish any sort of new guideline that wasn't already in the main text of this page, and it doesn't do anything to alter the status of GNG. All NSPORT does is provide guidance as to what will or will not satisfy GNG, more guidance than ATH does. --

844:. While it is helpful for young players, who are mostly bench warmers, soccer like hockey is intense non-stop action. Just because you get no caps in a senior international tournament, does not mean you didn't grab the headlines. No, per NSPORTS, which I knew and understood to be an essay, it has been used in other AfD's to save similar sports figures. On the converse side, how notable is playing in just one match? The 4857:

will be many athletes that do not satisfy this article that may satisfy GNG. For these athletes sources must be in the article or presented at AfD in order to avoid deletion. Of course this essay sets the bar higher since we don't want a bunch of athletes that do not satisfy GNG getting unsourced BLPs. Hence we set the bar higher than GNG so that the people satisfying these points form a subset of GNG satisfiers. --

4785:

actually stated. After "This essay provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline" we could add something like "In some cases, this guideline intentionally sets a higher bar than the General Notability Guideline..." then go on to mention the above point about "any small town high school quarterback...would pass WP:GNG".

1687:, which is esentially repeated here: "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." What happens is that a person's name is found on a list of participants of a qualifying event, and an article is created which says little more than the person turned up and competed - as in 4069:

for athletes. Imposing a requirement of "national" coverage on athletes (but not others) is imposing a value judgment that athletics are less valuable to society than academics, business, politics, or entertainment. Disparate notability standards based on those types of value judgments are, in my view, inappropriate. If someone meets GNG, that should suffice. 18:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

4170:

pass both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG or just GNG. Actually you have to go back further than yesterday, most were notified about a month and a half ago (atleast) of the ongoing development of this guideline. College Football for example was notified 14 sections above your notifications. College basketball was notified 10 sections above your notification. And the baseball project had their

4007:

and I'd like to suggest that it go. It basically just says that they have to pass GNG without shedding any further light, and I think consensus is that high schoolers who do not go on to greater accomplishments later should really not get anything looking like a pass here. I'm going to make a bold edit to that effect, and will be happy to discuss it if anyone wants to revert it. --

5152:

nominate an article for deletion you must make a good faith effort to look for sources for it. For a player who played before the era of google, this means looking through newspaper archives or other archives that would have information on his amateur and pro career. To make it to the premier level likely he had a top notch amateur career that would have led to coverage. -

5122:

see that you made such an attempt, and as such WP:ATH was correctly followed, and NSPORT would not be any different. Because one of the main purposes of ATH and NSPORT are to protect athletes from the pre-internet era from being deleted because you couldn't find sources on a google search and people are too lazy to do a real look for sources before nominating them. -

2725:

involved. I am fairly satisfied with the standards that cover the sports I am involved with and I would hope by now most of the other sports projects have similarly tweaked their notability standards. So the details mentioned above should have been addressed. If not, get busy and help so we can ratify this. The alternative will be to remain with the very limited

586:

about Mercosur/norte, but at one point entry in these competitions had nothing to do with league performance (so in my view they were not champions'/cup winners' competitions during those years). I'm not sure that qualifying rounds should count (much like qualifying rounds for domestic cup competitions are not considered equivalent to fully-pro league competitions).

1306:

caliber skaters does not automatically create notability. For example if I win the Madagascar national championships, that does not count, but if I win the Japanese national championships that does count. What do people think? I had a tough time of trying to figure out a way of restricting this section that was not super subjective, but I think this does it. --

1108:, obviously for an obscure but highly notable sport with a long storied tradition. It appears they haven't moved their literature into on-line form. I managed to find one source that actually talked about the existence of the place and a couple of articles that talked about one member. We are going to run into poorly sourced subjects that should be notable. 3051:- A big improvement on the previous Athlete guidelines. It's not a substitute for notability and good sources. I predict we will revisit this and tighten it up, but this will more than suffice for now. I think the concerns about this vs. GNG is more related to what editors think is encyclopedic, whereas Knowledge also is somewhat of an almanac. 4545:— Micromanaging instruction creep, replacing a couple coherent paragraphs with a ream of gook. Doesn't mention MMA, Professional Poker, or a host of other sports, so rest assured that 5,000 words is just the beginning. Practical effect of implementation will be nil, since all the vast new guidelines do is document already extant practice. 5171:

now you seem to argue that even if he is not notable for his one game for Yorkshire, he will be notable for his amateur career. You also seem to think that having a few reports in local papers (even if they exist, which I do not think is all that likely) is enough to show notability. On that basis we could have articles on the people in

4199:"In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. This essay provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles." 3696:(4-4, including a 20-point pounding by the Michigan freshmen and a one-point win over Michigan School for the Deaf), while Yale, who won one of the first contemporaneous national championships that year, probably shouldn't have an article (in fact, there doesn't even seem to be an article for Yale football -- only four sentences in 544:

About what competitions to include, I would suggest to allow only those competitions who may potentially feature domestic league and domestic cup champions, as UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League do, plus competitions involving continental cup champions such as European Supercup and FIFA Club World Cup, for instance. --

5011:

kept. It didn't seem to matter that the only sources there were on this person were statistics websites (at the time of the AfD, I see since then that a source to the history of his amateur side has been added). I wouldn't mind if people used a bit of common sense in evaluating the articles, but it seems to me that the phrase:

655:

should appearing for a country like San Marino confer inherent notability? In my opinion, it should not. Most of these sort of players will fail at general notability by a country mile, and giving them notability simply for taking the field for their country seems countrary to the purpose of notability guidelines, being to

1859:

independent of the subject source in my book, because the subject is the local high school of which a lot of people on the staff probably attended, its marginally a step up from the high school or college paper. This is the argument I make at AfDs and it works as long as it is not the local section of a big paper. --

4376:. It is due to guidelines like this that we have large numbers of BLPs only sourced to statistics websites. Eventualism has failed. The GNG should be the only criteria we use. We should simply demote WP:ATH from being a guideline and be done with it. I would not oppose this if it only applied to dead people. 2482:

decide notability soley based on the front pages of a google search. Lack of articles from a google search is not necessarily evidence against notability especially for historical figures and figures from countries whos pages are not going to have high google ranks. More athletes will make GNG than NSPORT.--

1513:

when a subject is likely notable. For example College football says any football team can be notable no matter the size and level of play. Of course this is true, if the team meets GNG, but we are talking about when teams will definitely meet GNG. This page is not about what schools can have articles --

1326:

1908, and the NAIA was founded in 1937 but didn't even start playing football until 1952. In 1956, the NCAA saw its way to create two divisions. And in pro ball, the National Football Leauge didn't begin until 1920 and was commonly considered sub-standard to college programs until the 1960s or 1970s.

2113:. It comes as a surprise to me that anyone really wants high school athletes who are not notable for some specific reason to be considered notable on the basis of having been high school athletes. Every recollection that I have of discussing ATH has been that high schoolers are normally not notable. -- 933:"playing for their nation certainly makes them notable inside their own country". That's quite a bold assumption. Also, stating that it's just required for a player to be notable in his/her own nation is incorrect too: please note there's no mention of words like "country", "nation" or "region" in the 5364:

As of my edit now, the count is 23 support (56%) and 18 oppose (44%). I have just removed the listing from CENT, and I think the RfC has run long enough. My understanding of policy (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that any uninvolved editor can close a discussion such as this one. However, I think

5136:

This person is not an athlete from the pre-internet era. They are a person who played a single game for Yorkshire. We do not know what the circumstances of that were, but it's pretty obvious they were not a regular player. I would have no problem in these sort of guidelines, if they were realistic. I

5063:

The guideline already clearly spells out that people like the particular article you point to would not still be automatically kept. It specifically states that people who meet this guideline are likely to have references on them and meet GNG. But that GNG is the ultimate determination on if articles

3556:

I agree, playing at the highest amateur level of a sport generally matters only if there is not a professional level. But I don't think that's an issue here. The proposed general standard says "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as

2244:

I see. Well yes, if we are trying to be specific I think it is important to put the major award clause back in, its not clear to me that sources will be obvious (apparent in a quick google search) for people who won the award along time ago. I agree though that major national record is too vague, for

2053:

be saying that a page must simultaneously pass GNG and also pass NSPORT. It's just a wording clarification for the nutshell, and it summarizes the page as saying that (1) there are standards described below, about the level of athletic notability, and (2) the standards for sourcing that are described

1961:

means that notability is not temporary. Somebody who achieves the standard of notability is notable--it doesn't disappear because little is known about somebody who's notable achievements came over a hundred years ago. SlikTork chose three athletes from the 1908 Olympics as examples. They were all

1572:

I'm not an expert on MMA, but I patrol new pages and see MMA articles posted all the time. What's the level of experience and/or what leagues make someone notable in MMA? I see lots of new articles with (seriously) 1-1 lifetime records. Is that notable?? Should boxing rules apply to those? (And there

1462:

They asked my opinion, I gave it. You disagree with me, which is not unusual. You, many other editors in AfDs, and membes of at least 12 other projects were invited to review the essay as well as comments on other policy and guideline pages. Essays are encouraged on Knowledge. If you want to send

1062:

That is because the point of athlete or nsport is to indicate at what point we can assume they have coverage, that you might have to go offline to find it. In local papers, perhaps in another language etc. However, if you can show you still went to those places and could not find the information then

951:

That is exactly my point. The GNG doesn't differentiate between what country or how much notability you have. You are either notable or not, whether you come from a big country or small one. A player playing for their national team is going to be written up in their countries media. That isn't a bold

5121:

And when you posted that Afd, you did follow the criteria for deleting something, in that you made a good faith attempt to find sources for him and could not find any? (ie you went though local news paper archives in the places he had played) Because that is a requirement of posting an Afd. I do not

4929:

My guess is that we don't want to start a slew of deletions right away, we would preferably want to notify editors that there is a new policy stronger than WP:ATH and that some pages may no longer meet the criteria. Therefore, in order to avoid AfD you will want to find sources that show the athlete

4856:

It sets the bar higher than GNG, but not in the way that I think is being described up here. In other words if an athlete meets the standards on this page then they almost always meet GNG. This article is to provide guidance saying when someone is extremely likely to have significant coverage. There

4784:

The more I think about this, the more it seems to me that this proposal is trying to do two things simultaneously, and needs to clarify this. First, it is giving guidance as to where the GNG is likely to be met. Second it is setting a bar higher than the GNG. I think it might be simpler if this were

4026:

However, when I asked if we could come to a compromise on skating there was no more talk from his side. After talking to skating experts I have discovered that skating is unusual in that there is always several juniors that are some of the best skaters in the world, and the top junior skaters always

4006:

I've gone back and looked at your comments in this talk, and then looked at the present version of the page. It looks to me like all mentions of junior divisions now specify either a gold medal or a world record, no number twos or below. Is that good enough? I also looked at the high school section,

3918:

is clearly and unquestionably notable even though he has never played a pro game. Really, the American football and basketball guidelines have little to do with reality or current practice - top players from major college teams are likely notable, but it's a smell test based on media attention, not

3738:

I've changed the part about trivial coverage. As for the individual seasons, part of the RfC is input from other editors that have not been involved thus far. Please make changes as needed to bring this in line with current practice. I agree with your comments about the individual seasons, but I'm

3708:

in a sport (e.g., Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written on a weekly basis for some of these programs is

2461:

As far as the demurrals about how the GNG trumps NSPORT - stipulating that this is explicitly the case (a premise many would deny), that's not how editors have been doing things. It's long been the case that passing ANY criterion of NSPORT, however shaky or tenuous, is generally granted a free pass

1970:

needs to be applied against the article (and thus it being non-notable and deletable). Just because nobody has fixed the article, does not mean that is all that can be known about that person. It just means nobody else has done it yet. Even if other sources didn't exist, these people achieved our

1810:

Yes and no. Anything that meets GNG whether or not it meets this one will still be ok to have an article. The point of this page, like the point of the other sub pages is to let you know when its likely a subject has the sources but they might not be readily at hand in a simple google search. ie you

1642:

Made this section match WP:GNG better. The national clause would get trumped by GNG at AfD without any explanation. So instead I think the better strategy in this section is to write the exclusion of most local sources as being in alignment with WP:GNG. I think the best way of doing this is by using

1258:

I replied at the hockey project where you also asked with a link to the discussion. We had the season criteria in originally but stripped it out because majority becomes subjective whereas an absolute number of games can't be debated. Even when you get down to the real low minor leagues most of them

1103:

If the sources in the article prove a point that establishes notability, that SHOULD settle the matter. If even one source proves the point, there should be no need for a further challenge to the article on other grounds like insufficient {{WP:GNG]] sources. Having an additional quantifying of the

107:

You've left Professional Wrestling out of this entire discussion. If this is to be used to replace ATHLETE, and AfD applies that standard against "Sports Entertainment" then this essay should also address it or specifically exclude it re-directing to another essay that properly includes and defines

5208:

papers then yes an amateur would qualify for an article, because WP:GNG does not distinguish between local sources and non-local sources. All it requires is for a person to have multiple sources. The point of this guideline is to give better guidance on when sources are likely to exist than Athlete

5178:

You also seem to be arguing for eventualism. As seen by the recent debates and now the BLP prod, this has been rejected for BLPs. It also runs completely contrary to our attitude towards low profile individuals, where the emphasis is on privacy and merging information to other articles. It would be

5170:

I don't disagree that he was before the internet, I disagree with you calling him an athlete. He was an amateur cricketer, a good one no doubt, but that is as far as it goes, and he would have had a profession outside of cricket, so describing him simply as an athlete does him a disservice. Anyway,

5166:

All I see is assertion after assertion. It would be very easy to prove me wrong - find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. And don't you fucking dare call me lazy again. If you want to change BEFORE to insist on the sort of research you are talking about, go for it, but I wouldn't

5102:

I would be happy as dandy if the GNG were the ultimate determination, but they are not in current practice, and I don't see where this guideline changes that. If this were sent to AfD, you would quickly get a group of editors who just trot out that it meets WP:NSPORTS, and so should be kept. Have a

4740:

Again, this is not true. If the high school quarterback is only covered in local sources, that's not "significant coverage" to pass the GNG. Yes, GNG does not talk about local sources but it should be fairly obviously when reading between WP:V, OR, PSTS, and N that a local source is going to be of

4603:

expected to meet the GNG" (my emphasis added) is particularly ripe for interpretation. If the individual sports' guidelines would supercede the GNG it would allow articles that are written with only primary sources, which go against our original research policy. I wouldn't be able to support that.

4477:

To be honest I don't see how this harms living people. Yes I understand they may have done other things in their lives besides what we have pidgeon holed them into. But chances are whatever we have pidgeon holed them into is the most notable thing they did on a wider scale. Protecting BLPs is about

4261:

Really? So you would claim that someone who actually fails GNG (actually fails it, not just a case of it being difficult to track down some sources that exist) can pass ATH and be notable? Well, if you feel that this ought to be the way we define notability, I guess that's a valid reason to oppose.

3876:

to be gamed. Assuming good faith, I'd rather blame it on incompetence rather than intent: the narrow pool of volunteers involved (yes, I checked the page history) could not possibly produce a comprehensive and well-rounded guideline (hence curious US-centrism in referring to domestic US leagues and

3615:

I seriously think the approach done here is counter to every other SNG which are more exclusive; these guidelines as a whole, while less inclusive than the old ATHLETE, are still far too inclusive and fail to address the problems that were identified previously with ATHLETE. I've said this before:

2539:

Look above. Do you see the confusion this clarification proposal is causing. Now we have people voting against the entire NSPORT project thinking it is trying to add to the GNG standard. There has been so much confusion not about the text of the project, but about its purpose. This is trying to

2131:

I think that should be a separate policy. NSPORT is defining the circumstances that define notability from the sporting point of view. It should be as articulate as we can make it, to avoid argument at AfD. If WP:GNG is applied, that should be supplemental. That could apply to High School, Div.

2090:

a far more ambiguous standard and one that will be increasingly, I hazard to say exponentially, more difficult standard to achieve for minor historical figures. You have caused numerous articles far more potential for controversy at AfD, while NSPORT is trying to articulate specifics to avoid such

2031:

Wiki standards are quite clear that GNG supersedes anything, so i don't see how we can make it so that you have to satisfy both. This is an either or sort of thing, and thats how it should be. That being said, I think some of the categories could be made a little more strict, but the whole point is

1552:

Added a link especially to the local section. Since articles that merely summarize a local sporting event (where nothing notable happened) is not considered a non-routine source. Sources should be about the athlete or a notable accomplishment by the athlete, not a play by play of a routine sporting

1512:

College football notability is getting better and matching consensus more than it use to. However, it is long and lacks focus, providing so many arguments, a lot of redundancy etc. It has its purpose, however, this page is streamlined for easy reading, and is much more strict because it is claiming

1407:

That page is the perfect example of why project-side notability guidelines are not a good idea in general. The idea that articles on every single game are acceptable because "the project consensus is that when two notable organizations meet (opposing teams) for a notable activity (college football)

1362:

on college football notability that we've found helpful. My suggestion is that if a "project" wants to collaborate and create a notabiity essay, to go ahead and do that--not to necessarily promote it to policy status, but to just have the discussions and work to have a collaborative effort. We've

1284:

OK so I added 10 top threes to condition 6. We don't want to make it sound like you can just have a handful of any old top 10 finishes. The athlete should have been challenging for the victory in several of their races and should have amassed a large number of close calls. For the condition about a

1210:

While this is true, once a guideline give a group a presumption of notability, it's fairly difficult to argue against it with GNG, since you would be essentially trying to prove a negative. I've made a change to the wording to say "multi-national" rather than "regional" since I believe that is what

879:

About New Zealand, they have qualified to World Cup twice (and there is no automatic qualification for OFC teams, as you probably know), which makes them definitely not a micronation. The real error is to limit ourselves to the definition of nations: Brazil and San Marino are both nations, but I do

543:

Also, the round where the game takes place is important too. From my own point of view, it's very important to evidence that playing in a qualifying round game - who regularly feature teams from tiny countries such as San Marino and Andorra - do not confer notability, regardless of the competition.

469:

I have made changes to the wording, mainly as per Mkati above, although I have also removed one bullet point as I felt it was already covered, and I have removed the link to Football Notability as I think the wording here should be regarded as 'master', and made a few other changes. I'm still not a

389:

Support BigDom: we definitely need a rule of thumb for football player notability, and I don't really wanna get rid of the idea of having full professionalism as a starting point, so his wording looks quite fine to me. Also, don't forget to cite appearances in a senior international team recognized

5010:

I use this article as a test case, as I cannot support any guideline that would mean this article is kept. As I understand it this article would still be kept. This is a BLP on someone who played one game for Yorkshire in 1945. Apparently on this basis he has played 'first-class cricket' and so is

4440:

I don't know - BLPs have been getting tightened up recently, so things can change. And it's going to be easier to change if this isn't instigated. Otherwise the argument will just be that we all came to a nice consensus and decided on NSPORTS. That will simply prolong the number of BLPs sourced to

4339:

But it doesn't give a higher standard than GNG, anyone who passes GNG gets an article. This provides guidance to say when an athlete likely passes GNG (but sources are not blatently obvious in a Google search). Of course amateurs can be notable, this is why there is an amateur section, and as said

4246:

otherwise meet WP:GNG can be "notable". This proposed text makes WP:GNG a requirement. So if WP:GNG is required (and met), what point does this serve? The person is already notable. I understand the intent to give "rules of thumb". And I disagree with it. More (unnecessary) rules never make things

4154:

As for your substantive point, I would be less troubled were that the view of all commenters here. However, it appears from many comments that there is a push to require athletes to satisfy both GNG and this guideline. I believe that this guideline, if adopted, will be used by those with a bias

4068:

or other major daily newspapers in his/her region, there's no requirement that he also be covered by the media in New York or California. Of course, if that same politician has only trivial coverage in a small, hometown newspaper, notability may not be met. There should be no different standard

4021:

I'd like to point out that yes the track one was fixed to now require records and gold medals only (I think the road race section needs to be tightened up though). Niteshift36 has refused to comment on what parts of road racing he doesn't like, even though I said I would likely agree. I don't know

3809:

is the problem here, as you say. This is an attempt the create a guideline that is much closer to the GNG, since there is practically no support for dropping WP:ATHLETE without a replacement. If you see issues with the current article, please suggest changes, but this guideline explicitly states

3168:

So I'm lucky 13. This may not be perfect, but it does achieve what I have requested from AfD, it lets the voice of somebody reasoned and knowledgeable about the subject inject the standards we are using for all these various sports. Compared to the deletion oriented chaos I see at AfD every day,

2627:

This guideline should guide on what teams are notable? There have been several AfD cases recently where a sports team came up, and I was troubled that there was not a standard. If a league is notable, then are the teams in the league automatically notable? Or do they need to establish it through

1843:

And the above points out the inherent problem with GNG. A local high school quarterback may have multiple stories in the local paper and never make it beyond being a second stringer at a Div. III school. But strict interpretation of GNG, without common sense being applied, would allow the article.

1305:

OK so I finally thought of a clause to add to the national champion section of skating "with the exception of those countries that do not regularly send multiple skaters to the Olympic Games." This will make it so that winning a figure skating championship for a country that almost never has world

993:

You do realize this doesn't override GNG right? You can still fail GNG if you pass this and then not have an article. This page just states when someone is likely to have sources to pass GNG, not that they are guaranteed to have them. There will always be exceptions to the rule, no matter how hard

970:

countries, regardless their size, have a significant amount of media, which is absolutely false. San Marino's media is mostly the same as in Italy, for instance. Also, you can try yourself by searching for football players for that particular team on Google News; I tried with all of the San Marino

561:

I think all rounds of the competition should be deemed notable, as use of the word 'qualifying' is just terminology. Would you include teams from the 'preliminary' rounds as they were termed in Europe in the early days, or what about the recently created 'play-off round'. It may be appropriate for

4492:

It depends on your viewpoint - I see having lots of biographies on low profile people who are not notable as being a problem. If we do not have decent biographical information about someone, we shouldn't have an article on them. If you disagree, then I don't think there's anything more we can say

4169:

I think what they mean when they say both need to be met is actually in the other direction. That you can't just meet this and be notable. That you have to still pass GNG after passing this. Because currently people believe that if you pass WP:ATHLETE then you are notable, when really you have to

3579:

The SNGs (sub-notability guidelines) are meant to be common-sense exceptions to the GNG where we know there are bound to be sources, but they just can't be produced instantaneously (within the timeframe of an AFD for practical purpose). A person wins a truly notable award (eg Nobel, Oscar, etc.),

2604:

the subject specific criteria I think it would be a singularly poor idea in this subject. The key reason is cultural bias : there are many players of unquestionably professional status on top level teams or in the olympics for whom the necessary sources for the GNG are not available, but just the

1325:

Just wanting to urge everyone to be careful when considering college athletes, coaches, and programs in the US from a historical perspective. In college football, there have been several major re-alignments of programs. The first college football game was played in 1869, the NCAA was founded in

1167:

You missed the discussion at WP:HOCKEY. This was all discussed and changed on the project page. It's worded that way so that the IIHF hall of fame etc is included. Its meant to counteract the systemic bias of the Hockey Hall of Fame only (with a few exceptions) inducting NHL players. Regional is

864:

While I am not adding anything to the conversation. I have to say I had to smile when you wrote "soccer like hockey is intense non-stop action". The reason soccer is having troubles over here in Canada is that most people consider soccer to be at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. In other

600:

We need to be careful about applying original research to the issue of whether the qualifying rounds should be regarded as counting for notability purposes. The key determinant should be whether reliable sources are regarding the qualifying rounds as part of the overall competition. Here are some

2800:

Opposes based on the fact that we should not have subject-related notability guidelines are of a philosophical nature and do not address the problem with the specific problem; as such they cannot be weighted as much as specific concerns. Concerns that the proposal is too inclusive and thus still

1152:

of the notability standards included here, I see a startling change: "Is an honoured member of a national or regional Hall of Fame." The original wording was "Is an Honoured Member of the Hockey Hall of Fame." The Hockey Hall of Fame inducts truly notable players. National Halls of Fame would

654:

I agree with the wording as it is. Most players who have senior international caps will have played in a fully-pro league anyways, and those that haven't will likely be playing for largely unseccessful national teams (San Marino, Malta, Andorra those sort of countries). Which raises the question

585:

I think CONCACAF Champions League and AFC Champions League get sufficient media coverage for inclusion and have professional inclusion standards. The CAF Champions League (group stage and after only) may also have sufficient coverage (and likely includes only professional clubs). Maybe I'm wrong

374:

Why do you need to be 'fully professional' though, if you're appearing at what is otherwise deemed to be a notable level? Note though that FPL does not at present have a definition of fully pro; the one at Football Notability is extreme and I have seen no evidence that such a statement would be

4627:

This is definitely not intended to supersede GNG - rather it's meant as an attempt to correlate between accomplishments in the sports world and coverage in reliable sources. Any wording that would allow this guideline to supersede GNG should be removed or changed in my opinion, and I think the

3450:

currently defers to these subject-specific guidelines: "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines". I will oppose all subject specific guidelines as long as they are considered to bypass the requirements of WP:N and GNG.

2481:

But thats because someone who meets NSPORT almost always does meet GNG. NSPORT is tougher than GNG most of the time. When people say GNG trumps anything that is true about allowing articles, but generally not the case about deleting them. NSPORT is here to protect articles from lazy editors who

1232:

I missed the discussion, but I was curious why the arbitrary figure of 100 games for minor leaguers was chosen. This would mean players in leagues with fewer games per season would be less likely to be notable for that reason alone. I suggest that a better standard would be something related to

608:

I'm not sure the relevance of needing to be a champion or cup winner comes into it - surely it's down to the notability of the competition. Similarly, I don't think that being invited to a continental competition necessarily negates the notability of that event. The Fairs Cup was essentially an

4056:

notability standard for athletes than business people, academics, politicians, entertainers, etc. Some editors view athletics as inherently less worthy than other fields of endeavor, but that's a value judgment that should not modify our general notability standards. For example, the college

2724:

I hope you realize that this guideline is the best, most concise way for the various projects to speak to the notability issues. To my knowledge, each of the known projects has been invited to participate here and this work is the summation of that input. That kind of invitation is how I got

1422:

Fram, on that essay you have been invited on countless occasions to participate and comment and edit and you have continually refused to do so. You obviously don't like it but at the same time refuse to do anything about it except say that you don't like it. Further, they are not "notability

5151:

I'm sorry, silly me a player who played in 1948 was playing after the internet came to prominence, of course you are right. I completely forgot the internet was around 60 years ago. Its not idiotic to state that before says that, it spells it out in almost exactly those words. That before you

5048:

As far as I was aware we still do things by discussion here, and I think this is a useful test case. Rather than speaking in generalities about where the line is drawn, it is helpful to look at specific examples. If most people are happy that articles such as this will still be kept under the

2166:

the ambiguity comes from the word "Significant." That is in the eye of the beholder. We must be understanding about historical figures. The amount of on-line sources we will be able to use are severely limited. The inverse happens with more recent high school "celebrities." In an area of

1858:

Certainly agree with you here, unfortunately this is something we need to fight at WP:GNG, I think, since that is the overarching standard. That being said it is not so clear that under GNG that that sort of article would count towards notability. A local paper in a small town isn't quite an

673:

So you're reading of the current language is that friendlies do not count? Keep in mind that San Marino, Andorra and the like still participate in qualifying for the World Cup and Euro competitions, so they would still have several players passing this guideline (unless you intend to exclude

4531:, a subject is notable if it receives substantial third party reliable source coverage and non-notable if it does not. Period. The subguidelines confuse that too much. With the "deemed notable" wording, this even seems to give the idea it can override the primary guideline, which it cannot. 1363:

been working on it for several years and still don't have it right--often times we still have to "slug it out" in AfDs (and that's the way it's supposed to work). I can't imagine having to create such wide-reaching notability standards for all sports in a way that is being attempted here.--

1279:

OK based on Niteshift36's comments I would like to bring road racing up again. I think the biggest problem is defining "many", and "highly competitive" in condition 6. Also under the roadraces section I think we need to define several in condition 3. For condition 3 I would think 5 would be

880:

not really think they could be compared to each other. We do not allow playing in a qualifying round of a club tournament as something notable, so why should it be different for national teams? We should really address this issue, and most importantly, we should understand that what meeting

2693:

Other than that, this is something it would be swell to devolve to the projects. Obviously, the standards of notability vary widely between sports. Sports such as hockey, baseball and soccer have strong tiered systems; sports such as American football have minor leagues of little to no

2161:

An end-run sounds like I'm suggesting some sort of evasion of "policy" which is not the case. First and foremost, WP material must be sourced. That's a given. An article about a subject that claims notability on a particular ground needs to prove that point, some way, somehow. Under

3704:. For example, a national championship season at the top collegiate level is (almost?) always notable; a national chapionship at a lower collegiate level might be notable; a season including a post-season appearance in the top collegiate level is often notable; for programs considered 3250:, which was a good bright-line guide for most sports but failed to cover all disciplines. It would be fairly safe to assume that all players and competitors who meet the new guideline would have enough coverage to pass the GNG anyway, which is the entire point of an Athlete guideline. 3616:

nearly every case here is basically redundant with the GNG save in the case of athletes prior to mass media and for countries/sports with limited coverage. I don't believe either this or the ATHLETE is needed to retain the deep coverage we already have on athletes by the GNG alone. --

902:

Hockey gets the same treatment in most parts of the US and just about every point south of the border. I know about both sports which is why I stated that. As to size of nation, I definitely agree. Size shouldn't be a consideration. That was suggested in Celli's AfD which is ongoing.

1477:

While essays in general may be encouraged (tolerated seems to more exact), essays encouraging the creation of articles that fail our accepted notability guidelines are not really encouraged, certainly not in project space (in userspace, such things are more generally tolerated). See

1441:, which is probably not exactly what you have in mind. That people are using this as a help for article creation is worrying though. The use in AfD seems to be almost exclusively restricted to you (looking at 2010 AfD's). "Improving" this essay would be turning it into a redirect to 218:)? I ask because it is my understanding that the clubs playing in the top level of the major Brazilian state championship are all fully-pro and that these leagues receive substantial coverage (I live in the US, and the Campeonato Carioca matches are broadcast live here on cable TV). 4574:, and this specific point was raised, I question an individual wikiproject's ability to self govern, and daren't contemplate the administrative ramifications of a wikiproject deciding one thing, only for the wider community to decide otherwise years down the line. At least with the 635:, FIFA clearly considers some friendlies to be full international "A" matches. However, the current NSPORTS language suggests that only play in an "international competition" like a World Cup or Copa America would satisfy the guideline. Instead, I would suggest the language used at 493:

Players who have competed in any of the major club competitions in Europe (European Cup/Champions League, Fairs Cup/UEFA Cup/Europa League, and Cup Winners Cup) or South America (Copa Libertadores, Copa Sudamericana, Copa Mercosur, and Copa Merconorte) will generally be considered

4930:

in question meets the guideline or find sources that satisfy GNG coverage. Obviously this is just a temporary thing so that people can adjust to the new rules, once the 6 months (or how ever long we decide) amount of time has passed then all articles can be put up for deletion. --

1280:

appropriate. For condition 6 I was thinking perhaps 10 top 3s or 20 top 5s, and we could write this as a for example in parentheses if we want to leave it vague, but there should at least be a suggestion of approximately what we mean by many competitive non-winning performances.

2657:. Rather than creating another guideline, I would say that GNG (and a good dose of common sense) would be the best way to determine whether a team/club is notable in its own right. After all, that is the standard that other topics have to comply with to merit their own article. 1153:

presumably be inducting their national team players, whom are already notable, but regional halls? "Halls of Fame" from provinces or states haul in all manner of people, who might have been important (say) in Minnesota high school hockey, but have never been heard beyond that.

707:

Representing any nation at international level is notable. More so than making a substitute appearance in the 4th level of English football. Every player that represents their country gets coverage - maybe not in England mainstream press, but coverage nevertheless. I agree with

338:

I think the "otherwise deemed significant" part is too vague to be accepted. In any case, I can't see why referees would be inherently notable since only a tiny minority are professionals themselves, even if they officiate matches between pro teams. I suggest something like:

5033:

He already meets standards currently in place, but opposing an attempt to make the current guidelines stronger because you don't feel they go far enough seems to be silly, because in essence it means you are supporting lower standards not the stronger standards you suggest.

2805:

are more likely to be valid but fail to convince since many users supported with similar concerns. Concerns that some phrases used are too vague are valid (like opposes #6 and #13) and, while not enough to sway consensus against the guideline, should be addressed and fixed.

4128:

Please bare in mind that not meeting this page doesn't mean they can't have an article, they can still get an article if they meet the GNG. This page is just a guideline as to when someone is likely to already meet GNG. Also all the sports projects were notified weeks ago.

4063:

media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." It's not clear what "national" media attention means, and that is not part of the general notability standard for other biographies. If an Illinois politician gets feature story coverage in the

528:

Actually, maybe we need to be clear about what is a "major competition". I notice you left out the Intertoto Cup (which is something I agree with), but including Copa Merconorte and Mercosur (which were second-rate competitions as well). What should be the dividing line?

3512:

But for soccer, ATHLETE is stricter than this one, as an amateur player who has competed in an international game (e.g. players from the Faeroer, San Marino or Andorra) were not automatically included through WP:ATHLETE, but are automatically included by this proposal.

2229:

That's what I had, that Trackinfo objected to. Also, looking back at past talk, there is a good argument for being more specific than GNG, in that there has been a history of arguing that brief coverage in local sources passes GNG; this avoids having that mess come up.

1791:

requirement, not a substitute. That is, the subject-specific requirement would not be "participation in X level of competition", it would be "participation in X level of competion AND meeting the GNG". I think the proposed guideline should explicitly state that it is

5334:, which should probably be removed unless we decide to renew the RfC. If we decide to close the RfC, we will have to make a decision as to what the result was. I'm no expert on these protocols, but I think the decision is between "successful" and "no consensus". -- 205:

I would like to think through the "national" level requirement for footballers playing in professional leagues. While this requirement appears to exclude people who have only played in leagues which are limited to a specific region within a nation (e.g., the Greek

2395:

But that's not what this says. It doesn't say the pages have to pass both NSPORT and GNG. It just says that they have to pass GNG, while NSPORT, which is a guideline to understand more easily what will or will not pass GNG, includes what GNG says about sourcing.

4875:

On what basis is it presumed that people meeting these criteria almost always meet the GNG? I don't see that at all. What I do see with this guideline is that a load of BLPs are going to remain poorly sourced, because there is no incentive to look for sources.

1898:

As I watch this discussion go along, I increasingly think that we ought to leave the nutshell as it is now, and not make this change. It covers the concern here well enough as it is now, and I think the explicit mention of GNG just creates needless concerns.

3541:

That's why the (usually meaning...) is added, plus the "highest amateur level" is intended to be used for non-professional sports. To be notablewhen you play at the highest amatuer lebel of a sport with thousands of professionals is somewhat ridiculous...

4823:

Cmadler, please make the change you outline here. We did intentionally set the bar higher than the GNG in many cases. This was done intentionally so that this guideline could not be construed to include an article that didn't have significant coverage.

1482:: "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." While you do want others to edit it, it does contradict widespread consensus, and thus belongs in your userspace. 2146:

If there's a parchment scroll about an ancient high school athlete, I'd be very impressed! Actually, I understand the purpose of NSPORT to be to provide specific guidance as to which pages will or will not pass GNG, not to provide an end-run around GNG.

1956:

together. Without both, delete the article. Sorry I can't go for that. You are thus eliminating historical figures simply because the sources for such articles will obviously be less than those for more recent individuals. Look further down the page

918:

The reason that you would consider playing on a national team as always notable would be that they may not be notable outside their nation, but playing for their nation certainly makes them notable inside their own country which is all that is required.

4091:

I have now added a neutrally worded notice at Knowledge talk:WikiProject College football, Knowledge talk:WikiProject College basketball and Knowledge talk:WikiProject College baseball. there are likely other projects that should be notified as well.

752:

Could you please provide some examples proving what you're claiming? I am not really convinced that playing for American Samoa, San Marino or Tonga gives you automatic coverage, and it's very hard indeed to find press articles covering such subjects.

3709:

enough that almost anything/anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the GNG), etc. If the "Basic criteria" and "Individual seasons" sections are changed in these regards, I will reconsider my position and probably support this proposal.

2259:

About the major awards, the one listed was the Gatorade one. Newspapers have been around a lot longer than Gatorade has, so I would imagine the sourcing can be found if it exists, even if (gasp!) one has to go to a library instead of running Google.

4074:

Also, I happened on this discussion by dumb luck. If new guidelines are to be established for college sports, a notice of this discussion should really be posted on the impacted project talk pages, e.g. Knowledge talk:WikiProject College football.

3465:

Pretty much all subject-specific guidelines (eg BIO, BK, etc.) are ones that give criteria for inclusion (mind you, very exclusive criteria) that are a metric for notability as an alternative to the GNG, though defer to the GNG for anything else.

4285:

I'm not in favor of any notability guideline that requires satisfying both it and the GNG. Even if that weren't the case, gymnastics criteria should cover all amateur sports, and we still have the longstanding issues of boxing/mma not having any

3150:

Huge improvement over WP:ATH, as that guideline was down right non-sensical for many sports. I do think that some of the sports that only have one contributor may need some aditional verification, but this is leaps and bounds better than WP:ATH.

1392:

True, I did the bulk of the writring. Others did make changes and additions, and many comments were made on multiple user's talk pages and the project talk page. Collaboration does not necessarily mean "active editing" but can involve passive

3843:

Speaking as a supporter, I'm going to point out that this is actually a valid reason to oppose, unlike many of the other opposes. (Although I would hope that pages that can be fixed, will be fixed, instead of just deleted.) Yes, this proposal

562:

Mercosur/norte to be excluded, I was just seeing them as the precursors of the Sudamericana. Agree that FIFA Club Cup ought to be included, European Supercup probably not necessary as all would qualify via other means. Are the newly created

1408:

in a notable location (the stadium) for the expressed purpose that the organizations exist (to win football games) the result is a unique notable event." will never get consensus on Knowledge, and this is just one example from that page.

2462:

through any other notability or verification policies, and almost every such article survives any attempt at deletion. Whether NSPORT's criteria should be subordinate to the GNG or not is all but a moot point; it isn't treated as such.

2308:

has more like 20... that number is a little much for my tastes but at least it is organized into a few quick categores... not 20 categories... really unnecessary amount of rules here especially since your just trying to defer to the GNG

998:

media. I think it more likely that a small country will have write ups on people who actually go to a major international competition than say the united states where they are always sending people to various international competitions.

3497:

Wouldn't it make more sense to replace a loose one (ATHLETE) with a tighter one (NSPORTS) in the meantime until you can get people to agree on that? Rather than just opposing this one and leaving the door wide open with ATHLETE still?

2632:? Conversely, if the league is not notable, then can a team from the league be notable? This would probably vary depending on level. If one team is notable, are others in the league notable? This may need to be a separate guideline. ~ 2304:... there has to be a better way than to list 10 different things that make each type of athlete important and multiply that number by the total number of sports... at first glance it looks like there are more than 50 rules here.. 3867:

violates GNG and WP:BIO. Very misleading lead. No definition of "sports" (is backgammon a sport? Or beer marathons?) If anyone thinks that narrow subject guidelines have some worth in it, that's fine. But these must at least been

674:

qualifying matches in addition to friendlies). I'm certainly not clamoring for more biographies about these players, but I think the downside is the complication for international players from nations without fully-pro leagues.

2894:

As nominator - The sports covered on Knowledge range from hugely popular to niche. The current "all professional athletes" guideline does not correctly cover all those sports, so we need a more detailed guideline - this one.

971:

players and I found little to no coverage about them, thus confirming my point that the concept of playing for a country doesn't necessarily imply "significant third-party coverage that is indipendent of the subject" (citing

1597:

folks look at how normal wikipedia editors are looking to this project for guidance. This is how it should be used. There is a need for it and obviously with further expansion by experts who understand the nuances of this

865:

words that it is very excrutiatingly slow with little action, whereas hockey is on the other end and probably the fastest most high action sport there is. Though perhaps you meant field hockey now that I think about it... -

3877:

agencies) and it won't. You guys just don't have the critical mass to grasp the subject -you need dozens, if not hundreds, of new experienced volunteers, and no prospects of recruiting them (given the opposition to SNGs).

2781:

Numerically, the discussion is slightly in favor of this proposal, with 23 in support and 18 in opposition. But of course consensus is not about the numbers. Having evaluated the discussion, I think consensus generally is

1377:

Not to be argumentative, but the only real author on that page apart from some minor changes is you. I don't see how that is a collaborative essay. I have also only really seen you use it in AFDs, not really anyone else.

794:

I wouldn't call New Zealand a micronation, especially considering they are regular winners in the OFC Nations Cup and they're about to play in the upcoming World Cup (their second time in World Cup history, by the way).

1447:(Oh, and "countless" and "continually" seem a bit over the top for a discussion from November 2008 where you invited me once or twice to edit the essay, which seemed then and still seems now a pointless exercise to me). 3584:

that there are criteria for athletes that match other SNGs that assure significant coverage, but in general, BIO and GNG are sufficient for these given the larger amount of coverage sports gets over most other topics.

4223:

Not to split hairs, but this would be a guideline, not policy. And ATH has been intended to provide guidance as to what will pass or fail GNG, and this is just doing the same thing, but more specifically and clearly.

3681:

sufficient. My second concern with this proposed guideline is the "Individual seasons" section, which rather than considering the school, should consider the season itself. For example, this guideline suggests that

1647:

this would automatically eliminate coverage like a summary of the play by play action of the game with an interview with the game MVP, or an article solely about the results of a regular high school competition.

1496:

I don't believe it contradicts widespread consensus as only a handful of people have opposed it. But that doesn't matter here, as I said: I was asked my opinion, I gave it, you disagree--welcome to Knowledge!--

4320:

any policy that requires a higher standard that GNG. Fully professional is not the only way to be notable; some amateurs who won a national championship should be able to have an article if GNG is demonstrated.

1706:

I propose that the Nutshell reads: "An athlete is presumed notable if the person has actively participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics,

1047:

Isn't that partly the point of ATH or NSPORT though. The community decides on what level/criteria is to be regarded as notable for that sport, thus reducing the need for AfD discussions on the notability issue?

626: 2920:

and found it very helpful. Giving specific leagues as opposed to the vague "fully professional level of a sport" is invaluable in gauging notability. I've looked over the other sports and they also seem sound.

5209:

does. But this nor Athlete overrule GNG which currently allows the sort of people you are talking about. If you want to nix those sorts of articles completely you will have to change GNG to account for them. -

1195:

Remember these are just to guide you whether sources are likely to exist or not. If they don't meet GNG they still don't get an article. Also we were trying to include things like the Kazakhstan Hall of Fame.

692:

guideline. The fact they play in the World Cup qualifications is just irrelevant, national teams from micronations can't just be compared with all other national teams, they're a level down and that's a fact.

5280:

That is a matter of opinion. Where I come from swearing at someone is considered harassment. Which civil does specifically forbid. As for if you felt it was accurate or not, that doesn't mean its ok to say.

4904:

Articles extant before this guideline was in place should be exempt from deletion under it for a period of 6 months. After 6 months, AfD should be used to delete any articles not meeting the new guideline.

2707:

I suppose I would agree that the projects know best, and that it's best left to them. I hope that the projects are given due weight at AfD and other venues. I certainly agree that GNG is probably the most

848:

part of the debate would be then every actor who appeared in one movie is notable. Something about the body of the work, combination of time on the team and/or caps/minutes might be necessary in a re-write.

4652:. The purpose of this guideline is to help determine if a sports figure meets GNG, not to supersede it. Most of the opposes I agree with, however they seem to be reading a different guideline than I am. 4022:

why Niteshift36 is brining up gymnastics again, since he claims not to have any problem with that one, and specifically scolded me for claiming he had a problem with it. I think skating is the big problem,

3279:

is not enough when it is impossible to provide enough third-party reliable sources covering the subject in significant detail (i.e., no short match reports or squad lists, but real news articles). However,

371:

My thoughts were that the bullet point would additionally link to WP:FPL (article would probably need some editing, and possibly a name change) to indicate those leagues that had been determined as notable.

3964:. It still needs work. It will be an improvement over ATH (which is something I support), but I'd rather see some of the concerns addressed before it is promoted, rather than trying to do it afterwards. 1423:

guidelines" but it is a "notability essay" which by its nature has less weight. Members of the project have found it to be extraordinarily helpful and useful in AFD discussions, article creation, etc.--

1962:

Olympians, that should be sufficient, but apparently its not. Yes, those articles were stub articles with little information about the athlete, just that they had failed to advance to the final in the

318:

Players, Managers and Referees who have participated in a domestic league that is operating at a professional level or which is otherwise deemed significant, will generally be regarded as being notable.

4455:(Thanks at least for this thoughtful discussion.) Anyway, I hope that you will look carefully at what NSPORT actually says about sourcing to statistics sites, and compare that to what we have now. -- 2793:

Most supporters were in favor of the proposal in order to have a more detailed and easy way to quickly determine the notability of subjects covered by it. Also, many cited problems with the previous

3914:- this is all instruction creep. People should be considered notable if there is non-trivial coverage on them in reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, you get into wikilawyering. Someone like 2245:

track it works because the only major record is how fast you ran, but for team sports there are countless statistics that could be used in this regard, and its not clear which ones are notable. --

4359:"Fully professional" still too vague and arbitrary. There's double standards with some amateur sports (Gaelic games) given a different notability benchmark to others (Women's soccer in the UK). 1182:

Yet it doesn't say so. There's nothing stopping someone from claiming that some coach elected to the Kazakhstan Hall of Fame counts, or the Manitoban Hall of Fame that one editor pushes hard.

3829:- I oppose an guideline that is stricter than ATHLETE. There's so much coverage of sports, it would just be used to delete stuff when there isn't time to fix it, but it could be fixed. - 3753:

I made a minor change to the description of trivial coverage, and a more meaningful change to the section on seasons for college teams, per the above comments. My opposition is withdrawn.

2444:

is not enough. About old time players, they usually meet WP:GNG as well, the only difference is that they did receive a different, more traditional form of coverage (newspapers, etc.). --

237:

will receive national coverage in the Netherlands too. The real marking point should be full professionalism of such division, which may apply on Campionato Carioca, but not Topklasse. --

1683:

It would be helpful to spell out clearly that the Basic criteria needs to be met in every case. A good number of articles on athletes tend to bypass the GNG by people at AfD pointing to

5180: 4567: 3891:

It doesn't violate GNG, it actually depends on it (read the Basic Criteria section). As for "violating" WP:BIO - yes, this guideline is intended to replace a specific section of BIO -

729: 308: 1773:

As long as WP:N says "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed on the right." then we have a problem.

1104:

number of sources would work against athletes who might have predated on-line sources for their sport or might be in a sport that still is not covered well. I recently dealt with the

3677:

not be sufficient to establish notability" (my emphasis), while the GNG requires "significant coverage", defined as "more than a trivial mention" -- in other words, trivial coverage

1259:

have 60 games or so. (Europe maybe not as much). So 100 games is for most people 2 seasons. Players can still be below the 100 game mark and still have an article if they meet GNG. -

858: 648: 5228: 2326:: I tend to agree with the principle that the criteria here should be subordinate to the GNG - that if an athlete doesn't meet GNG, meeting NSPORTS won't (necessarily) save them. 4209:. If there is consensus to do that (and I'm agnostic on that) then so be it. But elevating this to policy is not needed, and appears to me to simply be an end around of WP:ATH. 688:

I agree with the above: representing San Marino, American Samoa or Montserrat can't just confer notability alone, as such subject usually just can't meet the way more important

2505:

If it passes GNG, it should not be deleted. If we're going to have the additional criteria, then being verified as meeting the additional should be sufficient for notability.

2215:

Um, I think that is fine, but basically the way it reads now we might as well say a shorter version "High school athletes are not presumed notable unless they meet WP:GNG." --

775: 2199:

I went back and re-read archived talk on the subject, and modified the high school section based on my understanding of that and the discussion here. Is it any better now? --

2875: 1700: 4656:

and I tweaked the language to make this more clear, but it seems strange to oppose because it's superseding the GNG, when the language states explicitly that it is not. --

4205:, there is no need for additional "bright line guidance" saying he is notable. What it does instead is remove the exemption that professional athletes currently have under 3221:

This project seems to have stabilized and essentially is a good guideline for notability standards for athletes. It does a much better job of dealing with specifics than

444: 3904: 1063:

you can delete via not meeting GNG. But as it says on the deletions page, you need to be able to show you made a good faith attempt to look for those sorts of sources. -

265:

We are presuming that full professionalism will bring with it media coverage. As far as exclusion, this essay doesn't exclude anyone from notability, that's the job of

210:'s North and South divisions), does it also exclude people who have only played in state championships (most notably the major Brazilian state championships such as the 5175:, or any high school american athlete. I thought the whole point of this guideline is to have some discernment about how we treat these sort of low profile individuals. 3415:

oppose all subject-specific notability guidelines that allow biographical articles to exist with no reliable sources of biographical information. People that fail the

4866: 4640: 2874:

This essay was advertised to all the sports-related wikiprojects, and input was received, refining the text of the proposed guideline. Community feedback received at

2830: 479: 332: 3857: 762: 4995: 1522: 4939: 4426:

going to be deleted outright in favor of GNG by itself. It's never going to happen. This is pretty much the best improvement that can realistically be hoped for. --

2522:

Anyone who passes GNG should have an article. For those wanting to ensure that WP:BIO never trumps WP:GNG at AfD, the only way to achieve that is to delete WP:BIO.

2077: 702: 4971: 4953: 4349: 4036: 2269: 2254: 2239: 2224: 2104: 1672: 824: 804: 789: 723: 188: 174: 5249: 5245: 4885: 2653:, hence the lack of guidance as to which teams are notable. IMO it would be wrong to have a guideline that said clubs in a notable league are also notable, since 2491: 2405: 1927: 1372: 1353: 1117: 912: 4851: 4309: 4171: 4016: 4001: 3987: 3762: 3748: 2776: 2453: 2041: 2006: 1944: 1220: 553: 296: 282: 246: 132: 4271: 4256: 4233: 3733: 3718: 2390: 1908: 1884:

from me. But please note the last bullet point in the Basic Criteria section, where it already speaks to significant coverage, not just statistical listings. --

1098: 1072: 1057: 1042: 1008: 988: 961: 946: 928: 897: 260: 4464: 4450: 4435: 4413: 4399: 2571: 2514: 2208: 2194: 2176: 2156: 2141: 2122: 1402: 1387: 683: 668: 484: 417: 399: 165:

Reworded it to be more general, just incase there are other scripted athletic entertainment events we are not thinking about. I think its in the right place --

5358: 4833: 4693: 3927:

when it was only a matter of months before he would play and get his blessing of notability. This is all instruction creep and is not needed. Both this and

3819: 3460: 3442: 2762: 2742: 2719: 2428: 2063: 2023: 1893: 745: 4731: 4703: 2470: 2335: 1980: 1868: 1607: 609:

invited competition (particularly in the early days), and the Sudamericana started off with some invited teams, although I don't think this is now the case.

463: 233:

The fact football games are broadcast live on TV doesn't really matter, Conference games receive national coverage in England and the semi-pro newly-created

160: 5290: 5275: 5261: 5240: 5218: 5195: 5161: 5146: 5131: 5073: 5058: 5043: 4599:

I'm confused as to the exact relationship between this and the GNG. Would this permit articles that don't meet the GNG? The line "standalone articles are

4502: 4487: 2549: 1505: 1491: 1472: 1457: 1432: 1417: 1285:

direct meeting of notable runners I added at least five, but would be willing to change this to something else if someone presents a convincing argument. --

1205: 1190: 1177: 874: 4771: 4115: 2702: 2670: 2592: 2531: 2318: 1853: 1765: 1628: 1584: 1329:

I don't believe that the generalized standards discussed here take into perspective the notability of athletes and coaches from a historical perspective.--

1268: 618: 595: 538: 523: 146: 4722:

Thanks. I'm glad that helped. Per my "support" comment, I really do not think this is an issue, or at least it is less of an issue than it is with ATH. --

2343:

We cover anything that meets the GNG. In some cases folks are notable without independent sources: an Olympic athlete would generally be such a person.

1829:

we should keep totally unverifiable articles because surely sources exist out there somewhere for Mr. OneSeason Benchwarmer. That seems like solid logic!

1820: 579: 508: 5330:

At the time I am making this edit, the RfC !vote is 20 support and 17 oppose, and the bot has removed the RfC tag as "expired". There is still a link at

4593: 2688: 2369: 2352: 384: 366: 4183: 4164: 4138: 2809:

Echoing many of the participants' concerns though, consensus can not be considered in favor unless the new guideline clarifies that it does not replace

1782: 1744: 1632: 1588: 1562: 4814: 4713: 3954: 3636:

I agree with Gigs: how can a topic be "notable" if it has not been "noted"? Nothing has been learned, nothing has been remembered: another case of the

3566: 3551: 3536: 3522: 3507: 2616: 1838: 1805: 1338: 287:

How are you defining 'full professionalism'. Is it as how the Football section reads now, as I think that definition is not verifiable or appropriate.

4514:

Well-intentioned, but standards like this inevitably end up being used to trump GNG even though there's existing guidance to discourage the practice.

4101: 227: 4753: 3597: 3492: 3478: 3305:. My main area has been the baseball section, and this is a huge improvement over the all-too-vague "fully professional" wording we currently have.-- 2643: 1315: 1294: 4665: 2014:

I agree with Trackinfo above about the value of having articles on these athletes from the pre-internet days who info may not be readily available.

1657: 251:

Why should 'full professionalism' be the standard rather than media coverage. Should any discussions on Football be here or at Football Notability?

5204:

because you have gone far past violating it. Secondly, before does already say it so there is nothing to change. Thirdly if there are sources from

5104: 5003: 4622: 4563: 813:

NZ have only become regular winners of OFC since Aus left. When NZ leave, then a smaller nation will win it...possibly one of your micronations. --

313:

I would like to suggest the below wording be adopted as the 2nd bullet point of the Football notability guidelines, in place of the existing text.

3700:-- but that's another issue), which is plainly wrong. So I'd suggest that the "Individual seasons" section needs to be substantially reworked, to 390:

by either FIFA or any other affiliate continental confederations (e.g., UEFA, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL...) as a valid point for presuming notability. --

353:

I quite like the fully-professional phrase, I think it's a good benchmark seeing as pro players are pretty much guaranteed coverage in the media.

2083: 1724: 1622: 1578: 117: 1161: 2882:

is not supported by consensus, and replacing it with a more comprehensive and flexible guideline was the most popular option during that RfC.

2310: 1252: 3229:. It deals directly with the issue rather than kicking the can down the road and leaving each article to have to fight for life individually. 4794: 1026: 841: 771: 94: 5116: 5027: 4404:

I oppose WP:ATH too, and sooner or later it will probably be rescinded. I don't want what looks like an equally anemic policy in its place.

3338: 3483:

Right, that's exactly the problem with all of them and why all of them need to go away. We definitely don't need to be creating new ones.

2109:

Yes, I am very open to discussion. This drew my attention following Niteshift's oppose #8 comment (to the main proposal) which you can see

86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 1576:

Again, I know nothing of this subject, but it certainly seems like a gap in the criteria. I hope something can come of this discussion. —

639:

which requires play in a FIFA-recognized international (or perhaps it could be more-clearly defined, e.g., FIFA international "A" match).

123:

Excellent point. I think this belongs somewhere else, I think the explicit exclude and a redirect is a good idea. What do others think. --

5325: 4174:

about it beginning April 21st. Alot of these guidelines were discussed at thier respective projects and then brought here to this page. -

4150: 3886: 3838: 2969:. By having community accepted "what makes a person notable", the guidelines can be used for inclusion/non-inclusion as appropriate. ---- 5378: 5343: 4920: 3776:, I oppose any guidelines that are including articles on people not meeting the GNG. We shouldn't have articles on cricket players like 3383: 3362: 2904: 4899: 4152: 4148: 3739:

not heavily involved in editing sports articles, so I'm not acutely aware of what the norms are with regards to individual seasons. --

3297: 3160: 3113: 4537: 3660: 3043: 3673:

to prove notability" (my emphasis). Also, the "Basic criteria" section says that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources

3317: 3142: 4295: 4144: 3973: 3020: 2995: 2095:

You obviously wanted discussion. Please explain how this edit could in any way be helpful to the goals NSPORT is trying to achieve.

4587: 4334: 4218: 3178: 2978: 2957: 4385: 3238: 3213: 3070: 4944:

I'd support that. Nothing will turn an editor off of Knowledge quite like getting 732 notifications for AFD on Monday morning!--

4523: 4368: 3195: 2885: 4554: 3263: 1085:. A biography that does not mention any reliable third-party sources is non-notable in any case, regardless of whether it meets 3406: 3400: 5224: 4422:

for quite some time, but if you look at the responses that come from the sports community whenever the issue comes up, ATH is

4084: 3628: 3087: 2932: 632: 450:

I like Mkativerata's wording, it's a bit clearer than mine and there can be absolutely no confusion if that phrasing is used.

4247:

clearer, just the opposite. If there is support to get rid of the additional criteria, it shouldn't be replaced by anything.

3801: 3527:

They certainly were, they fell under amateurs playing at the highest level. Competing internationally is the highest level. -

3428: 1567: 4390:

But opposing this will not accomplish that. Opposing this does nothing to revoke ATH; it leaves ATH as all that there is. --

3692: 4982:

That doesn't make any sense. The only thing that will do is delay the first-day Afds for six months. It will still happen.

2841:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1971:

standard, they participated in the Olympics. It was proven by reliable sources. Establish notability and be done with it.

5387:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3940: 3169:

this give much more in terms of specifics and reduces the gray area that can be easily manipulated to the detriment of WP.

4631:

Please feel free to change the language to bring the (proposed) guideline into compliance with that overarching goal. --

4616: 3657: 3107: 2000: 1344:

Perhaps there needs to be some sort of clarification about sourcing from the pre-internet era. What would you suggest? --

1105: 200: 3121:

I'm disappointed that the guideline is a bit too inclusionary for my taste. But in that respect it's little worse than

2182: 47: 17: 5186:

If this is the sort of article that NSPORTS is going to end up keeping, then it will fail, just as WP:ATH has failed.

2855: 1233:

seasons instead. For example, one season or two seasons (meaning a majority of games over either one or two seasons).

3271:

I would definitely prefer to have a far more restrictive guideline who states clearly, formally and permanently that

2951: 2622: 5172: 3895:. If you'd like to volunteer to write a definition of sports, please do so, we can use all the help we can get. -- 728:

Playing a senior A-international match, friendly or otherwise, has to confer notability. When player notability was

606: 514:

I agree as long as it's clear that we mean participating in the actual competitions, and not the qualifying rounds.

3992:

I tried to address some of them above, citing specific concerns in skating, gymnastic, track and field and others.

3683: 2747:

I do, but teams are outside the scope of this guideline. Perhaps ORG should be updated with team/club notability.

1544: 1320: 736:, the idea that full international appearances conferred notability was taken as read. Nothing's changed. cheers, 4842:

Per the discussion in the next section below, it's not at all clear to me that there's consensus in this regard.

2755: 2714: 2638: 1168:

meant to be things like the European Hockey Hall of Fame or stuff like that. High level regional hall of fames. -

2729:

guideline that constantly causes confusion and contentiousness in the AfD discussions, along with the almighty

1678: 102: 1703:, and the standalone articles add little except to frustrate anyone who clicks on the link to discover more. 3777: 2851: 1300: 1274: 5223:

Where have I been incivil? You are the one who has entered into the realm of personal attacks by calling me

3848:

stricter than ATH, although I believe that's a good thing, and the proposal does so in a thoughtful way. --

3334: 2813:

but supplements it and that articles that do not meet this guideline may still be included if they satisfy

2797:

guideline. The opposers had a number of concerns but despite their quite high number, not all were valid.

2305: 1637: 1143: 5013:

Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely,

1033:

receive significant coverage: no coverage, no notability, even if he played games with a national team. --

4962:

6 months is far to long IMO. Most that pass these will already pass the pathetic and anemic GNG anyway.

4057:

athletes section that says a college athlete is the appropriate subject of an article if he has "Gained

3433:

This is intended to be a guideline that identifies what articles will meet GNG, not to supercede it. --

3203:

A definite improvement over the current guideline. I worry that it may still be too inclusive, but meh.

2181:

Well, looking at the specifics, there were 3 things listed before: (1) Won a major national award (e.g.

3882: 3834: 38: 2817:. Since this is consensus, I have made this change with my edit to change this page's status. Regards 429:

Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed

404:

Angelo, I didn't include international caps as they are dealt with in the first bullet point. Cheers,

375:

verifiable for virtually anyone. Will see what others say, but seems there is some desire for change.

3653: 2127:

My suggestion is that we revert back to the original language. If an article can be justified under

1358:

I can't speak for other sports because I don't know their history. There's a collaboratvie essay at

563: 4575: 2600:

There is no automatic trumping by the GNG--it can be decided in each case. To make the GNG required

5365:

it is best to request an uninvolved administrator in this case, so I am going to make a request at

4989: 4829: 4661: 4636: 3900: 3815: 3744: 3438: 3379: 3356: 2900: 2073: 1923: 1216: 278: 2858:

be deprecated in favor of this guideline. A temporary moratorium on deleting articles that passed

4935: 4862: 4762:

Please see the last bullet point in the Basic Criteria section, which addresses local sources. --

4611: 4345: 4032: 3923:, for instance, was an article I wrote after he was drafted by MLS. He was AFD'd twice based on 3330: 3293: 3156: 3102: 2487: 2449: 2250: 2220: 2037: 1995: 1940: 1864: 1653: 1558: 1518: 1311: 1290: 1094: 1038: 984: 942: 893: 800: 758: 698: 549: 395: 242: 170: 128: 4300:

But it doesn't require passing both it and GNG. Adding a boxing section would be a good idea. --

3349:

is way too broad, and this policy will hopefully help to cut down on sports cruft on Knowledge.

4949: 3637: 3037: 2965:- Carefully considered guidelines are needed for notability. Otherwise discussions will become 2654: 2386: 1796:, because, as pointed out above, "any small town high school quarterback...would pass WP:GNG". 1501: 1468: 1428: 1398: 1368: 1334: 994:

you try to get rid of them. That being said some of these micronations would still likely have

4674:

Correct, any small town high school quarterback (sorry for the American reference) would pass

3978:

Niteshift, which concerns, specifically? Some of us would likely be happy to fix them asap. --

3028:. This needs to be codified to reduce arguments on what constitutes "full" professionalism. — 4967: 4916: 4291: 3997: 3969: 3878: 3830: 3312: 3138: 2974: 2566: 2510: 1849: 908: 854: 664: 440: 4628:

opinions of the few dozen editors that have worked on getting the page to its current state.

2913: 5374: 5339: 4767: 4727: 4583: 4460: 4431: 4395: 4328: 4305: 4267: 4252: 4229: 4214: 4111: 4012: 3983: 3950: 3853: 3016: 2991: 2966: 2424: 2401: 2265: 2235: 2204: 2190: 2152: 2118: 2059: 2019: 1904: 1889: 1668: 1349: 845: 567: 184: 156: 137:

Yup it falls under entertainer I believe since its closer to acting than it is to sports. -

8: 5271: 5236: 5191: 5142: 5112: 5054: 5023: 4984: 4881: 4825: 4657: 4632: 4498: 4446: 4409: 4381: 3896: 3811: 3740: 3434: 3375: 3351: 3174: 2896: 2738: 2545: 2381:

then that should be enough. If they don't meet GNG, then nothing else would be enough.--

2331: 2172: 2137: 2100: 2069: 1976: 1919: 1603: 1212: 1113: 274: 215: 5227:. Local sources are often not regarded as being enough to show notability. Just look at 151:

I made an edit to do that. Please check if it is OK, and if it is in the right place. --

5354: 4931: 4858: 4653: 4606: 4532: 4519: 4419: 4364: 4341: 4028: 3649: 3289: 3234: 3211: 3152: 3097: 3064: 2483: 2445: 2246: 2216: 2033: 1990: 1936: 1860: 1721: 1649: 1554: 1514: 1307: 1286: 1246: 1090: 1034: 980: 938: 889: 796: 754: 741: 694: 679: 644: 591: 545: 534: 519: 391: 343:

Players and managers who have participated in a fully-professional league (as detailed

238: 223: 211: 166: 124: 113: 3133:

didn't work for many sports. Therefore, on balance, I think this is an improvement. --

5286: 5257: 5214: 5157: 5127: 5069: 5039: 4945: 4847: 4790: 4709: 4679: 4550: 4483: 4179: 4134: 3928: 3924: 3806: 3785: 3758: 3729: 3714: 3562: 3532: 3503: 3346: 3326: 3191: 3029: 2684: 2588: 2527: 2382: 2314: 1816: 1801: 1761: 1688: 1684: 1644: 1546: 1497: 1464: 1424: 1394: 1383: 1364: 1330: 1264: 1201: 1173: 1089:

or not. If we fail to understand this basic point, then we are just going nowhere. --

1068: 1053: 1014: 1004: 957: 924: 870: 614: 602: 575: 504: 475: 380: 328: 292: 256: 142: 2940:, looks overall pretty good actually. Was worried it'd be too inclusive originally. 427:

I support BigDom's position. But I think "participating in" is too vague. I suggest

5266:

Swearing is not forbidden by CIVIL. The edit summary I felt was entirely accurate.

5004: 4963: 4912: 4287: 4155:

against athletics articles to establish a higher notability standard for athletes.

3993: 3965: 3872:

coherently; the current text is a mess of riddles and contradictions, as if it was

3306: 3281: 3276: 3256: 3134: 2917: 2663: 2560: 2506: 2437: 1845: 1692: 1617: 1479: 1149: 1086: 1018: 881: 733: 660: 636: 456: 436: 410: 359: 4201:

In short, that makes this wholly unnecessary as policy. If a person already meets

5370: 5335: 5201: 4763: 4749: 4723: 4579: 4571: 4456: 4427: 4391: 4323: 4301: 4263: 4248: 4225: 4210: 4160: 4107: 4097: 4080: 4008: 3979: 3946: 3849: 3624: 3593: 3474: 3396: 3012: 2987: 2824: 2420: 2397: 2365: 2348: 2261: 2231: 2200: 2186: 2148: 2114: 2055: 2015: 1958: 1900: 1885: 1664: 1345: 656: 180: 152: 3284:

is a step in the right direction, and definitely a step forward with respect to

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5331: 5267: 5232: 5187: 5138: 5108: 5050: 5019: 4877: 4809: 4702:

This proposal was not clearly-worded in that regard, but was changed recently.

4688: 4494: 4442: 4405: 4377: 3920: 3797: 3641: 3547: 3518: 3488: 3456: 3424: 3170: 3083: 2986:- Seem to be fairly reasonable guidelines that should make notability clearer. 2970: 2941: 2927: 2748: 2734: 2709: 2695: 2633: 2541: 2463: 2327: 2301: 2168: 2133: 2096: 1972: 1834: 1778: 1739: 1599: 1487: 1453: 1413: 1359: 1183: 1154: 1109: 904: 850: 5064:

would be kept. So exactly what are you trying to use him as a test case for? -

3690:

compete in D-1 FBS, might reasonably have an article on their <sarcasm: -->

5350: 4675: 4515: 4360: 4206: 4202: 3892: 3781: 3697: 3416: 3371: 3285: 3272: 3247: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3205: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3054: 2879: 2863: 2859: 2814: 2810: 2802: 2794: 2787: 2730: 2726: 2676: 2650: 2629: 2612: 2580: 2441: 2378: 2163: 2128: 2092: 2087: 2086:

moots the standards we have established over time and puts all the weight on

1967: 1953: 1714: 1696: 1442: 1438: 1236: 1022: 1013:

Well, actually that's not true, since people still keep on mentioning either

972: 934: 885: 767: 737: 709: 689: 675: 640: 587: 530: 515: 430: 344: 270: 219: 207: 109: 1787:

I think that's exactly the point of this change, to specify that this is an

770:....never played professional, zero caps and still meets criteria. Failed a 5366: 5282: 5253: 5210: 5153: 5123: 5065: 5035: 4843: 4786: 4705: 4546: 4479: 4175: 4130: 3754: 3725: 3710: 3558: 3528: 3499: 3187: 2680: 2584: 2523: 1812: 1797: 1757: 1379: 1260: 1197: 1169: 1064: 1049: 1000: 966:

You're still making the mistake of citing countries, under the belief that

953: 920: 866: 610: 571: 500: 471: 376: 324: 288: 252: 138: 1811:

might have to go digging through newspaper archives in another language. -

4143:

As of yesterday, this vote had been posted on the Baseball Project page (

3936: 3789: 3447: 3419:

should not have articles, no matter what level of sport they played at.

3251: 2658: 1826: 1711:

meets the GNG requirements of substantial coverage in reliable sources."

976: 451: 405: 354: 266: 5015:

meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included

604: 5231:- as you are an admin you will be able to look at the deleted article. 4742: 4156: 4093: 4076: 3617: 3586: 3467: 3392: 3095:

after recent changes. It's a big step forward in the right direction.

2819: 2416: 2361: 2344: 1963: 5200:

First off I never called you lazy so get off your high horse and read

4805: 4741:

questionable use as a independent secondary source about a person. --

4684: 4242:

under which people may meet notability standards, i.e. people who do

3915: 3793: 3543: 3514: 3484: 3452: 3420: 3079: 2923: 1830: 1774: 1735: 1483: 1449: 1409: 234: 2854:

be promoted to a notability guideline. It is further proposed that

2607: 2583:

they are notable without regard for any additional qualifications.

3648:

required, not platitudes or hearsay about "being professional". --

1825:

Right, because if one day we might have an article that satisfies

5179:

much better to have what information there is on an article like

489:

I would also like to add the following to the football criteria.

5229:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination)

3007:

be to set GNG as the sole criterion. It will be a return to the

2559:

the "clarification". Passing GNG should always be sufficient. --

1437:

My contribution to this essay would be limited to sending it to

273:. They just would not be automatically assumed to be notable. — 4147:) but not on many others. I added it to the three noted above. 3932: 2866:

is suggested, please propose solutions and discuss this in the

1952:- Essentially this is saying: use the standard of WP:SPORT AND 3810:

that articles must meet GNG level coverage to be included. --

2436:

we definitely need to clarify and formally state that meeting

1029:. I think we really need to explicitly state that the subject 4578:

there were only a couple of hundred articles to worry about.

840:

I can see both sides of this argument as I opened NSPORTS in

2786:

of making this a guideline; it is also in favor of removing

5107:, and tell me what would be different with this guideline. 4478:

preventing harm. Not sure how this guideline causes harm. -

4441:

statistics sites and the like for another couple of years.

1573:

are no boxing rules; should Sumo apply to MMA and boxers?)

778:

even before even actually being capped (also deservedly).--

627:

Any officially sanctioned senior international competition

3945:

But opposing this will do nothing to make ATH go away. --

3724:

Struck out part of my concern, which has been addressed.

1701:

Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's 800 metres

979:

such as Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein and so on. --

631:

I think this guideline ought to be clarified. As shown

470:

fan of fully professional though as it is not defined.

5252:. These are just the first two that popped up at me. - 4340:

before anyone who passes GNG is considered notable. --

2649:

As I understand it, this guideline is an extension of

601:

references showing this for the European competitions

4570:

is not. Given that the AfD was heavily influenced by

3919:

something you can come up with an ironclad rule on.

657:

keep irrelevant and obscure information off wikipedia

570:

also strong enough to warrant inclusion in the list?

4106:

It's posted on multiple RfC listings and on CENT. --

5349:FWIW, 20 of 37 supporting computes to about 54.1%. 2183:

Gatorade U.S. High School Athlete of the Year Award

3275:is the top guideline, and meeting requirements on 2675:If they fall anywhere other than GNG its probably 4052:. I'm opposed to any guideline that would set a 952:assumption, if anything its all but guaranteed. - 5105:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ronald Eckersley 4803:Agree with everything that cmadler just wrote. 2777:RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline 3125:. On the plus side, the guideline improves on 2878:has seemed to say that the current version of 2801:mirrors what they thought to be problems with 1754:though my remaining concerns above still stand 1699:. This information is contained in context in 433:) will generally be regarded as being notable. 347:) will generally be regarded as being notable. 3702:consider first and foremost the season itself 884:is just irrelevant in case the subject fails 842:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Alberto Celli 309:Proposed change to fully professional wording 2862:, but do not meet the new guideline or the 975:again). This point is especially valid for 4418:I've been complaining about ATH myself at 3671:multiple independent sources may be needed 4562:. Current football guidelines state that 3225:and takes out the potential ambiguity of 1918:- this is what I've wanted all along. -- 2049:. If I understand correctly, this would 1794:intentionally more restrictive than WP:N 3374:is very unclear for many sports now. -- 1594:For the complainers and opposers above; 14: 2856:Knowledge:Notability (people)#Athletes 2415:for my same rationale given above and 2068:That's how I'm reading it as well. -- 712:that any A-international is notable.-- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5049:proposed guideline then fair enough. 2837:The following discussion is closed. 25: 1106:British Steeplechasing Hall of Fame 23: 5167:hold out much hope of it sticking. 4238:That is not true. WP:ATH provides 2876:Knowledge talk:Notability (people) 24: 18:Knowledge talk:Notability (sports) 5397: 5181:Yorkshire Cricketers of the 1940s 1463:it to MFD, then do as you will.-- 5383:The discussion above is closed. 3391:a pure improvement over WP:ATH. 485:Notable Continental Competitions 29: 2790:in favor of the new guideline. 13: 1: 3784:shouldn' tbe kept because of 3778:Hawkins (Hampshire cricketer) 3329:which is ridiculously broad. 3129:by being more prescriptive - 1568:Mixed martial arts notability 2864:general notability guideline 2306:Knowledge:Notability (music) 1733:this common sense proposal. 935:general notability guideline 7: 3325:Certainly much better than 2655:notability is not inherited 2110: 730:actively discussed to death 201:Association football/soccer 10: 5402: 1148:As the original author on 480:08:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC) 464:23:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 445:22:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 418:17:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 400:22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 385:20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 367:17:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 333:17:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 297:07:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 283:06:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 261:18:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 247:15:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 228:15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 5379:19:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 5359:16:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC) 5344:14:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC) 5291:12:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 5276:12:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 5262:12:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 5241:12:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 5219:11:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 5196:08:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 5162:22:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 5147:22:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 5132:17:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 5117:16:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 5074:16:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 5059:16:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 5044:14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 5028:13:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4996:06:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 4972:18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 4954:18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 4940:20:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 4921:19:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 4886:10:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 4867:00:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 4852:09:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 4834:20:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 4815:15:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 4795:14:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 4772:18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 4754:18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 4732:18:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 4714:18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 4694:17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 4666:17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 4641:04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 4623:04:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 4588:21:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC) 4503:21:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 4488:19:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 4465:18:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 4451:22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 4436:22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 4414:21:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 4400:19:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 4386:09:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 4369:16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4350:06:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 4335:00:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4310:15:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 4296:02:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 4272:23:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC) 4257:03:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC) 4234:20:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 4219:02:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 4184:17:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 4165:17:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 4139:11:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 4116:20:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 4102:19:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 4085:19:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 4037:23:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 4017:18:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 4002:17:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 3988:18:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 3974:03:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 3955:22:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3941:22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3905:20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3887:08:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3858:20:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3839:04:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3820:20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3802:14:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3763:13:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 3749:20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3734:18:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3719:12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3661:08:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3629:04:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3598:15:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3567:16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3552:15:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3537:15:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3523:15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3508:15:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3493:15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3479:14:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3461:14:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3443:02:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3429:02:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3401:17:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 3384:21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 3363:06:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 3298:23:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC) 3264:16:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 3239:00:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3214:02:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 3196:13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 3179:04:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 3161:03:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 3143:20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3114:04:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3088:04:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 3071:21:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3044:18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 3021:17:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 2996:15:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 2979:04:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 2958:04:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 2933:03:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 2912:I've only dealt with the 2905:02:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 2831:20:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC) 2763:18:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 2623:Notability of Teams/Clubs 2617:21:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC) 2593:04:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC) 2550:01:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 2532:08:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 2515:02:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 2492:15:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2471:08:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2454:11:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC) 2429:06:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC) 2406:20:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 2391:18:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 2370:17:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 2353:03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 2336:14:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 2319:23:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 2270:20:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 2255:16:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 2240:20:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 2225:21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 2209:17:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 2195:20:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 2177:20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 2157:17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 2142:01:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 2123:18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 2105:21:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 2078:19:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 2064:18:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 2042:16:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 2024:14:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 2007:05:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 1981:03:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 1945:03:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 1928:20:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 1909:23:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC) 1894:19:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 1869:16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 1854:17:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 1839:00:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 1821:15:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 1806:14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 1783:12:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 1766:12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 1745:10:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 1725:10:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC) 1563:21:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 1523:21:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 1506:16:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 1492:14:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 1473:14:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 1458:14:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 1433:13:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 1418:08:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 1403:19:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1388:15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1373:15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1354:20:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 1339:18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 1316:16:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 1295:15:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1269:16:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 1253:15:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 564:CONCACAF Champions League 5385:Please do not modify it. 4555:00:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC) 4538:19:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC) 4524:01:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 3339:20:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC) 3318:23:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 2839:Please do not modify it. 2743:18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 2720:14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 2703:11:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 2689:11:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 2671:07:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 2644:01:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 2572:23:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 1673:22:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 1658:01:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 1633:23:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) 1616:; this appears to be on 1608:21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC) 1589:18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC) 1321:College athletes/history 1221:16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 1206:14:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 1191:14:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 1178:11:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 1162:02:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 1118:08:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 1099:23:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1077:AfDs are meant to prove 1073:11:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC) 1058:20:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 1043:22:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 1009:17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 989:16:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 962:14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 947:14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 929:13:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 913:13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 898:12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 875:12:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 859:12:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 825:10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 805:10:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 790:08:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 763:13:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) 746:13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC) 724:01:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC) 703:22:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 684:21:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 669:21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 649:20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 619:10:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 596:20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 580:18:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 554:23:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 539:17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 524:17:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 509:19:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 189:14:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 175:00:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 161:15:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 147:10:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 133:06:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 118:01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 4197:based on this wording: 3370:Excellent guidelines. 774:(deservedly), passed a 3642:Evidence of notability 1679:Clarification proposal 1663:Looks good, thanks. -- 499:Any thoughts on this? 103:Professional Wrestling 3638:Emperor's new clothes 3246:a big improvement on 1301:Skating, added clause 1275:Road Racing too Vague 108:it. Ambiguity sucks. 42:of past discussions. 3788:despite not meeting 3780:, and articles like 3288:, so I am for it. -- 2850:It is proposed that 1638:High School Athletes 1144:Ice hockey standards 568:AFC Champions League 4594:Threaded discussion 4240:additional criteria 1771:Conditional support 1021:in AfDs, but never 216:Campeonato Paulista 4654:User:themfromspace 3931:should go away. -- 3210: 2953:Operation Big Bear 2840: 212:Campeonato Carioca 5322: 5321: 4832: 4664: 4639: 4536: 3903: 3818: 3747: 3695:</sarcasm: --> 3691:truly remarkable 3441: 3260: 3204: 2903: 2838: 2667: 2076: 1926: 1689:Frederick Ashford 1631: 1587: 1448: 1219: 823: 788: 722: 460: 414: 363: 281: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5393: 5088:extended content 5084: 5083: 5005:Ronald Eckersley 4992: 4987: 4830:(LiberalFascist) 4828: 4813: 4746: 4692: 4662:(LiberalFascist) 4660: 4637:(LiberalFascist) 4635: 4619: 4614: 4609: 4566:is notable, but 4535: 4331: 4326: 3901:(LiberalFascist) 3899: 3879:East of Borschov 3831:Peregrine Fisher 3816:(LiberalFascist) 3814: 3745:(LiberalFascist) 3743: 3684:Eastern Michigan 3621: 3590: 3471: 3439:(LiberalFascist) 3437: 3359: 3354: 3315: 3309: 3261: 3258: 3254: 3208: 3110: 3105: 3100: 3067: 3062: 3059: 3040: 3034: 2954: 2948: 2931: 2901:(LiberalFascist) 2899: 2827: 2822: 2758: 2751: 2699: 2668: 2665: 2661: 2569: 2563: 2467: 2440:without meeting 2084:your recent edit 2074:(LiberalFascist) 2072: 2003: 1998: 1993: 1924:(LiberalFascist) 1922: 1743: 1731:Strongly support 1723: 1717: 1693:R. Irving Parkes 1627: 1621: 1583: 1577: 1446: 1249: 1244: 1241: 1217:(LiberalFascist) 1215: 1187: 1158: 1025:: an example is 820: 814: 785: 779: 719: 713: 461: 458: 454: 415: 412: 408: 364: 361: 357: 279:(LiberalFascist) 277: 179:Good, thanks. -- 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5401: 5400: 5396: 5395: 5394: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5328: 5323: 5089: 5008: 4990: 4985: 4902: 4804: 4744: 4683: 4617: 4612: 4607: 4596: 4329: 4324: 4066:Chicago Tribune 3686:, because they 3619: 3588: 3469: 3409: 3357: 3352: 3313: 3307: 3257: 3252: 3244:Strong support: 3206: 3108: 3103: 3098: 3065: 3055: 3052: 3038: 3030: 2956: 2952: 2942: 2922: 2888: 2843: 2825: 2820: 2779: 2761: 2756: 2749: 2718: 2697: 2664: 2659: 2642: 2625: 2579:- If they pass 2567: 2561: 2465: 2459:Strong Support: 2001: 1996: 1991: 1734: 1715: 1712: 1681: 1640: 1625: 1581: 1570: 1550: 1323: 1303: 1277: 1247: 1237: 1234: 1185: 1156: 1146: 818: 783: 717: 629: 487: 457: 452: 411: 406: 360: 355: 311: 203: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5399: 5382: 5362: 5361: 5327: 5324: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5312: 5311: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5300: 5299: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5294: 5293: 5184: 5176: 5168: 5091: 5090: 5087: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5007: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4957: 4956: 4942: 4924: 4923: 4901: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4870: 4869: 4854: 4837: 4836: 4818: 4817: 4798: 4797: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4757: 4756: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4717: 4716: 4697: 4696: 4669: 4668: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4629: 4595: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4557: 4540: 4526: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4371: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3921:Patrick Nyarko 3909: 3908: 3907: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3722: 3631: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3408: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3386: 3376:Omarcheeseboro 3365: 3341: 3331:Vyvyan Basterd 3320: 3303:Strong support 3300: 3266: 3241: 3216: 3198: 3181: 3163: 3145: 3116: 3090: 3073: 3046: 3026:Strong Support 3023: 2998: 2981: 2960: 2950: 2935: 2907: 2887: 2884: 2872: 2871: 2848: 2844: 2835: 2834: 2778: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2753: 2712: 2694:significance. 2691: 2636: 2624: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2598:partial Oppose 2595: 2574: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2517: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2474: 2473: 2456: 2431: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2372: 2355: 2338: 2321: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2197: 2091:controversy. 2044: 2026: 2009: 1983: 1947: 1933:A Bit Confused 1930: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1856: 1768: 1747: 1680: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1639: 1636: 1611: 1610: 1595: 1569: 1566: 1549: 1545:Added link to 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1322: 1319: 1302: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1276: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1145: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1083:non-notability 1060: 916: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 750: 749: 748: 686: 628: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 559: 558: 557: 556: 526: 486: 483: 467: 466: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 387: 372: 351: 350: 349: 323:Any thoughts? 321: 320: 310: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 202: 199: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 135: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5398: 5386: 5381: 5380: 5376: 5372: 5368: 5360: 5356: 5352: 5348: 5347: 5346: 5345: 5341: 5337: 5333: 5292: 5288: 5284: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5273: 5269: 5265: 5264: 5263: 5259: 5255: 5251: 5247: 5244: 5243: 5242: 5238: 5234: 5230: 5226: 5222: 5221: 5220: 5216: 5212: 5207: 5203: 5199: 5198: 5197: 5193: 5189: 5185: 5182: 5177: 5174: 5169: 5165: 5164: 5163: 5159: 5155: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5144: 5140: 5135: 5134: 5133: 5129: 5125: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5114: 5110: 5106: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5092: 5086: 5085: 5075: 5071: 5067: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5056: 5052: 5047: 5046: 5045: 5041: 5037: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5025: 5021: 5017: 5016: 5006: 4997: 4994: 4993: 4988: 4981: 4980: 4973: 4969: 4965: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4946:Paul McDonald 4943: 4941: 4937: 4933: 4932:MATThematical 4928: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4887: 4883: 4879: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4868: 4864: 4860: 4859:MATThematical 4855: 4853: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4835: 4831: 4827: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4816: 4811: 4807: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4796: 4792: 4788: 4783: 4782: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4739: 4738: 4733: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4715: 4711: 4707: 4704: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4695: 4690: 4686: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4667: 4663: 4659: 4655: 4651: 4648: 4647: 4642: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4621: 4620: 4615: 4610: 4602: 4598: 4597: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4577: 4573: 4569: 4565: 4561: 4558: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4541: 4539: 4534: 4533:Seraphimblade 4530: 4527: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4510: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4476: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4383: 4379: 4375: 4372: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4342:MATThematical 4338: 4337: 4336: 4333: 4332: 4327: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4284: 4281: 4273: 4269: 4265: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4193: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4153: 4151: 4149: 4146: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4136: 4132: 4127: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4067: 4062: 4061: 4055: 4051: 4048: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4029:MATThematical 4025: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4005: 4004: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3960: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3917: 3913: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3875: 3871: 3866: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3808: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3782:Alberto Celli 3779: 3775: 3772: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3721: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3698:Yale Bulldogs 3694: 3689: 3685: 3680: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3650:Gavin Collins 3647: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3632: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3614: 3611: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3583: 3578: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3449: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3411: 3410: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3387: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3366: 3364: 3361: 3360: 3355: 3348: 3345: 3342: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3321: 3319: 3316: 3310: 3304: 3301: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3267: 3265: 3262: 3255: 3249: 3245: 3242: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3217: 3215: 3212: 3209: 3202: 3199: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3182: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3167: 3164: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3153:MATThematical 3149: 3146: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3117: 3115: 3112: 3111: 3106: 3101: 3094: 3091: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3074: 3072: 3068: 3060: 3058: 3050: 3047: 3045: 3041: 3035: 3033: 3027: 3024: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2999: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2982: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2967:WP:OTHERSTUFF 2964: 2961: 2959: 2955: 2949: 2947: 2946: 2939: 2936: 2934: 2929: 2925: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2908: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2893: 2890: 2889: 2883: 2881: 2877: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2846: 2845: 2842: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2828: 2823: 2816: 2812: 2807: 2804: 2798: 2796: 2791: 2789: 2785: 2764: 2759: 2752: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2716: 2711: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2701: 2700: 2692: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2669: 2662: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2640: 2635: 2631: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2609: 2603: 2599: 2596: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2575: 2573: 2570: 2564: 2558: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2518: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2501: 2500: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2484:MATThematical 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2472: 2469: 2468: 2460: 2457: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2432: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2383:Paul McDonald 2380: 2377:if they meet 2376: 2373: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2356: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2339: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2322: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2307: 2303: 2300: 2297: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2247:MATThematical 2243: 2242: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2217:MATThematical 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2165: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2034:MATThematical 2030: 2027: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2010: 2008: 2005: 2004: 1999: 1994: 1988:Good change. 1987: 1984: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1969: 1965: 1960: 1955: 1951: 1948: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937:MATThematical 1934: 1931: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1880: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1861:MATThematical 1857: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1790: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1769: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1752:this change, 1751: 1748: 1746: 1741: 1737: 1732: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1722: 1719: 1718: 1710: 1704: 1702: 1698: 1697:L. J. Manogue 1694: 1690: 1686: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1650:MATThematical 1646: 1635: 1634: 1630: 1624: 1619: 1615: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1596: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1586: 1580: 1574: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1555:MATThematical 1548: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1515:MATThematical 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498:Paul McDonald 1495: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1465:Paul McDonald 1461: 1460: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1425:Paul McDonald 1421: 1420: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1395:Paul McDonald 1391: 1390: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1365:Paul McDonald 1361: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1331:Paul McDonald 1327: 1318: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308:MATThematical 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287:MATThematical 1283: 1282: 1281: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1250: 1242: 1240: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1211:is meant. -- 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1188: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1160: 1159: 1151: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1061: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1002: 997: 992: 991: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 969: 965: 964: 963: 959: 955: 950: 949: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 931: 930: 926: 922: 917: 914: 910: 906: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 878: 877: 876: 872: 868: 863: 862: 861: 860: 856: 852: 847: 846:WP:OTHERSTUFF 843: 826: 822: 821: 812: 808: 807: 806: 802: 798: 793: 792: 791: 787: 786: 777: 773: 769: 768:Aaron Clapham 766: 765: 764: 760: 756: 751: 747: 743: 739: 735: 732:to formulate 731: 727: 726: 725: 721: 720: 711: 706: 705: 704: 700: 696: 691: 687: 685: 681: 677: 672: 671: 670: 666: 662: 658: 653: 652: 651: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 620: 616: 612: 607: 605: 603: 599: 598: 597: 593: 589: 584: 583: 582: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 555: 551: 547: 542: 541: 540: 536: 532: 527: 525: 521: 517: 513: 512: 511: 510: 506: 502: 497: 495: 490: 482: 481: 477: 473: 465: 462: 455: 449: 448: 447: 446: 442: 438: 434: 432: 419: 416: 409: 403: 402: 401: 397: 393: 388: 386: 382: 378: 373: 370: 369: 368: 365: 358: 352: 348: 346: 341: 340: 337: 336: 335: 334: 330: 326: 319: 316: 315: 314: 298: 294: 290: 286: 285: 284: 280: 276: 272: 268: 264: 263: 262: 258: 254: 250: 249: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 231: 230: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 208:Gamma Ethniki 190: 186: 182: 178: 177: 176: 172: 168: 167:MATThematical 164: 163: 162: 158: 154: 150: 149: 148: 144: 140: 136: 134: 130: 126: 125:MATThematical 122: 121: 120: 119: 115: 111: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5384: 5363: 5329: 5250:Edit Summary 5205: 5018:is ignored. 5014: 5012: 5009: 4983: 4903: 4826:Joshua Scott 4658:Joshua Scott 4650:I'm confused 4649: 4633:Joshua Scott 4605: 4600: 4576:Pokémon case 4559: 4542: 4528: 4511: 4423: 4373: 4356: 4322: 4317: 4282: 4243: 4239: 4198: 4194: 4065: 4059: 4058: 4053: 4049: 4024:and I agree. 4023: 3961: 3911: 3897:Joshua Scott 3873: 3869: 3864: 3845: 3826: 3812:Joshua Scott 3773: 3741:Joshua Scott 3705: 3701: 3687: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3665: 3645: 3633: 3612: 3581: 3435:Joshua Scott 3412: 3388: 3367: 3350: 3343: 3322: 3302: 3268: 3243: 3218: 3200: 3183: 3165: 3147: 3118: 3096: 3092: 3075: 3056: 3048: 3031: 3025: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2983: 2962: 2944: 2943: 2937: 2909: 2897:Joshua Scott 2891: 2873: 2867: 2836: 2818: 2808: 2799: 2792: 2783: 2780: 2708:applicable.~ 2696: 2626: 2606: 2601: 2597: 2576: 2556: 2536: 2519: 2502: 2464: 2458: 2433: 2412: 2374: 2357: 2340: 2323: 2298: 2070:Joshua Scott 2050: 2046: 2028: 2011: 1989: 1985: 1949: 1932: 1920:Joshua Scott 1915: 1882:No objection 1881: 1793: 1788: 1770: 1753: 1749: 1730: 1713: 1708: 1705: 1682: 1641: 1613: 1612: 1575: 1571: 1551: 1328: 1324: 1304: 1278: 1238: 1231: 1213:Joshua Scott 1184: 1155: 1147: 1082: 1078: 1030: 995: 977:micronations 967: 839: 816: 815: 810: 809:Then define 781: 780: 772:previous AfD 715: 714: 630: 560: 498: 492: 491: 488: 468: 428: 426: 342: 322: 317: 312: 275:Joshua Scott 204: 106: 75: 43: 37: 5326:RfC result? 5173:this report 4964:Niteshift36 4913:Niteshift36 4564:this player 4288:Horrorshowj 3994:Niteshift36 3966:Niteshift36 3693:1905 season 3308:Fabrictramp 3135:Mkativerata 2916:section of 2562:Fabrictramp 2507:Horrorshowj 2299:Weak oppose 2082:Tryptofish 1846:Niteshift36 811:micronation 661:Sir Sputnik 437:Mkativerata 36:This is an 5371:Tryptofish 5336:Tryptofish 4900:Moratorium 4764:Tryptofish 4724:Tryptofish 4680:WP:NSPORTS 4493:about it. 4457:Tryptofish 4428:Tryptofish 4392:Tryptofish 4302:Tryptofish 4264:Tryptofish 4249:Strikehold 4226:Tryptofish 4211:Strikehold 4172:discussion 4108:Tryptofish 4009:Tryptofish 3980:Tryptofish 3947:Tryptofish 3929:WP:ATHLETE 3925:WP:ATHLETE 3850:Tryptofish 3807:WP:ATHLETE 3786:WP:ATHLETE 3347:WP:ATHLETE 3327:WP:ATHLETE 3314:talk to me 3013:Tryptofish 3009:status quo 2988:Spanneraol 2971:moreno oso 2868:Moratorium 2852:this essay 2698:RGTraynor 2602:as well as 2568:talk to me 2466:RGTraynor 2421:Strikehold 2398:Tryptofish 2262:Tryptofish 2232:Tryptofish 2201:Tryptofish 2187:Tryptofish 2149:Tryptofish 2115:Tryptofish 2056:Tryptofish 2016:Spanneraol 1964:800 metres 1901:Tryptofish 1886:Tryptofish 1789:additional 1685:WP:ATHLETE 1665:Tryptofish 1645:WP:ROUTINE 1547:WP:ROUTINE 1346:Tryptofish 1186:RGTraynor 1157:RGTraynor 1079:notability 1015:WP:ATHLETE 905:moreno oso 851:moreno oso 181:Tryptofish 153:Tryptofish 95:Archive 10 5268:Quantpole 5233:Quantpole 5188:Quantpole 5139:Quantpole 5109:Quantpole 5051:Quantpole 5020:Quantpole 4878:Quantpole 4810:talk page 4689:talk page 4601:generally 4495:Quantpole 4443:Quantpole 4406:Quantpole 4378:Quantpole 4286:guidance. 3916:Tim Tebow 3688:currently 3658:contribs) 3282:WP:NSPORT 3277:WP:NSPORT 3171:Trackinfo 2945:Wizardman 2928:talk page 2918:WP:NSPORT 2735:Trackinfo 2542:Trackinfo 2438:WP:NSPORT 2328:Gonzonoir 2169:Trackinfo 2134:Trackinfo 2097:Trackinfo 1973:Trackinfo 1740:talk page 1618:WP:MMANOT 1614:Nevermind 1600:Trackinfo 1553:event. -- 1480:WP:ESSAYS 1150:WP:HOCKEY 1110:Trackinfo 1087:WP:NSPORT 1019:WP:NSPORT 882:WP:NSPORT 776:later AfD 734:WP:FOOTYN 637:WP:FOOTYN 235:Topklasse 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 5351:Townlake 5246:Swearing 5206:multiple 5202:WP:CIVIL 5103:look at 4986:elektrik 4678:but not 4572:WP:FOOTY 4568:this one 4516:Townlake 4361:Eliteimp 4060:national 3874:designed 3353:elektrik 3231:Sarcasto 3057:alaney2k 2914:Baseball 2870:section. 2847:Proposal 2784:in favor 1959:WP:NTEMP 1716:SilkTork 1623:Timneu22 1598:subject. 1579:Timneu22 1393:review-- 1239:alaney2k 738:Struway2 710:Jogurney 676:Jogurney 641:Jogurney 588:Jogurney 531:Jogurney 516:Jogurney 220:Jogurney 110:Sarcasto 5332:WP:CENT 5283:DJSasso 5254:DJSasso 5211:DJSasso 5154:DJSasso 5124:DJSasso 5066:DJSasso 5036:DJSasso 4844:cmadler 4787:cmadler 4706:cmadler 4547:Carrite 4480:DJSasso 4176:DJSasso 4131:DJSasso 3870:written 3755:cmadler 3726:cmadler 3711:cmadler 3559:cmadler 3529:DJSasso 3500:DJSasso 3389:Support 3368:Support 3344:Support 3323:Support 3269:Support 3219:Support 3201:Support 3188:cmadler 3184:Support 3166:Support 3148:Support 3119:Support 3093:Support 3076:Support 3049:Support 3001:Support 2984:Support 2963:Support 2938:Support 2910:Support 2892:Support 2886:Support 2681:DJSasso 2585:Rlendog 2524:Epbr123 2434:Support 2324:Support 2311:Arskwad 2302:WP:TLDR 2047:Comment 1986:Support 1916:Support 1813:DJSasso 1798:cmadler 1758:cmadler 1750:Support 1380:DJSasso 1360:WP:CFBN 1261:DJSasso 1198:DJSasso 1170:DJSasso 1065:DJSasso 1050:Eldumpo 1001:DJSasso 954:DJSasso 921:DJSasso 867:DJSasso 611:Eldumpo 572:Eldumpo 501:Eldumpo 494:notable 472:Eldumpo 377:Eldumpo 325:Eldumpo 289:Eldumpo 253:Eldumpo 139:DJSasso 39:archive 4676:WP:GNG 4560:Oppose 4543:Oppose 4529:Oppose 4512:Oppose 4420:WT:BIO 4374:Oppose 4357:Oppose 4318:Oppose 4283:Oppose 4207:WP:ATH 4203:WP:GNG 4195:Oppose 4054:higher 4050:Oppose 3962:Oppose 3912:Oppose 3893:WP:ATH 3865:Oppose 3827:Oppose 3774:Oppose 3679:is not 3667:Oppose 3646:always 3634:Oppose 3613:Oppose 3413:Oppose 3407:Oppose 3372:wp:ath 3290:Angelo 3286:WP:ATH 3273:WP:GNG 3248:WP:ATH 3227:WP:GNG 3223:WP:ATH 3131:WP:ATH 3127:WP:ATH 3123:WP:ATH 2880:WP:ATH 2860:WP:ATH 2815:WP:GNG 2811:WP:GNG 2803:WP:ATH 2795:WP:ATH 2788:WP:ATH 2731:WP:GNG 2727:WP:ATH 2677:WP:ORG 2651:WP:BIO 2581:WP:GNG 2577:Oppose 2557:Oppose 2520:Oppose 2503:Oppose 2446:Angelo 2442:WP:GNG 2413:Oppose 2379:WP:GNG 2375:Oppose 2358:Oppose 2341:Oppose 2164:WP:GNG 2129:WP:GNG 2093:WP:BRD 2088:WP:GNG 2029:Oppose 2012:Oppose 1968:WP:GNG 1954:WP:GNG 1950:Oppose 1443:WP:GNG 1439:WP:MfD 1091:Angelo 1081:, not 1035:Angelo 1023:WP:GNG 981:Angelo 973:WP:GNG 939:Angelo 890:Angelo 886:WP:GNG 819:Oranje 797:Angelo 784:Oranje 755:Angelo 718:Oranje 695:Angelo 690:WP:GNG 546:Angelo 392:Angelo 271:WP:GNG 239:Angelo 5367:WP:AN 4991:SHOOS 4911:Why? 4618:Space 4424:never 4330:broil 4325:Royal 4157:Cbl62 4094:Cbl62 4077:Cbl62 3706:elite 3393:Hobit 3358:SHOOS 3109:Space 2750:Gosox 2710:Gosox 2634:Gosox 2613:talk 2537:Note: 2417:Cbl62 2362:Cbl62 2345:Hobit 2111:above 2002:Space 16:< 5375:talk 5369:. -- 5355:talk 5340:talk 5287:talk 5272:talk 5258:talk 5237:talk 5225:lazy 5215:talk 5192:talk 5158:talk 5143:talk 5128:talk 5113:talk 5070:talk 5055:talk 5040:talk 5024:talk 4968:talk 4950:talk 4936:talk 4917:talk 4882:talk 4863:talk 4848:talk 4806:J04n 4791:talk 4768:talk 4745:ASEM 4728:talk 4710:talk 4685:J04n 4613:From 4608:Them 4584:talk 4551:talk 4520:talk 4499:talk 4484:talk 4461:talk 4447:talk 4432:talk 4410:talk 4396:talk 4382:talk 4365:talk 4346:talk 4306:talk 4292:talk 4268:talk 4253:talk 4230:talk 4215:talk 4180:talk 4161:talk 4145:here 4135:talk 4112:talk 4098:talk 4081:talk 4033:talk 4013:talk 3998:talk 3984:talk 3970:talk 3951:talk 3937:talk 3883:talk 3854:talk 3835:talk 3798:talk 3794:Fram 3790:WP:N 3759:talk 3730:talk 3715:talk 3654:talk 3620:ASEM 3589:ASEM 3582:sure 3563:talk 3548:talk 3544:Fram 3533:talk 3519:talk 3515:Fram 3504:talk 3489:talk 3485:Gigs 3470:ASEM 3457:talk 3453:Gigs 3448:WP:N 3425:talk 3421:Gigs 3397:talk 3380:talk 3335:talk 3294:talk 3235:talk 3192:talk 3175:talk 3157:talk 3139:talk 3104:From 3099:Them 3084:talk 3080:BRMo 3066:talk 3039:Talk 3017:talk 2992:talk 2975:talk 2924:J04n 2739:talk 2685:talk 2589:talk 2546:talk 2528:talk 2511:talk 2488:talk 2450:talk 2425:talk 2419:'s. 2402:talk 2387:talk 2366:talk 2349:talk 2332:talk 2315:talk 2266:talk 2251:talk 2236:talk 2221:talk 2205:talk 2191:talk 2173:talk 2153:talk 2138:talk 2119:talk 2101:talk 2060:talk 2038:talk 2020:talk 1997:From 1992:Them 1977:talk 1941:talk 1905:talk 1890:talk 1865:talk 1850:talk 1835:talk 1831:Gigs 1827:WP:V 1817:talk 1802:talk 1779:talk 1775:Gigs 1762:talk 1736:J04n 1669:talk 1654:talk 1629:talk 1620:. — 1604:talk 1585:talk 1559:talk 1519:talk 1502:talk 1488:talk 1484:Fram 1469:talk 1454:talk 1450:Fram 1429:talk 1414:talk 1410:Fram 1399:talk 1384:talk 1369:talk 1350:talk 1335:talk 1312:talk 1291:talk 1265:talk 1248:talk 1202:talk 1174:talk 1114:talk 1095:talk 1069:talk 1054:talk 1039:talk 1031:must 1027:here 1005:talk 996:some 985:talk 958:talk 943:talk 937:. -- 925:talk 909:talk 903:---- 894:talk 888:. -- 871:talk 855:talk 849:---- 817:Club 801:talk 782:Club 759:talk 742:talk 716:Club 699:talk 680:talk 665:talk 645:talk 633:here 615:talk 592:talk 576:talk 566:and 550:talk 535:talk 520:talk 505:talk 476:talk 441:talk 431:here 396:talk 381:talk 345:here 329:talk 293:talk 269:and 267:WP:V 257:talk 243:talk 224:talk 185:talk 171:talk 157:talk 143:talk 129:talk 114:talk 4824:-- 4580:WFC 4244:not 3675:may 3644:is 3417:GNG 3259:Dom 3253:Big 3207:Ray 3042:• 3032:KV5 3005:not 2895:-- 2826:Why 2679:. - 2666:Dom 2660:Big 2630:GNG 2608:DGG 2051:not 1709:and 1017:or 968:all 459:Dom 453:Big 413:Dom 407:Big 362:Dom 356:Big 214:or 5377:) 5357:) 5342:) 5289:) 5274:) 5260:) 5248:, 5239:) 5217:) 5194:) 5160:) 5145:) 5130:) 5115:) 5072:) 5057:) 5042:) 5026:) 4970:) 4952:) 4938:) 4919:) 4884:) 4865:) 4850:) 4793:) 4770:) 4752:) 4730:) 4712:) 4682:. 4586:) 4553:) 4522:) 4501:) 4486:) 4463:) 4449:) 4434:) 4412:) 4398:) 4384:) 4367:) 4348:) 4316:I 4308:) 4294:) 4270:) 4262:-- 4255:) 4232:) 4224:-- 4217:) 4182:) 4163:) 4137:) 4114:) 4100:) 4083:) 4035:) 4015:) 4000:) 3986:) 3972:) 3953:) 3939:) 3885:) 3856:) 3846:is 3837:) 3800:) 3792:. 3761:) 3732:) 3717:) 3640:. 3627:) 3596:) 3585:-- 3565:) 3550:) 3535:) 3521:) 3506:) 3491:) 3477:) 3466:-- 3459:) 3427:) 3399:) 3382:) 3337:) 3311:| 3296:) 3237:) 3194:) 3177:) 3159:) 3151:-- 3141:) 3086:) 3069:) 3053:ʘ 3036:• 3019:) 2994:) 2977:) 2821:So 2757:55 2741:) 2715:55 2687:) 2639:55 2615:) 2591:) 2565:| 2548:) 2530:) 2513:) 2490:) 2452:) 2427:) 2404:) 2396:-- 2389:) 2368:) 2351:) 2334:) 2317:) 2268:) 2260:-- 2253:) 2238:) 2230:-- 2223:) 2207:) 2193:) 2175:) 2155:) 2147:-- 2140:) 2121:) 2103:) 2062:) 2040:) 2022:) 1979:) 1943:) 1907:) 1899:-- 1892:) 1867:) 1852:) 1837:) 1819:) 1804:) 1781:) 1764:) 1756:. 1695:, 1691:, 1671:) 1656:) 1648:-- 1606:) 1561:) 1521:) 1504:) 1490:) 1471:) 1456:) 1445:. 1431:) 1416:) 1401:) 1386:) 1371:) 1352:) 1337:) 1314:) 1293:) 1267:) 1251:) 1235:ʘ 1204:) 1176:) 1116:) 1097:) 1071:) 1056:) 1041:) 1007:) 987:) 960:) 945:) 927:) 911:) 896:) 873:) 857:) 803:) 795:-- 761:) 753:-- 744:) 701:) 693:-- 682:) 667:) 659:. 647:) 617:) 594:) 578:) 552:) 537:) 522:) 507:) 496:. 478:) 443:) 435:-- 398:) 383:) 331:) 295:) 259:) 245:) 226:) 187:) 173:) 159:) 145:) 131:) 116:) 91:→ 5373:( 5353:( 5338:( 5285:( 5281:- 5270:( 5256:( 5235:( 5213:( 5190:( 5183:. 5156:( 5141:( 5126:( 5111:( 5068:( 5053:( 5038:( 5034:- 5022:( 4966:( 4948:( 4934:( 4915:( 4880:( 4861:( 4846:( 4812:) 4808:( 4789:( 4766:( 4750:t 4748:( 4743:M 4726:( 4708:( 4691:) 4687:( 4582:( 4549:( 4518:( 4497:( 4482:( 4459:( 4445:( 4430:( 4408:( 4394:( 4380:( 4363:( 4344:( 4304:( 4290:( 4266:( 4251:( 4228:( 4213:( 4178:( 4159:( 4133:( 4129:- 4110:( 4096:( 4079:( 4031:( 4011:( 3996:( 3982:( 3968:( 3949:( 3935:( 3933:B 3881:( 3852:( 3833:( 3796:( 3757:( 3728:( 3713:( 3656:| 3652:( 3625:t 3623:( 3618:M 3594:t 3592:( 3587:M 3561:( 3546:( 3531:( 3517:( 3502:( 3498:- 3487:( 3475:t 3473:( 3468:M 3455:( 3423:( 3395:( 3378:( 3333:( 3292:( 3233:( 3190:( 3173:( 3155:( 3137:( 3082:( 3063:( 3061:ʘ 3015:( 2990:( 2973:( 2930:) 2926:( 2760:) 2754:( 2737:( 2717:) 2713:( 2683:( 2641:) 2637:( 2611:( 2587:( 2544:( 2526:( 2509:( 2486:( 2448:( 2423:( 2400:( 2385:( 2364:( 2347:( 2330:( 2313:( 2264:( 2249:( 2234:( 2219:( 2203:( 2189:( 2171:( 2151:( 2136:( 2117:( 2099:( 2058:( 2036:( 2018:( 1975:( 1939:( 1903:( 1888:( 1863:( 1848:( 1833:( 1815:( 1800:( 1777:( 1760:( 1742:) 1738:( 1720:* 1667:( 1652:( 1626:· 1602:( 1582:· 1557:( 1517:( 1500:( 1486:( 1467:( 1452:( 1427:( 1412:( 1397:( 1382:( 1378:- 1367:( 1348:( 1333:( 1310:( 1289:( 1263:( 1245:( 1243:ʘ 1200:( 1196:- 1172:( 1112:( 1093:( 1067:( 1052:( 1037:( 1003:( 999:- 983:( 956:( 941:( 923:( 919:- 915:O 907:( 892:( 869:( 853:( 799:( 757:( 740:( 697:( 678:( 663:( 643:( 613:( 590:( 574:( 548:( 533:( 518:( 503:( 474:( 439:( 394:( 379:( 327:( 291:( 255:( 241:( 222:( 183:( 169:( 155:( 141:( 127:( 112:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4 - Knowledge

Index