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 GNGāwhich must be met whether or not NSPORT exists, and are not changed by NSPORTāmust 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:ā 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 biasĀ : 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. Ā --
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. ā
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. Ā --
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. Ā --
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. Ā --
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. Ā --
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. ā
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. ā
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. Ā --
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 ā 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. Ā --
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. Ā --
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. Ā --
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:PokƩmon 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:ArchiveĀ 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:ArchiveĀ 6
82:ArchiveĀ 5
76:ArchiveĀ 4
70:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 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:. ā
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:ā¢
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:Ź
3036:ā¢
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:Ź
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:ā
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:Ź
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:Ā·
1602:(
1582:Ā·
1557:(
1517:(
1500:(
1486:(
1467:(
1452:(
1427:(
1412:(
1397:(
1382:(
1378:-
1367:(
1348:(
1333:(
1310:(
1289:(
1263:(
1245:(
1243:Ź
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.