Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 6

3924:

covered local sports. And local papers will still, independent of the source, fill their pages with just about any local athlete who has a following, but is that subject notable on a worldwide basis? Probably not. What I am saying is that some judgement is needed here. With the ever shrinking pool of real journalists out there, particularly sports journalists, I think sports specific media will be proven to have more thoughtful judgement of notability than a paper who throws an newsroom assistant in to fill space with a local story. In today's internet news media, any coverage is hit or miss. And when you introduce history into the equation, I'm finding the pool of source material that any search engine can find is actually pretty limited. It is overwhelmed by sites that are not searched by the spiders, documents that haven't been posted and sometimes even by wikipedia's own mirrored presence. Because we have the ill-informed frequently governing and guiding decisions at AfD, we can't allow subjectivity. I understand that. I would like to find terminology that does credit sports specific media with being WELL informed about its subject and a good guide for notability. But we have to be careful to distinguish between the casual mentions and phenomena.

119:, but when I make an articles on a notable academic it is immediately scrutinized and questioned. For instance, I made an article on an important theoretical physicist and string theorist, and it immediately received a notability tag. I see people arguing about notability of academics and dabbling about references all the time. Some of these "questionably notable" academics have published hundreds of papers in their fields. Furthore, if you hit "random article" you will come across tons of random football players with one-line blurbs and stats. I've always felt that Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a baseball card collection. No one is going to care about these run-of-the-mill athletes in twenty years, let alone a hundred. Now, I don't really have a problem with such articles (they are just fluff), but I don't see any point in making them. Meanwhile, many important academics who are making important lasting contributions to their fields (if not by their new discoveries, at least by writing books and papers) are missing from the encyclopedia all together. Anyways, that's my rant. I don't see any easy way to curb this disparity but I wanted to mention it. 1716:

blood and start circling. Yes, I have equated those types of personalities as sharks. Sticking to GNG assumes that all the knowledge of the world is already available on-line and essentially turns references into a locator service for said sources. That might work, kind of, for contemporary subjects, but as you go back though time, on-line sources are (I'll say) exponentially fewer in number. This would hold true for most subjects, but certainly for athletes. However we have also determined through guidelines that if one is notable for historical events, that notability does not disappear. The sources might not be available or could literally disappear (libraries and museums have fires or disasters etc) and cause this to happen. Should we penalize the subject of the article because the internet is not perfect. I think not. If we can find a source that establishes the notability of the subject, that alone should be sufficient to let that article survive. As I have found, when a legitimate article exists, it naturally gets improved over time.

1731:

actually participates; it is what makes them exceptional (positively or negatively) that notability is based on. Consider that you've already advised that local players should not be included due to routine coverage; this needs to extend to pro players as well, otherwise you're treating pro players on a higher level than any other person for Knowledge (XXG). That said, I'm well aware of the sourcing issue - that anyone from pre-Internet age is going to be more difficult to source than those today, but it is not that sources don't exist, just difficult to get. What NSPORT needs to be doing is outlining cases where one is assuredly going to find non-routine coverage of sports figures in reliable sources for that sport. I can easily accept that every first-string pro NFL quarterback and head coach is likely going to be notable since they are the backbone of the success or failure of the team and their decisions overall will be commented on; anyone other position, I question.

2015:

English clubs did have a third team ) Their names appear in the books, but you will find virtually nothing about them, even in local newspapers. In the Netherlands you can become a member of a club when you are six years old and continue to play for them until you're old and grey. (well it used to be like this, in the last 30 years most professional clubs were seperated from their amateur section) Remember there is no such thing like drafts in most countries. players join clubs before they have achieved anything. American journalists were also much more focused on the statistical side of sports than journalists in other countries. Holland is actually one of the most difficult countries in Europe when you want to research appearence records of footballplayers. The available records of the Eredivisie are partly based on some educated guesses. (The Dutch FA threw away all their old records)

3638:

addition how do you manage the temporal changes? Usually US, Russia, Romania, and China are the powerhouses so those 4 countries might have national non champions be notable, but that may change in the future. For example Russia had a break down a while back ago where they really weren't very good compared to the other 3. Countries' order have the disadvantage of changing too often. At one time China was not a powerhouse, but Japan actually was. If a lot of media coverage is about the lead up then they would either qualify under WP:GNG or by winning or placing well in one of the lead up meets in clauses 2 and 3. If you think more meets need to be added to clause 2 or moved from clause 3 to clause 2, that may very well be true. Lets discuss that, I just quickly tried to provide examples off the top of my head when I wrote it. --

3488:@TCO I think you misread the notability guidelines, a gold medal is not required for notability. Can you specifically mention which parts are too harsh. Clearly, as the guidelines are written, all of the gymnasts you mentioned are notable under bullet 1, and for example Rebecca Bross is notable under bullets 1,3, and 4. Only one needs to be satisfied for notability. Basically any national champ (from a top 12 country) is notable, anyone who competed at an olympics or WC is notable, anyone who medaled at a less prestigious international level event is notable, and everyone who has won minor international senior competitions is notable. What do you find wrong here? -- 406:

assert their notability" might be overkill. I don't foresee *that* many instances of this eventuality happening, and we can just address them on a case-by-case basis if they do. In England, for example, no amateur teams can qualify for the League Cup, and only 32 amateur teams qualify for the First Round Proper of the FA Cup; taking into account the fact that non-league teams sometimes get drawn against each other, and only a handful of non-league teams make it through to the second round, you're looking at maybe 25 out of a possible 214 FA and League Cup games where you have a pro team playing a competitive match against an amateur team in any given season. --

687:

article is sufficient, and that was the point that I was making on that discussion (I might not have worded it correctly, but I wasn't trying to imply that you can simply ignore GNG if ATH is met, because I have never thought that) - but that's beside the point to this discussion. All I was trying to do was simply add a caveat to the guideline to ensure that players who play in cup games between fully professional teams are considered equally alongside those who play in league games between fully professional teams, so that - in conjunction with the GNG standards - the guideline can be used to help inform editors as to whether an article should be created. --

2424:

page as a whole is deserving of being a wikipedia guideline. Otherwise I will do exactly as I threaten. I'm in no doubt that something will happen, as it is beyond question that the wider wikipedia community will not settle for nothing being done in an area which has such a huge impact on the quality of our BLPs as a whole. As an aside, check out my recent contributions to see the quality of articles that doing (a-word-that-I'm-better-off-not-using) all to improve the guideline will leave us with. Articles that I haven't prodded are articles that pass this guideline, and will fail at AfD because WikiProject Football treat this as canon law, as you well know.

4240:

including the amateurs, but that is a very limited few. Making the cut against the best of the best, as it were, should certainly make one notable. I don't think we would be "letting" very many new articles be created under that standard. If there were some amateur out there who played well enough to get in to the major tournament, played over his head and made the cut against the big boys, then disappeared off of the scene forever, that in itself would make that person notable enough to be subject of an article. In my sport, I've written many articles about people who have (had success at major events, then disappeared) done things just like that.

2535:-y to suggest that the sun does not shine out of this guideline's arse for every sport? Is it point-y to suggest that the decision to promote was hasty? Even if I (uneasily) accept that it was appropriate to promote at that time, is it point-y to remind editors here that the recommendations set by the admin at the time of promotion have not been met, or that the inertia on this talk page reduces the possibility of them ever being met? This guideline got through because editors of the sports for which it works very well argued, in sufficient numbers, that the guideline in its entirety should be promoted, despite the fact that large parts of it simply 3611:. Under the current guidelines she would have attained automatic notability in March 2010 with her all around win at a minor international competition (clause 3). She also would have attained notability by her pacific rim performance with her podium finish in the all around and beam and floor exercise would give her notability under clause 2. So she already qualified well before you created the page. Perhaps the American cup is at a higher level than I have it as and it should be moved to clause 2, but I think there really isn't enough good international competitors to warrant that. 2718:

just feel we end up with a lot of articles about NN-kids sourced in insignificant news-reports. But if any people will save it, they will be found here. Just notice how the first person replying here is the person who has made a lot of this articles (even if this not was very clear from the answer.). Canvassing? Why do you bother to imply such a thing? I am honestly looking for a place to get some discussion about it, someone wants to nominate a massive amounts of articles for deletion, there are far to few !votes at the AfD, and this thing is not easy.

2565:

football project about it nor do I see a section here specifically on the football aspect of things, so I can't see anywhere that this has been brought up amongst the people who would know best. What I suggest you do is create a new section below (ie don't continue this one) and make a recomendation for what you think the guideline should be. And then link from the footy project that the soccer notability guidelines are being rediscussed . Anything less than that isn't truely trying to discuss the situation. -

3615:

mainstream media. However, this qualifies her as notable under WP:GNG. She may also qualify under the College Athlete section (I don't know about what kind of awards she received). Anyway the point is for this section that we include bright line guidelines that guarantee media coverage. Zamarippa's qualifications are too subjective or case specific to be made into a general guideline that would be useful for many gymnasts. In cases like these its best to use WP:GNG in my opinion. What do you think. --

1959:. The error in promoting this is now manifesting; very little work was done to improve ATHLETE for the biggest sport in the world, and most problematic sport on Knowledge (XXG). Of the identified 25,000 unreferenced BLPs site-wide, nearly 1,600 of them are association footballers. Sure, part of that is down to the nationalities of notable association footballers compared to baseball or American football players, but a lot of it is down to the fact that a lot of them really are not that notable. 1739:

All these cases should be taken as rules of thumbs, with allowances both above and below the line when they make sense. A player that only plays 4 unremarkable minutes in a pro game and has nothing else may be able the line to be kept, but clearly isn't notable; at the same time, a draft rookie player that was promoted to be the season-changing player that suffers a pre-season injury that ends his career prematurely, never having played a pro game, will likely be notable and be kept. --

3543:

international meet is notable via clause 3. Anyone who has been on the podium at a prestigious area meet is notable via clause 2. Anyone who has ever competed in any Olympics or world championships regardless of how well they performed is notable by clause 1. Do you think we need to add a clause to make it more inclusive to people who will always satisfy WP:GNG. I do not think you have provided an example of a notable gymnast that was not covered by the clauses already up there.

657:

to their own on what is and isn't acceptible IMO. Back to the main point though, I disagree that WP:FOOTY is particularly good at maintaining standards in articles. There are individual editors that are fantastic at it, indeed certain groups of editors keep certain categories of articles maintained to a high standard. But on a project wide basis? I'd say that at best we struggle. Certain editors are creating articles with little regard to the GNG, and certain others

2409:? I would have thought a much higher number! Seriously, though, I've been watching this talk thread even though I haven't said anything until now. WFC, obviously you don't need my permission to do anything, obviously, but my unsolicited advice would be not to make the proposal you just described. It would be a lot more efficient, and a lot less likely to be met with howls of opposition, to work on improving what we have here. For whatever that's worth. -- 4409:

scripted or not is irrelevant--yes, titles aren't won based on talent...at least, not directly. The promotions decide who gets the titles, and they (almost always) give them to people who have distinguished themselves, so there is very little difference. In this sense, despite their pre-determined outcomes (I'll resist the temptation to launch into a discussion of point shaving, gambling, and thrown games), they can be seen as athletic competitions.

31: 315:

professional, that country's main domestic cup competition would be fully professional too, and therefore cup games between clubs from the pro league would meet the notability guidelines. For countries where the league is not fully professional, it would be impossible for the cup competition to contain games between fully professional clubs, and they would fail the guideline. Does that make sense? It's a little convoluted, I know... --

2732:"Just notice how the first person replying here is the person who has made a lot of this articles"? I haven't edited any of them at all. That claim gives me the impression that Greswik is attempting to paint my opinion as somehow of less value or to be ignored. I've made articles on medal winners at the Games, yes. I don't see how that's relevant to the events articles, which I haven't touched. Care to retract that statement? 1815:, all which are based on exceptional contributions to the field. Of course, for a person to become a major motion picture star, they've likely had to take on a number of mediocre roles that would be non-notable for purposes of Knowledge (XXG), just has athletes would need to show their abilities at college or amateur levels before they become pros, and for that, most will not be notable (when one takes into account 4412:

links can be made between professional wrestlers and athletes. I believe that it is important to ask the question: Is notability better demonstrated by requiring wrestlers to switch employers to demonstrate notability in order to appear on multiple television shows, or is it better to stick with the guideline that the subject must be discussed in multiple independent, published, reliable secondary sources?

2369:

partly rehashed versions of what we had before. ATHLETE should then be restored in WP:BIO, with a note that it is superceeded by any sports listed here. That would strengthen the better parts of this (hockey, baseball etc) and at the same time provide acknowledgement and awareness of the fact that other sports remain problematic and remain largely influenced by the widely discredited ATHLETE. --

1787:

slightest. That being said, the soccer standards seem to be out of line with the rest of the major sports. All the other major sports require you to play at the #1 league in the world or a significant amount of time in a secondary one. Perhaps the football project could work on their section to bring it into line with the other sports. This might allay some of the concerns. -

2827:

reasonably sure that the subject will meet the GNG. These, however, are recent events for which, if they were notable, sufficient coverage should have been easy to find. The fact that this was not clearly the case, and that the AfD ended in no consensus, is a very good reason not to qualify such articles (Youth olympic events and competitors) for automatic inclusion.

3665:

a darnded strong gymnastics field.) Plus AC has and will be in the WC circuit anyhow. On the men's side, it draws good competition and always has and doesn't get all this "scam" whining. Realistically, countries and people are just not crazy about sending schoolage girls trecking across the ocean except for WC and Olys. Whereas Fabian or Jordan, it's no big deal

2471:

on the wiki. In fact the more people make threats on the wiki the less things actually happen. Thats why it took this guideline about 5 years to get promoted. This wasn't some spur of the moment change. Things generally work better if you attempt to work on improving it instead of making threats and assuming bad faith of everything. The community as a whole

3402:. That's the intent of this page anyway: to provide guidance as to who passes GNG, not to usurp GNG. If we were to go along the route you propose, I would feel strongly that we need to set limits on placing strongly, such as a podium placement. Otherwise, we will quickly find ourselves back at the old "has competed at the highest level" and came in last. -- 3814:"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I might have misread this. Took independent of the sport, to mean "not sport specific". But maybe the intention is more that it not be league-sponsored? 242:

and the surrogate we use, evaluating the importance of papers, is sometimes a little tricky,because of the different standards in different fields and the lack of a clear touchstone. But another problem is that there is an unfortunate skepticism here about the importance of academic teachers and researchers, especially in some subjects such as Education.

1933:

that same player certainly is not. The problem comes when "BigCity Gazette" (aka New York Times) covers a local high school player in the same manner they would cover a local professional player and a non-local professional player. We have to use good judgement here as to when that source is really of a scale that would be considered notable for WP. --

1542:

support of the global community as a guideline which means if its met then you keep it. This is something that is often forgotten when it comes to wikipedia policies/guidelines. Note this isn't a comment on if I think this should be the case or not, but if you are seeing it widely used as a keep reason, that is often proof it has consensus to be so. -

3781:

box score (once) in the Washington Post would get it done for pro sports. Also, you say, don't worry because of GNG, but I get concerned that now people will not consider IG as a good source (and that's the one that has all the details on actually doing tricks or status of training or any kind of detail other than score or placement at Olys).

1668:

time (particularly for past athletes) that there are no sources being added, it's not showing notability in the long run. So NSPORT needs to work not as alternative to the GNG, but as a implicit acknowledgment of working towards the GNG. But I wouldn't argue that at any immediate time, an article that meets NSPORT must also meet the GNG. --

2311:

possibly type this), consider whether or not to put the matter to central discussion. But I've tried enough times to initiate the process, strongly believe that a large majority of non-sports editors and even a significant proportion of sports editors think that the bar is too low for association football, yet nothing has happened. --

3834:

to make use of sources that are associated in some way with the subject matter, generally speaking, of the page being written. The caution here would be that, perhaps, some source created by the sport might be a kind of promotional material that would not, really, be intellectually independent. But if (and I'm taking your word here)

3521:

I think wikipedia, which is pretty male skewed, may not realize how many women watch gym or skating. Add onto that, the smaller number of competitors, and I wouldn't be the least surprised that some "bubble girl" in the drive to the Olympics had higher name recognition than a practice squad linebacker, who got called up once.

1388:

would actually have the references required and instead have only done a google search. By introducing the kind of sentencing you want at the top of the page, you weaken the point of this page. Simply point people making the argument you don't like to this page, which does already clearly indicate that GNG superseeds it. -

1500:

there were opposers who saw the positives in this, albeit complimented by supporters with a few reservations. It's testament to the work done here that it got a majority. And given that most people elabourated on their positions, the numerical count was probably a better evaluation of consensus than a poll usually is.

3206:

level leagues. This page is really more about whether or not articles meet the GNG. WP:NOTSTATS is a completely different matter which doesn't really belong here. I think it was talked about previously but I am not sure, take a spin through the archives of this page there might be some interesting points in there. -

2646: 4402:

ambiguous as "a large fan base". The closest it gets is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Obviously, the only part that applies is multiple television shows. Would this mean that a wrestler is not notable if he or she works for only

1757:

are they are notable for amateur soccer or they wouldn't have been boosted to pro. Notability doesn't begin at some high 1st string level, notability often begins years before a player has even turned pro which is why we use the pro line as a clear red line of when they are likely to meet notability guidelines. -

2623: 3334:

similar). Major powers like Russia or China have notability for their top amateurs as well. And they meet in (US) nationally televised meets and such. Even less powerful countries are not an issue for their athletes as their is an inherent "level" of elite and the numbers of total athletes are small.

4459:

This guideline isn't applicable because pro wrestling isn't a sport. Outcomes are determined in advance, rather than being the result of competition. As such, its practitioners are performers, not athletes. The industry structure argument you make applies just as easily to things like musical theater

4401:

I don't understand the decision to declare WP:ATHLETE not applicable to professional wrestlers. The phrasing of WP:ENTERTAINER makes it clear that it is not appropriate for professional wrestling--it would certainly be a huge mistake to leave notability open to interpretation in terms of something as

4223:

I think one of the guidelines needs to be editted. Allowing anyone who makes the cut at a major to be notable seems to be a low standard. I propose this be changed to "finished top 10 or low amateur". 10 is a bit arbitrary, if anyone has a better number lets go with that (perhaps the number that gets

3838:

is a journalistically independent secondary source, that does not have a stake in pumping up (pun unintended) a particular gymnast, and is not trivial in what it covers, then I would think it could be used as a source to establish notability for a biography of a gymnast. The coverage would have to be

3760:

I agree, gymnastics is a borderline sport in terms of pros and amateurs all competing in the same high level competitions. Perhaps it should be placed in the pro section. I am not too familiar with the money aspect of gymnastics so if you feel pro is a more accurate description than I would recommend

3664:

I donno, man. Maybe, move World cup down! In terms of TV coverage, the AC gets more than some random WC and feels mores "special", even if it is US dominated (which is not the worst thing given this is the English language wiki and also given teh country has 300 million people, size of Europe, plus

3614:

I want to move commonwealth games to clause 2, I did not realize how many good countries actually competed in that competition. Your point about Zamarippa is well taken. As an NCAA champion and also a contender for the national team due to her vault abilities she did receive significant coverage from

3520:

I'm still a little chapped about the football player notability (and I am a red blooded American male, go Skins). Right now, a single snap qualifies for notability, even in the Arena Football League. Yeah, gym is not the super bowl, but still like I said, NBC carries a fair amount of it. And also,

3455:

Tryptofish. I'm firing off comments without taking time to read the materials. I know you asked for feedback and didn't get much from the gym crowd. That project seems a bit moribund actually. Let me please take the time to read through the other sports, read and think through the GNG, purpose of

3370:

NCAA: Would treat it like football or baseball or something. I could look into sports specific criteria if needed. It's at the same "level" as those sports, formally. And while the sports are not as popular, the numbers of athletes are much smaller (9 dressing for a meet, versus 100 in football).

3186:

Certainly all affected projects should be invited to participate. I wanted to establish that there was interest in developing a guideline beyond my own take on the matter first. No official proposal has been made, after all. If the feedback is just "use WP:GNG", then there's no need to make a change.

2310:

I think it would be constructive for the NSPORTS community to look at the association football criteria, and decide whether they are in line with other athletes. If so... well... presumably everything's hunky-dory. If not, figure out how we get there, and when WP:FOOTY inevitably tells us to (I can't

2241:

Sure, up in the lead, but if people are trying to argue "keep" based on just meeting a mechanical requirement, the message of that statement is not being made apparent. I can't see how restarting that lower down - particularly right in the section where the criteria are listed, cannot hurt to remind

1786:

I can't speak to soccer because I don't follow it. I know for any of the four major sports in north america, a single appearance in any pro game at any level and you can guarantee to have many many articles written about you. I agree articles need sources, I definitely don't disagree with that in the

1738:

Of course, NSPORT has passed, and there's no point to try to revert that. But that means we have to understand why it was opposed, in part to its laxness. Thus, the case listed above of an athlete with 4 whole minutes of playtime to his name should not be mechanically kept just because it meets this.

1715:

I'll rehash a bit of my argument from earlier. By blindly sticking to an ambiguous standard "significant coverage" of GNG, WP is artificially limiting the knowledge it can host. Just how much is "significant"? Two sources, three, ten? If you get the wrong AfD people in an argument, they could see

1387:

The reason you get people arguing along those lines is that NSPORTS is meant to protect articles from over zealous delete attempts. Most of the time the people who are saying that an article which meet NSPORTS but which they say doesn't meet GNG haven't actually done a thorough search of sources that

1163:

I understand your view, but I think many AfD comments skip over the GNG because it can be challenging to know whether the coverage included in the article is trivial/routine (and even more whether the coverage available but not cited in the article is trivial/routine) rather than because they believe

241:

One problem is that with academics there is no simple standard, as there is here. (I have proposed one, full professor in a research university, but it has not been accepted). Evaluating the fundamental intrinsic importance of someone's academic work is not something we are normally qualified to do,

199:

I was just speaking in generalities. I don't know enough about that sport to speak to it. The ice hockey example above for example is a player who has played at the top level of play that any ice hockey player can achieve, the fact someone created the page is proof that years and years later someone

4408:

WP:ATHLETE has always made more sense, as wrestling is structured like any other major sports. There are independent promotions (similar to major junior or minor professional leagues), developmental territories (similar to farm teams), and major promotions (similar to the big leagues). Whether it is

3833:

who would potentially be the, well, subject of the biographical page, not the sport in which the person participated (although I can see now how that could be considered the subject area, more generally). It seems to me that, whether we are talking about sports or about anything else, one almost has

3699:

Plus, realistically the US is way overnotable (in a name recognition sense) given the combination of both pretty darned good gymnastics and number of English speakers. I mean if you look at some of the bloggers, Rick is Canadian and Bridge is Aussie, but they both cover Ami gym in a lot of detail.

3546:

NCAA: I would not support anything that grants inherent notability to people for NCAA accomplishments beyond ones covered in the college athlete section. In general only the NCAA national championships gets network media coverage (and I think thats really only the womens side to be honest), and here

3417:

Are you familiar with the sport, to make an objection and have a feel for relative notability? There are a lot of women following skating and gymnastics, so its not the typical football/basketball crowd, but the sport still gets television and has audience and Q share and some of the athletes (e.g.

2498:

Also a suggestion might be to you know ask the footy project to see if they can't come up with more specific guidelines. I notice you hadn't put a notice on their talk page at all, and without the help of the "experts" its pretty hard to expect the wider community who don't know about soccer to come

2470:

You keep assuming bad faith of editors here. I would suggest you stop doing that. We have no vested interest other than that of any other editor on the wiki. If you want to improve something then suggest a fix. All you have done so far is say this is bad and make threats. That is not how things work

2328:

is, nothing has changed in that respect. Nothing got worse with this change, if anything it got better. Do some of the guidelines need to be tweaked, yeah probably. But that is another matter than reversing all the work that has been done by numerous people and took about 5 years to be implemented. -

2224:

Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an

2118:

And that's a problem; notability is not just meeting a simple criteria about that topic; it is how well we can actually talk about that person beyond basic details (this for sports figures includes their play stats, etc.) NSPORTS' criteria cannot be taken mechanically , as Seraphimblade points out -

1836:

Actually thats a poor analogy. Playing at the highest professional level is like being an entertainer in a huge blockbuster movie or an academy award nominated movie. Its not like just being a professional entertainer. Plenty of people watch and are entertained by secondary leagues, but they are not

1756:

The thing that is often forgotten, and maybe its that people don't agree. Is that in order to make it to the professional leagues even if its only for 4 minutes means that you were probably a notable amateur player. Maybe they aren't a notable pro soccer player at 4 minutes playing time, but chances

1734:

If it is an issue with editors ready like vultures to delete older sports figures should ATH/NSPORT disappear, that's a problem not with notability but with those editors understanding about the lack of WP's deadline and all that. I know I proposed a grandfathering clause to help carry over the gap

1667:

The way to remedy this, I think, is to consider that the criteria here are considered a temporary respite from meeting the GNG in the long run. The criteria that have been selected should be providing reasonably assurance that sources do or will exist in the near future, but if it's clear after some

1574:

I wouldn't say that at all, I see it used all the time as a reason to both keep and delete by people who have nothing to do with sports articles normally. Either way it already clearly indicates what you want at the top of this page, so I am not sure what you want. It will take time for this to sink

1447:

I'm confident that the above is correct. But let's suppose I'm wrong. In that instance, it would be fair to say that the community was misled by those who insisted that this should be seen as a suppliment to the GNG rather than a replacement. If now that the dust has settled it is to be considered a

1421:

Aslo to Codf1977's comment: NSPORT was passed through global consensus before it was asserted to be a guideline (I still disagree with the laxness of it, but admit that the RFC for it received consensus). It should be considered on par in terms of community consensus as the GNG, not indifferent from

478:

But it is not a fully pro fixture if only one team is fully pro. However, anomolies remain: this would give notability to members of two fully pro Conference sides if they are drawn together in the FA Cup, but not if the two teams play each other the preceding week in the league, and yet the league

214:

For what it's worth, my interest was first brought here by the same kinds of concerns that Danski14 has. And in my opinion, the current NSPORT is indeed a big improvement over the old ATH, as WFC said. There's a part of me that wants to argue with DJS about the athlete/scientist thing, but that part

157:

Sadly something that is often forgotten, is that it is likely that people actually are going to care about the athletes in 20+ years, and are not going to care about the scientist. That is how society in general feels about athletes and scientists. Knowledge (XXG) isn't revolutionary in that regard,

4601:

Responding as someone who knows little about the sport, I think it looks quite consistent with the rest of the guideline. I just wonder about the last point: are any of the premium cable TV challengers sometimes not notable (like a notable fighter against a non-notable opponent)? I don't know, just

3205:

or not. The hockey project for example thinks anything below the NHL or other top level leagues is pushing the issue of not a stats database (Or atleast it has in previous discussions, consensus could have changed). Since very few season pages ever have the prose they should have, including the top

2717:

I think the problem with "canvassing" is if you go to people you expect will support you, in a case you have some kind of personal interest. If you notice my attitude towards the youth olympics you may see I fear it is junk, but I am willing to be proven wrong. I don't have any personal interest- I

2564:

I don't mean this to sound flippant if it sounds that way, but where have you invited them to come to a central discussion here or at the football project to discuss changing the football aspects of this guideline? Complaining about it in AFDs isn't the same thing. I don't see any discussion at the

2423:

The most efficient way to improve something on wikipedia is to ask nicely, and if nothing happens, seriously threaten the existence of something that a group of editors have a vested interest to protect. Prove that editors here are capable of improving the poorly developed parts of this so that the

2014:

Oh I'm sure the current guidelines work well for American sports. But I'm not so sure for other countries. In England and the Netherlands it was not unusual for 2nd or 3rd team players to play a few first team matches, sometimes they just got lucky, being at the right place at the right time. (many

1985:

South Shields FC The Football League Years by George Thompson page 58. "Some sort of prize ought to go to Chape -his only appearance was at Bradford City in midweek- no North Eastern newspaper printed the line-ups and when reference was made to the Bradford Telegraph and Argus it was found that his

1730:

The problem that ATH and NSPORT still has is that it presumes playing in the game makes one notable. It's becoming clear that that is not the case, at least when put up against every other bio-related notability approach - participation is not the same as notability, no matter how much that player

1659:

Ok, I see the types of cases you seem to be talking about where technically based on the language they pass ATH/NSPORT (I think the cases you list would still meet NSPORT) but, through common sense, clearly shouldn't. This was one of the issues I had with NSPORT in development in that these aren't

1464:

It was still passed by the global community. Sure, you can argue that the bare majority (in WP's !voting system) shows it had barely enough consensus to pass, but I wouldn't argue that "GNG is more important to be met than NSPORT because NSPORT didn't have strong/global consensus". (Heck, I could

1407:

Most of the guideline (pro sports, for example) are the type where notability is presumed as long as the NSPORT criteria is met even if the GNG is not; this is based on the presumption that athletes that meet that criteria either have sources that are difficult to get on immediate notice, or have a

1081:

thinks there needs to be a change. Of course not seeing the discussion might be an issue, but being that the discussion is on the nsports page itself and not on the football project page, that really isn't a problem because people concerned with such things tend to watch the policy/guideline pages.

656:

Although I take your last sentence on board, I personally believe that using a few expletives to draw attention to a point is far less offensive than aiming an insult at a named individual. I'm not the one that has done the latter, although admittedly I've come closer to it than I should have. Each

405:

I agree, although I'd be worried about making the rule too complicated. Saying something like "players who play in games in fully professional cup competitions are notable, except when one of the two teams is an amateur team, in which case any players who play in that game could not use the game to

267:

I'd like to recommend a slight tweak of the wording for notability for soccer players; currently, the guideline reads "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable." I'd like to add "or domestic cup

4624:

where a notable A fighter is commonly against a B fighter, but the coverage of the fight does not inherently cause the B fighter to become notable from fighting on FNFs. Maybe there is a case where fighting on a premium network did not make someone notable (maybe someone who fought on HBO's short

4616:

Many networks when not carrying a major fight carry a fight that is an A fighter (well known) vs. B fighter (designated opponent that may not be known). However, usually the premium networks (especially HBO) are so well known and covered so much in the boxing press that the B fighter, while still

3874:

This is an excellent question, and I think its somewhat vague because there is some disagreement on this. I think independent of the subject means there is no affiliation with the specific subject of the article, for example, school newspapers reporting on NCAA sports matches is not independent of

3780:

I'm also a little concerned about the comment about sports specific sources not being notable. I mean International Gymnast is a paid, deadtree, publication with a decent history to it. As is now, someone could have a long profile in there and it would not be notable, whereas just their name in a

3318:

I would not require Olympic participation or a gold medal in major international competition. For comparison, every Arena League Football player is inherently notable for playing in a game? We definitely don't want every little girl or high school athlete in there. NO DOUBT. But I would think

2777:

Now that the AfD for these articles has settled (as a No Consensus, by the way) I strongly suggest it was due to our error of omission (on an event that did not exist when the guideline was written). We specifically add this to the guideline to prevent further frivolous AfDs against this event in

2368:

contain specific guides for sports where we are satisfied that they are a true reflection of community consensus, and that it is substantially different from what ATHLETE previously gave us. The logical compromise is to identify which sports were improved by this guideline, and which are wholly or

2327:

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you. But generally lack of anything happening is often a very huge sign the community is ok with the situation. As for athlete vs nsports for soccer players. Athlete used to let in even more soccer players that it does now, athlete was a guideline just like nsports

2186:

So what I am seeing is a lack of a heading paragraph on "Professional sports persons" or possible within the "Notability guidelines on sportspersons" section to identify that these are not mechanical rules but instead rough metrics and that the GNG is still a target for these articles. That would

1932:

Yes, I misunderstood, thanks. I would still be careful on some player coverage, as this is where the local issues come into play and a lot harder to distinguish. "SmallTown News" covering a star high school athlete from that town is hard to use as a notable source. "HugeNational Times" covering

1178:

Skipping over the GNG where no-one has commented (and it can therefore be assumed that either no-one cares or no-one saw fit to mention it) is one thing. Actively saying "well he passes ATHLETE so he doesn't need to meet the GNG, he's notable" is quite another. As you say, the bright-line level is

463:

Under this wording if the person plays in a cup competition for a fully-pro side against an amatuer or semi-pro side they would not be notable. Surely they would be just as notable as someone playing for fully pro against fully pro. It would be the players from the non fully-pro which would not be

4291:

I think it was decided when these were created that clubs would not fall under this guideline. You would have to look in the archives for the discussion. Something along the lines of GNG would be good enough for clubs. So to answer the persons question, the team would be notable if he had sources

4055:

Understood. I suppose they need the English media column-inches to get inclusion. But if I were to RfD a Macclesfield Town player who was around one game, I suspect I'd have to fight a lot harder than a journeyman Flora player at the moment (assuming they weren't someone on the national team).

3547:

the team title is the feature, snit bits might be mentioned about the all around and event finals. Of course there are NCAA athletes that become notable but usually it is because they participate in elite competition either before, after or during NCAA competition. People who come to mind include

3333:

is a lot more notable than pretty much any Arena League Football Player! Also, the total number of competitive athletes are pretty small (less than 20 men and 20 women on a US National Team). In the US, they get funding to support their training from the national association (most countries are

3325:

They go to major international meets (the gold medal is irrelevant...that might be a great criteria for prioritizing what articles to write or importance within the project). Also the Olys are every 4 years. National championships and World Championships are a big deal as well and are annual.

2826:

a good argument to put the Youth Olympics on the NPORTS page. NSPORTS is for things which are so clearly notable that even if no sources are given in an article and no online sources are immediately available (e.g. because of the age of the event or sporter, or because of the language), we may be

2749:

I see also on my talk -page you demand a reparation for this. Well, I may have been a bit strong in my choice of words. It was of course wrong of me to say you have contributed to this articles exactly, when you have not. My point, I see this youth-olympics articles as a complex, and I do get the

2475:

settle for nothing being done for many years, to get this far was a great accomplishment. Frankly to go back to what we had before would likely be met with more opposition than you think, people opposed because they wanted it stricter not lest strict which is what you are basically suggesting. So

2259:

If this discussion dies through apathy (as previous ones have), I will be very tempted to bring the entire guideline back to WP:CENT, for discussion on whether it is helping or hindering, and on whether the notability criteria are consistent with other fields. My view is that promoting this was a

2082:

My recent experiences at AfDs suggest that if a sports figure has enough reliable press to pass GNG, it does not matter if he/she passes the sports guidelines. Thus, any common US high school quarterback, basketball center, home run hitting hero or hockey sticking defenseman can get a stand alone

1896:

here; just because a player scored a grand slam in baseball is not sufficient for notability - despite the achievement, if he did nothing else, that was simply a temporary event and should be Wikinews. We should be looking for notability as a result of a season or career, not from a collection of

1876:

The difference is newspapers and the like write about these athletes at those levels in ways that are not just routine (ie stats sheets and single sentence mentions). They don't tend to do that for every mediocre entertainer or people of other professions. Knowledge (XXG) reflects the real world.

1523:

When you say But I think that a significant proportion of sports editors are taking this guideline far more literally and as far more concrete than it was initially intended to be.", can you provide examples? (I'm guessing AFD discussions, for one). It may be better to address what the perceived

1301:

If the answer is no: could we possibly make that clearer? Even today I am coming across people who are arguing exactly along the above lines. I've been chastised in the past for trying to make this explicit in the lead, being told there is no need. I (grudgingly) accepted it at the time. But when

763:

Sorry, but I have to ask: why bother? If someone only plays a cup game and then never again, the chances are that they aren't notable. If they go on to play league games then they are covered by the guideline. The only thing this means is that people don't start an article on someone if they make

172:

That is a good point and probably true. I guess the interest in retired players (other than the really famous ones) is something I've never been able to understand personally. I don't have much to say against the criterion specifically, it was just a general rant. I just wonder if there is enough

4562:

were quite influential and winning titles of these bodies were quite highly regarded. I think fighters who won these titles may be considered notable enough. However, in modern times, there are many regional bodies/affiliated organizations who grant titles. To be honest, these are now lightly

4427:

See and I disagree, most of the links you have mentioned are superficial linkages. Where as there is a completely direct link to being your average performer on TV where everything is scripted. A professional wrestler is no different. Entertainer or GNG cover this and it most definitely does not

4411:

It is not my intention, however, to defend professional wrestling as a whole (to be honest, it disgusts me, and I haven't watched it in about 15 years). I simply mean to show that, while one superficial connection can be drawn between professional wrestling and television stars, multiple logical

3566:

Agreed on NCAA. And nice comment on Bhardwaj. The runup comment does touch on my issue that the girls become notable while competing for WC and Olys. Not just for when they compete. Like Zamarippa for instance. Remember NBC does national coverage of Classics and Nationals, and a lot of what

3001:

Ireland is one of a number of leagues which is part professional, part semi-professional. Therefore notability is not automatically conferred by simply playing in the league. There needs to be some effort to establish the wider coverage of the player beyond simple statistics or routine coverage.

1962:

I don't deny that NSPORTS was a step forward for some sports. But as far as association football is concerned, it has made things worse. At least with ATHLETE it could be treated as a generality, as a presumption, as a slightly flawed compliment to the GNG. But now that other sports have precise

1541:

One thing to remember is that guidelines and policies on wikipedia are meant to be descriptive not prescriptive. In other words they are meant to resemble what actually happens (as opposed to tell you what to do), if a majority of people are using it as a keep reason, then technically it has the

1499:

I broadly agree with the second half of what you have posted above. But I think that a significant proportion of sports editors are taking this guideline far more literally and as far more concrete than it was initially intended to be. Don't get me wrong with the way I quoted 56%. I conceed that

1439:

NSPORT was passed with approximately 56% support, while several supporters expressed that they were primarily doing so because ATHLETE was inadequate. I don't disagree that there was consensus to promote, given that several opposers also agreed that it was an improvement on ATHLETE. DJ is right,

314:

Well, most countries in the world have one (occasionally two) domestic cup competition(s) that run concurrently with its regular league season, but not all leagues are fully professional (as per the list linked in the soccer paragraph). I would say that, for any country where the league is fully

129:

There's a very simple way to do it, namely bringing NSPORTS closer into line to the GNG. I conceed that for most sports it was a huge improvement on the old version of ATHLETE, but as you say, there is still some way to go. For instance, I'm involved in an AfD with a player who played one league

4566:

2. Similar to 1 above, before the 1960s/70s, there were half the weight classes (8 then vs. 17 now) and each weight class had one champion (vs. 4+ today). Plus, there were strong race and supposed organized crime issues in fighters landing big fights. Therefore, there are likely many notable

4239:

I should preface this by saying I only know golf from my days producing sportscasts, I'm not a fanatic, but I would think that even getting IN to the handful of "major" tournaments listed in each division is notable, or pretty d#@$ % close. Granted they do allow for a few exceptions to get in,

3588:

Besides, too many gymnasts is not really even the problem. It's Albanian soccer players (and Arena League Football scrubs). Seriously, it's not like we've noticed a bunch of the bubble girls trying to get pages up. Like I said, I had to do Raisman. Maybe I'll just GNG them all in, using NBC

3081:

Point taken on Google News. I misread that part. However, the general point still stands that these guidelines should have some guidance on how to handle individual minor league season articles. As I said at least once during this discussion, I am sure that there will be instances in which such

3000:

The general guideline for sports notability is competing at a fully professional level makes a participant notable. There are no professional Gaelic sports leagues, so another guideline has to be established for a widely covered sport like that which does not have professionalism. The League of

2786:

as being notable. I would think such specific mention of the events would also make the events (not just those specific participants) and logically, equivalent events also notable. But it seems we need to spell it out for some people to get it. In the face of such (I'm really searching for a

1469:

appropriate, however, to note that NSPORT is a "sub-notability" guideline, meaning that the GNG should still be the ultimate goal for any article that otherwise passes NSPORT. I understood throughout the NSPORT creation process, it was meant to outline criteria that would be used to prevent the

714:

Cup competitions are often used to field weaker sides, and so if a player only plays in a cup competition it is likely that they are less notable than if they had played in the league. The current guidelines are already lax enough and this extends it further. If they are notable then they would

686:

Your linking to my comment on the Adam Thompson AfD just highlights what I said before: that (IMHO) 95% of the players who pass ATH also pass GNG, and when they don't pass ATH, you can use GNG to "save" them if necessary. I personally think that Adam Thompson passes ATH and that the GNG on that

4705:

Well, some SNGs can limit GNG-meeting topics - this one does that to some extent with amateur and high school athletics which, back when this was re-revised, was a point observed that the GNG remains mostly mum on the exclusive use of local or routine sources, so was added here. But the AFD in

3923:

might not qualify to be notable. I contend that by the time that sport specific publication makes more than a casual mention of them, they are notable (or pretty damned close). Yet some city league star could get a full article written about them, on a slow news day, back when the L.A. Times

3249:

The hockey project generally just does league season pages for the minor leagues. We generally don't do team specific season pages mostly because we don't figure they will be kept up and that league pages would be more likely expanded than worrying about every team page. There are a few people

1146:

Simply put, I'm trying to ensure that what you have just said actually happens. As can be seen from recent AfDs that I have participated in, in the "5%" (not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing) where people pass ATHLETE and appear to fail the GNG, football editors use ATHLETE as an excuse for

3637:

Also just read your post above about lead up. This is true, and I agree that Chinese national 2nd place finisher might be more notable than the German champion. My concern is a top 3 finish in an event finals at those national meets should not guarantee notability, only the all around. But in

3366:

Elite: Any FIG certified elite. Possible more resrictive versions would be any FIG elite who has competed internationally, or even more restrictive has been a national team member (of their country). Note that MANY of the athletes are NOT amateurs and recieve pay for training from national

2791:

guidelines, I have yet to think of one) opinions, do we have to itemize each notable meet by name or come up with more specific definitions of what a notable event is? I look at a guideline as giving direction without the need for such precise and limiting specifics. The fact that the Youth

2101:

My recent experience at AfDs suggest that if a sports figure meets the criteria set out here, the GNG is actively ignored, even when multiple editors explain at length why this is the case without being refuted. The only exceptions are when a nominator attempts to be actively deceptive by not

636:

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I think that football articles *do* need to pass both ATH and/or GNG. What I disagree with is your assertation that football editors are wilfully ignoring GNG and creating articles willy-nilly on players who don't deserve them, because in my experience the

2539:

the old WP:ATHLETE. If you want to accuse me of lacking good faith, then feel free. You have tenure, so you'll probably get away with it. But to accept that the old WP:ATHLETE was wildly inappropriate, and then go on to copy it word-for-word for the most covered sport on Knowledge (XXG), and

1771:

Notability (in a wikipedia sense) begins and ends with the GNG. It is easy to show that someone is notable by putting sources in the article. If what you say is true it should be very easy to do so. I don't think I've seen an article yet on a footballer who has made a single appearance which

1593:

Masem: I'm trying to go for discussions that are not active, and article subjects that would no longer be affected by this discussion. I can justify the age of a couple of these on the grounds that as far as football is concerned, the criteria did not really change with the birth of NSPORTS.

3911:(RIP) would have been a good source, if you used further judgement based on perhaps, volume. Yes, a relatively non-notable local star could get written up there, but repeat mentions would certainly be an indication of something more notable. When they were active, you'd find the volume of 3542:

Elite: I do not think all elites are notable, not even all international elites. Certainly, all national champions from countries that have national teams are notable, which is the spirit of clause 4 (perhaps this clause should be reworded). Anyone who is elite that has won any (even minor)

2453:

I'll bow out of this conversation until the end of the month. I have absolutely no faith at all in the ability of editors here, or at WP:FOOTY, to do anything at all, but look forward to being proven wrong. Given that the initial decision to promote was narrow, controversial, and subject to

4040:

have articles specifically about them individually just for playing on a team in that championship? I doubt it. This guideline isn't a free pass to keeping an article, articles still have to have enough sources to prove notability. This guideline just tells you when thats likely to happen.

2205:

I think so. I'm going to keep an eye on whilst trying not to edit this conversation for a few days (I'm gradually winding my editing down generally). But while I think a root and branch review of the association football section is needed, that might be the way forward in the shorter term.

3875:

the subject, but a general sports publication like for example runners world, ESPN, International Gymnast etc, are all independent of the subject. However, things become a little bit blurry when we are talking about sources that cover high school athletes. For example does an article from

2029:

Generally speaking, subguidelines of notability reflect when it's likely that a given subject will meet notability. However, if a good search for sources is found, and only very thin if any sourcing turns out to be available, it does not allow for notability in the event that the subject

838:

JonB, you have my sympathy! At this point, taking into account the controversies about cup playing, I think the correct thing for NSPORT to do is to leave mention of cups out. That puts it back to GNG, where it should be, instead of opening up what appears to be a dubious shortcut here.

420:

I would suggest the following wording: "Players who have appeared in a national competition fixture between two fully pro teams will generally be regarded as notable." It allows for pro fixtures in cup competitions to be included without getting bogged down in excluding amateur teams.

807:

I'm almost sorry I brought this whole thing up now. I just thought it would be a simple, non-controversial clarification to ensure the guideline said what we all already knew. If I'd have known it was going to turn into the World Pedantry Championship I would have kept my mouth shut.

3034:. I'm not sure exactly where to start regarding proposing a change to the guidelines, but I think such articles would only be notable in very specific circumstances, and that the strictures should be greater than those placed on collegiate seasons. Does anyone have any suggestions? - 3975:

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

4011:

become notable enough to have their players kept? The league they're in is 18 years old, and they've won the Estonia title eight and seven times respectively, so it's hard not to argue they must be close; I would assume they get a lot of press in Estonia. Would making the

4101:

Another editor, not me, added the following to the Basketball section. Personally, I have no opinion as to whether the addition is useful or not, but I feel that it needs to have consensus before adding it to the guideline, so I've reverted it and copied it here. Thoughts?

299:

A question, coming from a position of complete ignorance on my part: are there any domestic cups in nations that have a much smaller involvement in soccer, such that it would make sense to somehow narrow the definition of the term, to apply only to important domestic cups?

182:

If the AfD I have mentioned is indicative, then I tend to agree that there is not enough scrutiny. On the whole DJ has a point, but has someone who once made a third tier appearance before disappearing more likely to be remembered than a run-of-the-mill tenured professor?

641:

project has been very diligent in enforcing article standards. I also have a problem with the generally aggressive and argumentative (and occasionally offensive) tone you have taken to push your argument over the last couple of days, but that's another matter entirely.

4006:

player, the Estonian champions who will be appearing in the qualifying rounds caused me to go dredge up this suggestion. Flora's not in a fully professional league, but the Champions League matches get a significant amount of press. At what point would Flora and

4491:

Similar to the above for MMA, guidelines should be in place for boxing as well. Boxing is filled with club shows, guys who fought once, and other types that are considered "professional" but are not "notable." I think guidelines should be added for boxers.

3169:

If this is going to be applied to all sports, the wikiprojects for all sports need to be notified. This could possibly affect the notability of hundreds of existing articles. I know that there are quite a few baseball and hockey minor league season articles.

3053:

hits the subject had in 1980. This is the easiest and clearest way I know of to show editors how many relative news articles exist on a particular subject when directly addressing the first rule of notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in

1819:). The only aspect that changes most of this for sports is the shear volume of media dedicate to sports coverage over any other profession, but we should be taking that into account as well and make sure we're not mistaking routine coverage as significant. -- 2148:

be, as doing so is not in line with the wider view on notablity. But they are. This behavior is rarely challenged (at least as far as association football is concerned) and it's even rarer that such a challenge actually results in the GNG being adhered to.

1415:

Some of the guideline (under amateur sports) is the opposite: not only must the GNG be met, but also must meet the more limiting criteria. This is to prevent what topics that may be covered routinely in local sources (like high school athletes) from being

521:

I suggested "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league or in a national level domestic cup competition (where both teams are from a fully-professional league - as detailed here), will generally be regarded as

3745:

They're definitely not mostly making a living, but some of them do waive their eligibility to do endorsements. I don't really know what we call sports since the Olympics allow professionals. NCAA is the last bastion of amateur, at least by the rules.

4056:

It's just a question at what point would Flora get the same defense as the least supported League Two team? For me, I'm thinking players who competed at the Group Stage of one of the European Cup competitions would have to be considered notable, no? -

1772:

demonstrates the GNG. Yet they go through AfD and are kept time after time by the same group of vested contributors with no improvement made to the article. The situation is grossly at odds with the rest of community norms regarding notability of BLPs.

3857:- that means the source is not written by someone relating to the subject, i.e not an athlete's sponsor, not the athlete's own website etc. From what your saying looks like International Gymnast is a reliable source. You can get other editors views on 3345:(this is a formal designation) gymnast. (simple). The articles for the best of them will get written anyhow. I don't think we'll be flooded with people, the way we have been with people starting an article for every little province politician. 4570:

I am not quite sure how to being adding this to the notability section for sports. I assume people will comment and if no one responds in a week I will add this to the article. If there is a better way to proceed, then please chime in. Thanks.

605:

True, but my intention was simply to clarify the position and make sure all the bases were covered so that there was no confusion or ambiguity. Having the information in two places to make sure nothing slips through the cracks is hardly overkill.

1164:

the GNG to be inapplicable. A bright-line test like NSPORTS simply saves time and effort. My concern is that the bright-line is probably too low (but no one will ever agree to a bright-line that is higher that 1 moment of fully-pro competition).

158:

it actually reflects the real world. Notability isn't necessarily about what you have accomplished but more about who you are. Athletes are written about more than scientists, thats an undeniable fact. Even if it is one some people don't like. -

3275:' digital archives? They had extensive coverage of the minor leagues each week, and I'm sure the Kinston Eagles' 1980 season is included. I can't seem to find it at the minute. I hope they didn't close down my best source for old baseball news. 823:

It's a minefield and a source of much heated debate, swearing and pointy comments and has been chewing on for as long as I have been on Wiki. Hopefully it might get resolved with some clear AND unambiguous guidelines but I won't be holding my

2807:

I seriously disagree with you this AfDs were frivolous. The Youth Olympics are, seriously, not comparable to the winter and summer olympics. They are youth events, and they did not have any near the impact the real olympics had. Really, not.

538:

I completely disagree with this inclusion. Until it is actually shown with some evidence that people who only play a single game are generally notable (i.e. meet the GNG) we should not be extending this woeful and often misapplied guideline.

4035:

You need to remember its not about the teams being notable enough so their players are kept. These guidelines are guidelines as to when a player is likely to have sources. You still need sources for each player. Would the individual players

748:

I think most clubs take the last few rounds of a national cup competition seriously (there are obviously exceptions), so if we were to set a threshold, I would suggest setting it at the quarter-finals, rather than only the cup winning side.

4079: 215:

of me comes out of my real life opinions, not my judgment as an editor, and I realize that my real life opinions do not and should not decide these things. For now, I think we just have to keep an eye on this guideline, and make sure that

3828:

Oh, here is my opinion about that, and I hope other editors will respond too. My understanding of "independent of the subject", in the way that it was intended when we were cobbling together the guideline, was that the "subject" was the

2651:, AP, and plenty of other tertiary RS, not to mention newspapers in many countries which had athletes take part and do well. Just because you didn't know about it doesn't mean it's not notable - your argument isn't based in your claim. 588:

Below, you have stated that 95% of players that pass ATHLETE also pass the GNG. I don't necessarily agree with that statistic. But regardless, 100% of players in that position would pass the GNG, which would make this page kinda moot.

3224:

has shaped my view on this question. I don't believe such a season would pass GNG if the coverage was limited to the media local to the cities with teams in the league, even if such coverage was more than routine, because it's still

2297:. How much further that rationale extends is obviously subjective, but as Masem says, these criteria should set the theshold above which someone can be presumed notable, not the threshold below which they can be presumed non-notable. 3062:

of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This notability guideline far outweighs any guideline found in the sports notability guidelines or any proposed rule you may come up with.

110:

I've been editing Knowledge (XXG) for quite a while, and I just wanted to note a double standard I've noticed time and time again. The problem I've seen is we seem to allow barely notable athletes without any problem (such as

4117: 1285:

Following on from the previously titled discussion above, I just want to get this clear. If someone agrees that an article fails the GNG, but states that NSPORTS means that an article is notable, is that a valid argument?

853:

It would also leave many dozens of articles standed as they have been created for footballers who have played only one cup game. Limited coverage, youth/reserve team players, would fail GNG. As examples I would point out:-

3507:

Caquetto and Raisman did not pass threshold 1 until just recently. And the way gym works a lot of the notability is during the runup and selection process. And note, that both of their pages were made before the WC had

1062:

I wouldn't need to adopt that sort of approach, if posters here recognised that a limited group of editors cannot decide that the GNG means fuck all. Which is indisputedly happening with regards to association football.

3551:. Remember if someone can argue notability by WP:GNG that trumps whether they make it in under the gymnastics bullets. And we already have the College athlete clause anyway so we do not need a college gymnast clause. -- 2792:

Olympics went through such a narrow minded, serious challenge suggests we need to get much more verbose, probably throughout this guideline. That might mean we have to name each notable league in every sport by name.

1618:

and keep arguments at a more recent discussion that I cannot quote just yet, it would appear that Gavin Massey's article only ended up being deleted because WP:FOOTBALL regulars were not made aware of the discussion.

929:

Yikes! You are absolutely correct, in my opinion. Who would have thought: seems like Wikilawering to say that high school is one thing, but pre-high school is somehow something higher. I'm going to boldly change it.

4428:

belong in a guideline for actual sports. If you feel entertainer isn't good enough or leaving it to GNG isn't good enough then make a seperate pro wrestler guideline proposal. But it certainly doesn't belong here. -

3397:

I would have low enthusiasm for anything that would loosen these guidelines. It was enough of a battle just getting to here. I would think that the athletes who would pass under your proposal could already pass per

3021:

The notability guidelines for individual season articles currently has no section on whether or not such articles for minor league teams are considered notable. This has recently come up in discussion regarding the

1660:

considering the actual contributions of the player, but simply being part of a professional team was making them notable. (Personally, my opinion is that much of what's in NSPORT is not needed, since pro players

4442:

I also do not think that it belongs here. I really see no reason why it would not be under Entertainer, although it may, perhaps, make sense to modify something there to clarify the TV star issue in this regard.

2921:. Is that a loophole that we want to keep open? I want to make clear that I am from America and completely ignorant when it comes to what most of the world calls football, just looking for clarification. Thanks — 2454:

continuous improvement taking place, any threat to part or all of this guideline's status will have a very real chance of succeeding. It's up to you lot to decide whether that remains a hypothetical statement. --

3112:. In principle, I don't have a problem with separate articles on each season if they are well written and sourced, but let's please not have mass produced articles that simply copy statistics from stats sites. 2281:

I'm utterly convinced that if brought before a truly representative cross-section of the wider community, they will reach similar conclusions. I don't think anyone can argue that someone who has made one or two

666:

And it invariably takes someone who either dares to step out of line at WP:FOOTY, or someone who has nothing to do with football, to actually remind football editors that they are expected to adhere to the GNG.

1260:

Not likely to happen, the whole point of NSPORTS was to move away from people thinking that anything fully pro was notable. Not sure why football didn't change its requirements when all the other sports did.

331:

I agree that adding that language would be helpful. When the guideline was first being developed I asked a similar question, but it never made it into the final version (probably due to lack of discussion).

3471:

Very quick answers: sure, no problem; I'd say more that I'm familiar with Knowledge (XXG) and what I think is or is not encyclopedic; and it wasn't me personally who asked around. Just offering my opinion.

1954:

I have tried to go at least a small way towards doing that DJSasso. Admittedly the way I tried to do it could be considered a flawed approach by some, but the very thought of even slightly strengthening it

1293:

to meet the GNG more easily, warranting articles, and that this guideline is useful as a rough gauge of when you'll probably find sources. The wider view is not that people who technically meet NSPORTS are

2342:

From what I can tell, nothing was done about the BLP situation for about 5 years. It took another 3-4 years for us to finally devise a reasonable system, and we are still dealing with the backlog to this

4585:

Since no one has commented in a week, I will add a slightly modified section similar to the above. If people think it should be changed, modified, deleted, etc., then it can be discussed in due course.

3132:

is what applies, and has to be met. The coverage, whether news or otherwise, has to be truly independent of the subject (ie, not just a local town puff piece), and more than just listings of statistics.

620:

I might otherwise have disagreed but said fair enough. But you are simultaneously arguing that it is wrong that we remind football editors that articles should be able to show that they meet the GNG. —

1503:

That said, the fact that this narrowly passsed is relevant if this guideline's standing in relation to the GNG is different to where people were led to believe. Would you mind if I dropped a note on

3221: 2866: 1967:. It may be that the wider community looks at the situation with association football and decides that it's fine (which would be a shocking but plausible outcome). But it sorely needs looking at. -- 1444:

on athletes is necessary, if only to put the burden on deleters to do a good faith check of notability. But it's completely wrong to suggest that this is anywhere near being on a par with the GNG.

2964: 2910: 2601:? And assuming they meet NSPORTS, do they also meet the GNG? Finally, if yes to the first and no the second question, doesn't the cricket section needs some clarification and more strict rules? 245:

Nonetheless, there are many unquestionably notable academics whose bios have not yet been written, including many of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, --and that's just the US.

1132:

sources are sketchy, then we also discuss those on a case-by-case basis and come to a consensus as to whether or not to keep the article. And that's it. Why are you making it so difficult? --

4406:

major promotion (remember, actors can appear on multiple shows and in multiple movies simultaneously, whereas wrestlers at or near the top of the profession are contracted to one employer)?

3128:

I assume you are asking about baseball minor leagues. In that case, you should also be looking at the section about baseball. Here, there is not an automatic presumption of notability, and

3108:

I think a preferable approach would be to have the article on the team include a well-referenced paragraph on each season. That's the approach I took for an article I helped edit on the

2547:

In the interests of letting qualitative discussion come first, I'll hold off on a central RfC until the discussions that I am aware of on the GNG and footballers have run their course. —

3439:

I'm going to read the whole thing, and give some more fact-based insights, but I really don't think the guidelines make sense as is. Don't match common amounts of notability, really.

2264:

be notable (albeit it was still taken pretty literally). For football this has solidified everything that was wrong with ATHLETE. It has enshrined into wiki-documentation when someone

547:) 08:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And can I add that you should wait more than an hour or two to enable other people to contribute to a discussion before making changes to the guideline. 390:

Sounds great as long as it makes explicit the fact that, for example, a Conference team playing a league team in an FA Cup match does not give any of the players involved notability.--

3583:

Raisman, pre-WC, is an example. And I'm the one who started the page on her (before WC). And she had been on national TV with a large amount of commentary, at Nationals and Classics.

3337:

I realize this is just a guideline and I guess we can try to screen out AFL scrubs or screen in top gymnasts, but basically the guidelines seem "off" as written. I would make it any

4469:

I also don't see why WP:ENTERTAINER isn't a fit; wrestlers are certainly television personalities, the events are television shows (mostly), and there's certainly a large fan base. -

3879:

count as an independent reliable source, I would argue yes for adding content, but no for establishing notability. I think it is a bit subjective. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

3201:

The thing is, pretty much all minor league seasons can pass WP:GNG because the season will be written about in papers in many cities. The issue is more a situation on if it violates

3682:

Which brings me to...I think realistically, women are more notable then men (opposte of basketball for instance). Not saying we have to adress this in the rules, but it's "true".

2119:

if it can never be improved despite meeting a criteria, it is still not notable. Notability is always based on presumption of being notable, not the absolute quality of that. --

1837:

necessarily notable under NSPORT. I agree that soccer needs to be a bit less inclusive, since it seems to include minor leagues in its notability clause, which I disagree with. --

435:

It seems to me that "fully-professional" means that both teams need to be professional. Am I wrong about that? I suppose we could add "(both teams)" after "fully-professional". --

2668:

The Youth Olympic Games probably made these sources, but did the NYT etc. really give info about the Boys' 10 kilometre walk? I seriously doubt it. Having said that, please see

449:

Yes, that's right, Tryptofish. I'd be happy with that clarification. So long as the clarification doesn't make the caveat any more complicated than it needs to be, go for it. --

2102:

informing the appropriate wikiproject. In these instances, the consensus among a broader group of contributors tends to be that not meeting the GNG equals not being notable. --

778:

So now we are the judge or just how serious each club is taking the cup competitions? Additionally can anyone explain why playing 30 seconds in a League game for, for example

2672:. Making opiniated posts about active AfD's is strongly discouraged. Posting "An AfD which is relevant for this guideline can be found at X" is the better way of doing this. 715:

surely play in the league anyway, so all you'd have to do is wait for that to happen. Alternatively, a well sourced article could be written to show that they meet the GNG.

4203:

College basketball does not deserve its own set of qualifications. College sports covers it all. In fact, as Rikster2 pointed out some of the clauses are exact replicates.

4187:

It occurs to me that the additions were put in the professional athlete part of the guideline, so we may need to look at college basketball as opposed to professional. --

3517:

Also, there is still comment about the all around. Gym has changed and event specilaists are more and more happening. ASac has not done AA for 6 years. Let's cut that.

3514:

Which brings me to, I would not require a gold at nationals. Would make it medalling same as the others. US or Chinese or even Russian silver national is pretty notable.

1986:

name had been obliterated by a blemish in the print" Do professional Footballers really automatically meet GNG? Has anybody here ever read a 50-100 year old sportspaper?

2963:

I think I understand now, I did not realize that Gaelic football was different from Association football. As for not being a fully professional league, I got that from

1465:

argue the GNG probably is not supported by a large fraction of the editor population based on long-standing problems with it, but that is neither here or there). It

1246:

Or leave the bar pretty much where it is but say, 'played for a fully-pro team in a fully-pro competition=notability'. No grey areas, no conjecture, no battlefield.--

97: 1179:

too low, but that's a relatively trivial issue compared to the fact that it is treated as a hard-and-fast rule, rather than the indicator that it's supposed to be. —

141:

than I have, falling off the radar to such an extent that no reliable source has heard anything about him in the 55 years since. He is well on course to be kept. --

4652: 2049:

strict than the GNG, just never less. Passing the GNG is a requirement for a standalone article to exist, but there are other requirements as well. Passing GNG is

1611: 1595: 911: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3338: 268:

competition" after "fully-professional league". It has long been accepted that players who play in games between fully professional teams in, for example, the

1147:

ignoring the GNG. When specifically questioned on this, they specifically state that the GNG does not apply to footballers, provided that they pass ATHLETE. —

3511:

World cup is less prestigious than some of the other competitions. Also, many nations (NA and Asian) don't really send gymnasts there...it's a Euro circuit.

2779: 730:

Let me make a suggestion—with the understanding that I am completely unencumbered by any comprehension of the subject matter! How about allowing cup players

3893:

For that example, I agree with you about yes for adding information, I agree about no for establishing notability, and I also agree that it's subjective! --

2783: 1104:, as it's highly unlikely that a player would become a fully-professional athlete without attracting non-trivial mainstream coverage. Those who don't pass 3322:

I mean they are FIG certified and in a formal system for tracking (they way top cyclists in the pelaton are). Get drug tested. It is big time sports.

2703:

No, my apologies, I was replying to you in the first part of my post, and to Greswik in the second part. You weren't canvassing, Greswik was close to it.

1333:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a

1079:

One thing you might need to realize, is that if no one else outside that group chooses to comment, it often means no one outside that group either a: -->

3770: 3755: 3436:

I know it is supposed to be a guideline and that we could go either way with GNG, but it still matters, still has a purpose. So need to get it right.

3907:

While I understand the need for some judgement, I don't think that necessarily can be achieved by exempting sports specific publications or websites.

2260:

backwards step even in relation to ATHLETE as far as association football is concerned. ATHLETE was widely accepted as a vague outline of when someone

1575:

it, it is a new guideline afterall. I wouldn't expect many people habbits change until its atleast a year old. WP:ATHLETE was around a loooong time. -

3433:? I mean they were on NBC national television, for World Championships and National Championships and discussed quite a bit by the commentators!? 2225:

article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability and Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources.

566:

actually enforce already. For example, under the wording of the guideline before I changed it, if a player made his professional debut in, say, the

661:

explicitly stating that footballers don't need to pass the GNG, including people with the ability to keep/delete articles, and including yourself.

996: 4655:

there is discussion that may interest some who read this page. It relates to what the result should be if a subject (arguably) does not meet a

3456:

notabiity guidelines, other sports for comparison, etc. I think I will still request changes, but at least will be reasoned and informed. :)

4529:

Any fighter who fought for and/or held a specialty world title (e.g., duration world title during WWII, black world title, lineal title, etc.)

3949: 3425:

Right now, it's not even finishing on the podium. It's a gold medal! And in the all around only? (what about specialists?) We sould scrub

518: 3796:

Could you please clarify which comment you are talking about, ie, where is it on the page? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Thanks. --

1918:

routine. But articles about the player on the other hand are not, because its not routine to write an article about every player on a team. -

1602:, while admittedly two and a half years old and now irrelevant as he has subsequently played quite a bit more, has been cited as recently as 47: 17: 4128: 284:

in the United States, would meet the notability requirements. Adding these couple of words would eliminate any ambiguity that may arise. --

134: 971:

Doesn't passing the standards set out for professional footballers set out in the guideline imply notability? Why over-egg the pudding? --

3839:

non-trivial, so an in-depth article about the person would be good, whereas a brief mention of the person's name in passing would not. --

2268:

notable. And don't tell me that guidelines are guidelines; the way AfD works they are as near-as-makes-no-difference hard-and-fast rules.

2050: 562:

Just to clarify, this wasn't a new addition, this was simply a clarification to ensure that the guideline reflected what the members of

2626:

for links to a massive amount of redlinks, this event didn't even reach the news where I lived, how notable can this event really be?

2187:

then be the necessary to counter "But he played one game, therefore he must be notable!" claims you've shown are being made at AFD. --

4165: 859: 764:

their debut in a cup competition. Of course, if there is sufficient coverage to show they meet the GNG it doesn't matter either way.

3607:

Agreed that too many gymnasts is not really the problem, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have strict guidelines for them. As for

4682:

The top of this page specifically mentions that a subject can still be notable if it doesn't meet the sports specific guidelines. -

4567:

fighters from historical times that do not meet the five criteria I listed above. Not quite sure how to quantify their inclusion.

2938:

There are obviously big differences between Association football, Gaelic football, and American football. Association football is

1041:, other than that it was discussed in talk and seemed to have consensus. And I'm not particularly bothered about the redundancy of 2528:

I can assure you that I have done so on multiple occasions. Each time the discussion fizzled out after a certain period of time.

4169: 4154: 2554: 2461: 2376: 2318: 2213: 2156: 2109: 1974: 1626: 1565: 1514: 1455: 1309: 1186: 1154: 1070: 961: 910:

We seem to have come across a loop-hole here in that the amateur section doesn't take into account pre-high school athletes. See

677: 627: 596: 190: 148: 4264:"I am sorry, I have no idea whether a British American Football team would be notable or not". And what guidance is there about 3059: 2918: 2902: 2890: 1366: 4559: 4500: 2068:

When playing 1 match in professional football is only the first step in establishing if a footballer is notable then we agree

867: 4280: 1359:

can do is draw up guidelines that help to highlight what should make a subject is notable but can't escape the need to have "

1892:

Box scores and game stats are routine coverage; it's expected when one reads about a game or series. You can also bring up

348:(ec) Understood, thanks. How about making it "fully-professional league or fully-professional domestic cup competition"? -- 3291: 1343: 574:

final (unlikely, I know, but not impossible), that player would not be considered notable, which is clearly ridiculous. --

3055: 1362: 1329: 954:. This page's owners both seem determined to explicitly refuse that any article be subject to this hideous requirement. — 3027: 2034:

pass the GNG. Nothing is notable "because it's a" (though there are common misconceptions in some areas). Notability is

1012:, if for example they play only one match as a sub and never play again, it is by no means curtain that they would meet 4149:

Seems like the second two additions are just making more explicit this criteria from the college notability standards:

2294: 1606:

as reflective of the opinion that one game between two lower league teams confers notability. A more recent example is

1341:

does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right.

2649: 3083: 3082:

subjects could be considered notable. However, these should be limited to seasons that are of particular importance.

1302:

contributors whom I respect are going along the above lines, then I'm sorry, but there is a need to re-address it. --

200:

was interested enough in them to go through that trouble. But yeah, there may still be a way to go for some sports. -

3109: 2778:

the future. We already have accepted winning a gold medal in equivalent, perhaps lesser events in the case of the

2740: 2694: 2659: 2084: 1289:

If the answer is yes: The wider view is that the bar is lower for athletes because (while some don't like it) they

173:

scrutiny when it is applied in practice... (seems to be too little scrutiny on athletes and too much on academics)

38: 4265: 4512: 3086:, after all. The existing articles that have thus far been discussed are pretty sparse, and make no assertion of 3006: 2590: 4617:

being mainly an opponent, gets enough coverage to become notable. I would contrast this against something like

4697: 4526:

Any fighter who fought for a title (regular, interim, super, etc.) of one of the four major sanctioning bodies.

4520: 4504: 4461: 4417: 2598: 116: 4351: 3919:

coverage would be much more voluminous and repetitive. By this same logic, an athlete meriting an article in

3023: 1356: 1334: 1045: 4460:(Broadway, regional circuits, community circuits, etc.) as to sport, and is therefore invalid in this case. - 3151:

Actually, I don't see why it couldn't apply to all team sports. And yes, we need to be careful of relying on

4229: 4208: 3884: 3766: 3643: 3620: 3556: 3493: 3175: 3068: 1842: 1614:

and then recreated by someone on the grounds of passing WP:ATHLETE. That was later speedied. But judging by

950:

I'd like to request that the edit I have made to NFOOTBALL stick- i.e. that footballers be required to make

3371:

Also, at least for the females, several colleges are well revenue producing. Utah draws 20,000+ per meet.

3329:

For instance, US National Championships and World Championships are covered on national TV (NBC network).

3279: 2624:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 10 kilometre walk

1811:

entertainer, for example, but only those that clearly meet the GNG or otherwise meet the few allowances in

1408:

high likelihood of having sources in time (near-term, 1-3 years-ish). That is, with proper sourcing, they

1320: 1096:

WFC, I really think you're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. 95% of players who pass whatever

4499:

Any fighter who held a title (regular, interim, super, etc.) of one of the four major sanctioning bodies (

4087: 1044:, if it helps avoid misunderstandings. But the tone of both these edit summaries seems to me to reflect a 884:

That is precisely why this shouldn't be included as there is no evidence that those players meet the GNG.

281: 2914: 2898: 2886: 2750:

feeling you are personally involved - and you could have mentioned it in your first comment above here.

1021: 4718: 4700: 4691: 4676: 4638: 4611: 4595: 4580: 4555: 4478: 4464: 4452: 4437: 4421: 4391: 4367: 4344: 4325: 4301: 4285: 4249: 4233: 4212: 4196: 4181: 4143: 4091: 4065: 4050: 4029: 4017: 3990: 3961: 3933: 3902: 3888: 3865: 3848: 3823: 3805: 3790: 3735: 3647: 3624: 3598: 3576: 3560: 3533: 3497: 3481: 3465: 3450: 3411: 3391: 3356: 3308: 3259: 3238: 3215: 3196: 3179: 3164: 3142: 3121: 3099: 3072: 3043: 3010: 2991: 2978: 2958: 2932: 2878: 2856: 2836: 2817: 2801: 2759: 2744: 2736: 2727: 2712: 2698: 2690: 2681: 2663: 2655: 2635: 2610: 2574: 2558: 2508: 2493: 2465: 2418: 2380: 2337: 2322: 2254: 2236: 2217: 2199: 2160: 2131: 2113: 2096: 2077: 2063: 2024: 2009: 1995: 1978: 1945: 1927: 1909: 1886: 1846: 1831: 1796: 1781: 1766: 1751: 1725: 1680: 1630: 1584: 1569: 1551: 1536: 1518: 1494: 1459: 1434: 1397: 1380: 1313: 1270: 1255: 1190: 1173: 1158: 1141: 1091: 1074: 1057: 1033: 980: 965: 939: 923: 893: 879: 848: 833: 817: 795: 773: 758: 743: 724: 696: 681: 651: 631: 615: 600: 583: 571: 556: 532: 488: 473: 458: 444: 430: 426: 415: 400: 385: 371: 357: 341: 324: 309: 293: 256: 228: 209: 194: 177: 167: 152: 123: 3226: 3202: 2642: 4382:? I personally don't see how it satisfies our guidelines, and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks, 4696:

This is correct. Meeting the GNG is a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, as far as notability is concerned. -

4672: 4607: 4563:

regarded. I am not sure how to best balance historical regional titles vs. modern regional titles.

4508: 4448: 4363: 4321: 4192: 4139: 3957: 3920: 3898: 3844: 3801: 3477: 3407: 3138: 3002: 2947: 2852: 2551: 2458: 2414: 2373: 2315: 2210: 2153: 2106: 1971: 1623: 1562: 1511: 1474:

failed the GNG. In other words it followed the pattern of the other sub-notability guidelines like

1452: 1306: 1183: 1151: 1137: 1067: 1053: 976: 958: 935: 919: 844: 813: 739: 692: 674: 647: 624: 611: 593: 579: 454: 440: 411: 381: 367: 353: 320: 305: 289: 224: 187: 145: 138: 3152: 2669: 2477: 1816: 1121: 4621: 4413: 4245: 3929: 2797: 2616: 2283: 2092: 1777: 1721: 1372: 1251: 1025: 889: 875: 829: 791: 769: 720: 552: 544: 526: 484: 469: 394: 273: 112: 4313: 1803:

But again, this is still putting athletics above most other professions when you put this next to

1475: 1412:

meet the GNG. As Djsasso suggests it is to prevent overzealous deletion of likely-notable topics.

1338: 734:

when they are members of a professional team that won the final, championship match of the cup? --

4634: 4591: 4576: 4340: 4274: 4225: 4204: 4177: 4013: 4008: 3880: 3762: 3639: 3616: 3552: 3489: 3430: 3171: 3090:

they are notable. The article above, for instance, has a grand total of two sentences of prose. -

3064: 2058: 1838: 1376: 1169: 1029: 754: 337: 4495:

As a start point, here is a very raw suggestion of notability requirements that I can think of:

3031: 2544:

at best a naive oversight, and at worst utterly stupid. Good or bad faith doesn't come into it.

2532: 2481: 1893: 1020:

added is a good reminder as a large number of visitors to the page may come in directly at the

638: 563: 4554:

1. Historically, there have been strong regional bodies. For example, in the 30s and 40s the

2869:

is a failed proposal that it would have fallen under. This guideline doesn't cover buildings. -

2000:

No one automatically meets notability. This is just a guideline of when its likely to happen. -

4687: 4474: 4433: 4297: 4261: 4158: 4110: 4083: 4078:

There is a discussion about notability of American semi-professional football going on now at

4061: 4046: 4025: 3986: 3608: 3426: 3304: 3287: 3272: 3255: 3234: 3211: 3192: 3160: 3095: 3039: 2943: 2906: 2874: 2813: 2755: 2723: 2631: 2570: 2504: 2489: 2333: 2232: 2073: 2020: 2005: 1991: 1923: 1882: 1792: 1762: 1580: 1547: 1393: 1266: 1087: 1005: 205: 163: 1355:

is the community wide consensus on notability and there for overrides anything else. All any

4387: 4003: 3912: 2586: 422: 4355: 3858: 3399: 3129: 2862: 2788: 2480:

is remarkably short sighted and somewhat laughable. Essentially right now you are making a

1812: 1804: 1352: 1226: 1129: 1125: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1013: 1009: 1000: 951: 4714: 4668: 4603: 4444: 4359: 4317: 4188: 4135: 3953: 3894: 3862: 3840: 3797: 3548: 3473: 3403: 3134: 2848: 2548: 2455: 2410: 2370: 2312: 2250: 2207: 2195: 2150: 2127: 2103: 1968: 1941: 1905: 1827: 1747: 1676: 1620: 1559: 1532: 1508: 1490: 1449: 1430: 1303: 1180: 1148: 1133: 1064: 1049: 1017: 972: 955: 931: 915: 855: 840: 809: 735: 688: 671: 643: 621: 607: 590: 575: 450: 436: 407: 377: 363: 349: 316: 301: 285: 220: 184: 142: 131: 4354:, and then define what is the highest level of competition, such that it would also pass 4312:

Editors interested in this guideline may perhaps also be interested in the discussion at

1479: 4241: 3950:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Olympics#RFC: Notability of Youth Olympic Games events

3925: 3117: 2984: 2973: 2951: 2927: 2832: 2793: 2708: 2677: 2606: 2088: 1773: 1717: 1247: 885: 871: 825: 787: 765: 716: 548: 540: 523: 480: 465: 391: 2035: 1963:

criteria which on the whole are very good, one appearance is very much treated as the

4630: 4587: 4572: 4533: 4379: 4336: 4269: 4173: 3819: 3786: 3751: 3731: 3594: 3572: 3529: 3461: 3446: 3387: 3352: 3330: 2594: 1448:

replacement, that would call into question the validity of this being a guideline. --

1165: 1112:

for other reasons which are determined on a case-by-case basis. Those who don't pass

992: 863: 750: 333: 252: 219:

doesn't gradually lower its standards. And that's probably good enough, full stop. --

174: 120: 4551:

A few roadblocks I can think of that need to be resolved (there are probably more).

782:, would make someone that much more notable than someone who plays a whole game for 4683: 4667:

that what otherwise appears to be GNG coverage is actually insufficient coverage.--

4629:)), but due to the coverage of HBO and Showtime, this seemed like the route to go. 4470: 4429: 4293: 4080:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject American football/Semi-professional football discussion

4057: 4042: 4021: 3982: 3916: 3300: 3283: 3251: 3230: 3207: 3188: 3156: 3091: 3035: 2983:

Gottcha. I'm going to put an earmark on that one for later and find out why. ;)

2870: 2809: 2751: 2719: 2627: 2566: 2500: 2485: 2329: 2228: 2069: 2016: 2001: 1987: 1919: 1878: 1788: 1758: 1607: 1576: 1543: 1389: 1262: 1083: 988: 783: 201: 159: 4532:

Any fighter who has been ranked in the top ten or champion of any weight class by

2585:

It's hard to parse the "cricket" rules about first-class cricket and so on. Does

4383: 3419: 3380:

There is essentially no non-US college style gymnastics, so not an issue there.

2733: 2687: 2652: 2057:

the GNG requirements or allows for any article where it is demonstrably failed.

779: 46:

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

4707: 3948:

Editors may be interested in an RfC concerning the scope of this guideline at

2243: 2188: 2120: 1934: 1898: 1820: 1740: 1669: 1525: 1504: 1483: 1423: 3250:

however that don't agree and still create team pages but there aren't many. -

4626: 3113: 2969: 2923: 2828: 2704: 2673: 2602: 277: 3717:

Anyhoo...good discussion. Don't let the figure skaters push us around. ;)

4544: 3815: 3782: 3747: 3727: 3590: 3568: 3525: 3457: 3442: 3383: 3348: 3271:

We're bringing up Google News hits, but has anyone done a search through

1507:'s talk page about this discussion? It might provide a useful insight. -- 247: 137:

before going on to play the rest of his career at an even lower level of

4260:

Could we have some guidelines on sports clubs please. I recently had to

3908: 3876: 3374:

High school: not inherently notable (should fall into elite or NCAA).

786:

because it was assumed that they were not taking the cup seriously!!?--

216: 2136:

I fully agree with you. But to be picky and clear, NSPORTS' criteria

567: 269: 4350:

I guess the place to start would be to define where it differs from

1558:

It's only widely used by editors active in that particular field. --

1108:(usually for not being a full professional) can sometimes also pass 2476:

thinking that the wider community will agree with you to revert to

4618: 4516: 3084:

Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information

4020:

group stage be the tipping point? How about other continents? -

3971:

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

3377:

Level 10, pre-elite, YMCA leagues, etc.: Not inherently notable

2867:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks)

4107: 1038:

Personally, I have no opinion about the page content deleted in

870:

but there any many other articles that are remarkably similar.--

4172:. Conference POY awards are already on the football template. 2965:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues

4540: 4539:

Any fighter who has appeared in a fight on a premium network (

2942:

a Gaelic game. That being said, what is justificaiton behind

2641:

Didn't make your local newspaper? Tough luck. But it made the

1326: 1004:" it is quite possible, for example, for a player to play for 25: 4706:

question is certainly more than local and routine sources. --

3740: 1914:

You misunderstand. I was saying that box scores and the like

1664:

get coverage if they are notable players within their sport).

1221:

Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in

4157:

or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major

2038:—we check if reliable sources have, in an in-depth manner, 3030:. Without any guidance, the discussion has fallen back on 4663:. And whether failure to meet a sport-specific guideline 4268:

and the countless other amateur old boys sports teams. —

2822:

The fact that an AfD ended in no consensus is definitely

987:

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a

3589:

broadcast and what Tim Dagget says as my "source". :)

3503:

Yeah, it's not as bad as I said. Still some issues:

1956: 1615: 1603: 1599: 1042: 1039: 668: 664: 662: 3222:

deletion discussion of the 2009 Louisville Bats season

3017:

Notability for individual minor league season articles

2917:

but it is the senior inter county level so it passes

2242:

editors that these are not simple pass-fail rules. --

1236:

Any player below that would have to satisfy GNG. Jon

4335:What should the guidelines for Martial Artists be? 4314:

WT:N#Do subject-specific guidelines override the GNG

130:

match for a team that went on to finish 21st in the

4153:Have won a national award (such as those listed in 4106:Were a major statistical category season leader in 1735:

to give a year or so to help improve such articles.

1598:is one that I came across during a recent RfA, and 1120:go to AfD - for example, the one I did recently on 4653:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/David Merkow 3299:Just adding a date stamp so archiving will work. - 2847:What is the notibility critera for sports stadia? 912:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Aaron Durley 4378:Does anyone have an opinion on the notability of 3741:I'm not sure whether gym is really amateur either 2686:I'm assuming CANVASS wasn't just directed at me. 2540:strengthen it by including it in this guideline, 2919:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (sports)#Gaelic games 2903:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (sports)#Gaelic games 2891:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (sports)#Gaelic games 2222:There already is such a paragraph and I quote. " 2053:. It should be clarified here that nothing here 985:No not always, as the lead to the page says " 2946:not being recognized as a fully professional 8: 3567:those meets are, are trials for WC or Olys. 3319:every US National Team member is notable. 1524:problem is instead of guessing around it. -- 1048:mindset that is extremely unhelpful here. -- 1337:cannot decide that some generally accepted 3049:To be clear, I brought up how many Google 4082:. Please come participate and comment!-- 2911:Knowledge (XXG):fully professional league 1229:), will generally be regarded as notable. 1225:a fully-professional league (as detailed 4515:) or a historic major sanctioning body ( 3339:Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique 1281:This page vis-a-vis the GNG, numero deux 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (sports) 4358:if sourcing were adequately at hand. -- 997:professional sports league organization 3032:how many Google hits the subjects have 2787:decent adjective that still fits into 2045:That being said, subguidelines can be 479:is a higher priority for such sides. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4127:first or second team NCAA Division I 3314:gymnastics notability seems too harsh 2622:I'll be short: Please discuss... See 7: 4659:guideline, but (arguably) does meet 1470:deletion of articles that otherwise 362:I'd be absolutely fine with that. -- 3422:) go professional for endorsements 4166:Template:College Basketball Awards 3853:(edit conflict)Independent of the 24: 4647:GNG vs. specific sport guidelines 1616:the response to it being speedied 1124:. For those few players who pass 4397:Professional wrestling revisited 4170:Template:College Football Awards 4168:is the basketball equivalent of 4155:Template:College Football Awards 3998:] for previous comments on this. 3967:Notable Continental Competitions 1404:NSPORT actually has both types. 952:some sort of claim to notability 29: 4560:British Boxing Board of Control 2849:The C of E. God Save The Queen! 2780:IAAF World Junior Championships 2087:if you have any questions. ---- 4224:you invited back next year) -- 4116:Were named an NCAA Division I 2509:12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 2494:00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC) 2466:23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 2419:23:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 2381:01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 2338:01:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 2323:22:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 1214:Could set the bar higher, say: 257:17:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC) 1: 4250:21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 4234:19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 4213:19:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 4197:18:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 4182:18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 4144:16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 4118:conference player of the year 4092:14:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 4074:Invitation: Semi-pro football 3962:16:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 3756:05:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 3498:22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC) 3482:21:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 3466:18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 3451:17:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 3412:16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 3392:05:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 3357:04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC) 3309:18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 3239:19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 3011:11:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC) 2992:01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC) 2979:01:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC) 2959:01:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC) 2933:00:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC) 2255:18:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2237:18:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2218:18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2200:18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2161:18:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2132:17:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2114:16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2097:07:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2078:07:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2064:06:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2025:05:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2010:00:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 1996:00:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 1979:22:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1946:00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 1928:23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1910:22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1887:22:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1832:22:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1797:22:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1782:22:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1767:21:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1752:21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1726:18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1681:17:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1631:16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1585:17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1570:16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1552:16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1537:16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1519:16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1495:16:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1460:15:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1435:15:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1398:15:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1381:14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 1314:13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 229:18:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 210:16:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 195:15:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 178:15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 168:12:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 153:10:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 124:05:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 4719:17:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 4701:16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 4692:12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 4677:01:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC) 4639:15:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC) 4612:20:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 4596:03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC) 4581:08:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC) 4479:15:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC) 4465:15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC) 4453:00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC) 4438:13:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 4422:05:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 4392:01:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC) 4368:00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC) 4345:19:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 4326:00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 4266:Old Cranleighan Cricket Club 4066:20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 4051:19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 4030:19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC) 3934:22:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC) 3903:19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC) 3889:19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC) 3866:00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC) 3849:00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC) 3824:23:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 3806:23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 3791:05:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 3771:04:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 3761:you moving it. Great input! 3736:16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 3648:15:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 3625:15:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 3599:05:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 3577:05:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 3561:04:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 3534:04:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 3260:21:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 3216:21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 3197:21:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 3180:20:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 3165:16:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 3143:14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 3122:05:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 3100:01:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 3073:01:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 3044:20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC) 3026:article, which is currently 2879:11:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC) 2857:10:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC) 2837:13:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC) 2818:13:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) 2802:21:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC) 2760:13:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 2745:12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 2728:11:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 2713:09:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 2699:08:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 2682:08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 2664:08:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 2636:08:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC) 2611:11:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 2051:necessary but not sufficient 1847:04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC) 1807:. We don't have articles on 1319:The answer is simple as per 1271:12:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 1256:06:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 1001:general notability guideline 894:10:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC) 4302:02:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 4286:01:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 3776:sports specific publication 2575:16:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2559:14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 2405:Is this really only numero 1191:17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 1174:16:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 1159:16:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 1142:16:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 1092:16:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 1075:14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 1058:19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 1034:09:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 981:08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 966:08:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 940:19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 924:03:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 880:08:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 849:20:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 834:07:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 818:07:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 796:06:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC) 774:18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC) 759:19:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 744:19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 725:11:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 697:18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 682:18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 652:17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 632:17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 616:17:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 601:17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 584:16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 557:08:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 533:16:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC) 489:11:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 474:06:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 459:23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 445:23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 431:22:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 416:21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 401:20:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 386:18:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 372:18:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 358:18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 342:18:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 325:18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 310:17:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 294:17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC) 4737: 3155:to establish notability. - 3110:Springfield (IL) Cardinals 2905:are at odds. Teams in the 2085:Anthony Davis (basketball) 4374:Notability for rugby club 3700:It's where the action is. 2784:Youth World Championships 2591:J. James (1814 cricketer) 2144:taken mechanically. They 868:the danger of comparisons 3991:19:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3024:1980 Lynn Sailors season 2599:Viger (Surrey cricketer) 1100:is now called also pass 117:Gerry Brown (ice hockey) 4292:that indicate it was. - 3229:of the season itself. - 1361:ignificant coverage in 946:Football recommendation 464:notable. Wouldn't it?-- 4547:in the United States). 3981:Any thoughts on this? 2364:This guideline should 282:Lamar Hunt US Open Cup 4556:European Boxing Union 4018:UEFA Champions League 3836:International Gymnast 3540:Proposal suggestions: 1016:so the addition that 572:UEFA Champions League 376:I'd say go for it! -- 42:of past discussions. 4097:Basketball additions 3921:Track and Field News 2948:Association football 2897:It seems to me that 2083:article. Please see 1957:didn't prove popular 1610:. He was deleted at 135:Third Division South 4698:Hit bull, win steak 4622:Friday Night Fights 4462:Hit bull, win steak 2865:is pretty much it. 2617:Youth Olympic Games 2288:spectacularly fails 2284:Football League Two 1339:policy or guideline 1223:the top division of 280:in Germany, or the 276:in England, or the 274:Football League Cup 263:Soccer competitions 113:George Gerald Brown 4014:UEFA Europa League 4009:FC Levadia Tallinn 3431:Mackenzie Caquatto 517:In the discussion 4159:Division I (NCAA) 3609:Alexandra Raisman 3427:Alexandra Raisman 3296: 3282:comment added by 3273:The Sporting News 2944:League of Ireland 2907:League of Ireland 2885:Conflict between 2062: 2032:actually does not 1348: 1347: 1128:but for whom the 1008:and not meet the 1006:Manchester United 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4728: 4711: 4284: 4123:Were voted as a 4004:FC Flora Tallinn 3913:German Fernandez 3295: 3276: 3153:routine coverage 3056:reliable sources 2989: 2977: 2956: 2931: 2587:William Battcock 2247: 2192: 2124: 2061: 1938: 1902: 1897:single games. -- 1824: 1744: 1673: 1529: 1487: 1427: 1363:reliable sources 1327: 995:, or an amateur/ 866:. I am aware of 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4736: 4735: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4709: 4649: 4489: 4399: 4376: 4333: 4310: 4272: 4258: 4221: 4099: 4076: 3969: 3946: 3778: 3743: 3738: 3549:Mohini Bhardwaj 3367:federations. 3316: 3277: 3028:up for deletion 3019: 3003:Jmorrison230582 2985: 2968: 2952: 2922: 2895: 2845: 2620: 2583: 2499:up with them. - 2245: 2190: 2122: 1936: 1900: 1822: 1742: 1671: 1527: 1485: 1482:(for music). -- 1425: 1283: 1080:cares or b: --> 948: 908: 906:little leaguers 862:and, of course 856:Chris Lewington 265: 132:Football League 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4734: 4732: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4694: 4657:sport-specific 4648: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4549: 4548: 4537: 4530: 4527: 4524: 4488: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4414:GaryColemanFan 4410: 4407: 4398: 4395: 4375: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4352:WP:ENTERTAINER 4332: 4329: 4309: 4308:Note about RfC 4306: 4305: 4304: 4257: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4220: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4200: 4199: 4163: 4162: 4148: 4132: 4131: 4121: 4114: 4098: 4095: 4075: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 3968: 3965: 3945: 3944:Note about RfC 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3868: 3851: 3809: 3808: 3777: 3774: 3742: 3739: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3612: 3602: 3601: 3585: 3584: 3580: 3579: 3538: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3515: 3512: 3509: 3501: 3500: 3485: 3484: 3415: 3414: 3315: 3312: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3227:local coverage 3146: 3145: 3125: 3124: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3076: 3075: 3018: 3015: 3014: 3013: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2913:so don't pass 2894: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2844: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2820: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2619: 2614: 2589:meet NSPORTS? 2582: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2496: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2220: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2043: 1960: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1736: 1732: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1665: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1539: 1501: 1445: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1401: 1400: 1384: 1383: 1369:of the subject 1346: 1345: 1342: 1331: 1325: 1324: 1282: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1240: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1216: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1122:Estevao Franco 1046:WP:BATTLEFIELD 999:will meet the 947: 944: 943: 942: 907: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 536: 535: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 329: 328: 327: 264: 261: 260: 259: 243: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 155: 107: 106:An observation 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4733: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4699: 4695: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4666: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4646: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4628: 4623: 4620: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4583: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4568: 4564: 4561: 4557: 4552: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4535: 4534:Ring magazine 4531: 4528: 4525: 4522: 4518: 4514: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4493: 4486: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4463: 4458: 4454: 4450: 4446: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4405: 4396: 4394: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4380:Killarney RFC 4373: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4330: 4328: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4282: 4279: 4276: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4226:MATThematical 4218: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4205:MATThematical 4202: 4201: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4167: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4146: 4145: 4141: 4137: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4119: 4115: 4112: 4109: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4096: 4094: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4084:Paul McDonald 4081: 4073: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4039: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4010: 4005: 4000: 3999: 3997: 3993: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3979: 3977: 3972: 3966: 3964: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3943: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3922: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3881:MATThematical 3878: 3873: 3867: 3864: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3837: 3832: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3775: 3773: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3763:MATThematical 3758: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3640:MATThematical 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3617:MATThematical 3613: 3610: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3587: 3586: 3582: 3581: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3553:MATThematical 3550: 3544: 3541: 3536: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3519: 3516: 3513: 3510: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3490:MATThematical 3487: 3486: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3453: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3437: 3434: 3432: 3428: 3423: 3421: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3378: 3375: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3363: 3359: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3344: 3340: 3335: 3332: 3331:Rebecca Bross 3327: 3323: 3320: 3313: 3311: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3274: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3248: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3204: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3194: 3190: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3172:Kinston eagle 3168: 3167: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3131: 3127: 3126: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3106: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3065:Kinston eagle 3061: 3057: 3052: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 2999: 2993: 2990: 2988: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2975: 2971: 2966: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2957: 2955: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2929: 2925: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2909:are not in a 2908: 2904: 2900: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2825: 2821: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2790: 2785: 2781: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2689: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2654: 2650: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2595:Benjamin Dark 2592: 2588: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2556: 2553: 2550: 2545: 2543: 2538: 2534: 2529: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2497: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2463: 2460: 2457: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2382: 2378: 2375: 2372: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2320: 2317: 2314: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2296: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221: 2219: 2215: 2212: 2209: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2162: 2158: 2155: 2152: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2060: 2059:Seraphimblade 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1961: 1958: 1953: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1839:MATThematical 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1666: 1663: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1632: 1628: 1625: 1622: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1592: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1564: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1516: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1468: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1446: 1443: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1420: 1414: 1411: 1406: 1405: 1403: 1402: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1368: 1364: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1322: 1321:WP:CONLIMITED 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1308: 1305: 1299: 1297: 1292: 1287: 1280: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1235: 1234: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1212: 1192: 1188: 1185: 1182: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1153: 1150: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1069: 1066: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1040: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1002: 998: 994: 993:sports league 990: 984: 983: 982: 978: 974: 970: 969: 968: 967: 963: 960: 957: 953: 945: 941: 937: 933: 928: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 905: 895: 891: 887: 883: 882: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 864:Adam Thompson 861: 857: 852: 851: 850: 846: 842: 837: 836: 835: 831: 827: 822: 821: 820: 819: 815: 811: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 776: 775: 771: 767: 762: 761: 760: 756: 752: 747: 746: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 728: 727: 726: 722: 718: 698: 694: 690: 685: 684: 683: 679: 676: 673: 669: 665: 663: 660: 655: 654: 653: 649: 645: 640: 635: 634: 633: 629: 626: 623: 619: 618: 617: 613: 609: 604: 603: 602: 598: 595: 592: 587: 586: 585: 581: 577: 573: 570:final or the 569: 565: 561: 560: 559: 558: 554: 550: 546: 542: 534: 531: 529: 525: 520: 516: 515: 490: 486: 482: 477: 476: 475: 471: 467: 462: 461: 460: 456: 452: 448: 447: 446: 442: 438: 434: 433: 432: 428: 424: 419: 418: 417: 413: 409: 404: 403: 402: 399: 397: 393: 389: 388: 387: 383: 379: 375: 374: 373: 369: 365: 361: 360: 359: 355: 351: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 339: 335: 330: 326: 322: 318: 313: 312: 311: 307: 303: 298: 297: 296: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 262: 258: 254: 250: 249: 244: 240: 230: 226: 222: 218: 213: 212: 211: 207: 203: 198: 197: 196: 192: 189: 186: 181: 180: 179: 176: 171: 170: 169: 165: 161: 156: 154: 150: 147: 144: 140: 136: 133: 128: 127: 126: 125: 122: 118: 114: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4650: 4584: 4569: 4565: 4553: 4550: 4494: 4490: 4403: 4400: 4377: 4334: 4331:Martial Arts 4311: 4277: 4262:tell someone 4259: 4222: 4164: 4147: 4133: 4129:All-American 4124: 4113:competition. 4100: 4077: 4037: 4001: 3995: 3994: 3980: 3974: 3973: 3970: 3947: 3917:Jordan Hasay 3854: 3835: 3830: 3779: 3759: 3744: 3545: 3539: 3537: 3524: 3502: 3454: 3441: 3438: 3435: 3424: 3416: 3382: 3379: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3360: 3347: 3342: 3336: 3328: 3324: 3321: 3317: 3298: 3278:— Preceding 3270: 3087: 3050: 3020: 2986: 2953: 2939: 2915:WP:NFOOTBALL 2899:WP:NFOOTBALL 2896: 2887:WP:NFOOTBALL 2846: 2823: 2776: 2621: 2584: 2546: 2541: 2537:strengthened 2536: 2530: 2527: 2472: 2406: 2365: 2295:Pokémon test 2290: 2287: 2286:appearances 2265: 2261: 2223: 2185: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2054: 2046: 2042:the subject. 2039: 2031: 1964: 1915: 1875: 1808: 1661: 1608:Gavin Massey 1600:this de-PROD 1471: 1466: 1441: 1409: 1360: 1300: 1295: 1290: 1288: 1284: 1239: 1222: 1022:WP:NFOOTBALL 989:sportsperson 986: 949: 909: 806: 731: 713: 658: 537: 527: 395: 266: 246: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4002:A RfD of a 3861:. Regards, 3420:Jana Bieger 3203:WP:NOTSTATS 3060:independent 2484:argument. - 1472:immediately 1367:independent 1357:WikiProject 1335:WikiProject 1024:short cut. 860:Thomas Ince 522:notable."-- 423:Sir Sputnik 36:This is an 4669:Epeefleche 4604:Tryptofish 4602:asking. -- 4445:Tryptofish 4360:Tryptofish 4318:Tryptofish 4189:Tryptofish 4136:Tryptofish 4111:Division I 3954:Tryptofish 3895:Tryptofish 3863:SunCreator 3841:Tryptofish 3798:Tryptofish 3474:Tryptofish 3404:Tryptofish 3135:Tryptofish 2967:. Thanks — 2670:WP:CANVASS 2478:WP:ATHLETE 2411:Tryptofish 2089:moreno oso 2036:verifiable 1817:WP:ROUTINE 1505:User:SoWhy 1296:definitely 1134:JonBroxton 1050:Tryptofish 1018:WFCforLife 973:JonBroxton 932:Tryptofish 916:Spanneraol 841:Tryptofish 810:JonBroxton 736:Tryptofish 689:JonBroxton 644:JonBroxton 608:JonBroxton 576:JonBroxton 451:JonBroxton 437:Tryptofish 408:JonBroxton 378:Tryptofish 364:JonBroxton 350:Tryptofish 317:JonBroxton 302:Tryptofish 286:JonBroxton 221:Tryptofish 98:Archive 10 4627:KO Nation 4242:Trackinfo 4125:consensus 3926:Trackinfo 3508:happened. 3362:Proposal: 3058:that are 2987:Erikeltic 2974:talk page 2954:Erikeltic 2950:league? 2928:talk page 2794:Trackinfo 2146:shouldn't 1774:Quantpole 1718:Trackinfo 1604:July 2010 1476:WP:NFILMS 1442:something 1365:that are 1298:notable. 1248:Egghead06 886:Quantpole 872:Egghead06 826:Egghead06 824:breath!-- 788:Egghead06 766:Quantpole 717:Quantpole 549:Quantpole 541:Quantpole 481:Kevin McE 466:Egghead06 278:DFB-Pokal 90:Archive 8 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 4631:RonSigPi 4588:RonSigPi 4573:RonSigPi 4545:Showtime 4337:Bluefist 4281:contribs 4270:RHaworth 4174:Rikster2 3292:contribs 3280:unsigned 2843:Stadiums 2482:WP:POINT 1894:WP:NTEMP 1416:notable. 1373:Codf1977 1166:Jogurney 1026:Codf1977 751:Jogurney 639:WP:FOOTY 564:WP:FOOTY 334:Jogurney 175:Danski14 139:football 121:Danski14 4684:DJSasso 4665:implies 4471:Wmcduff 4430:DJSasso 4294:DJSasso 4161:record. 4058:Wmcduff 4043:DJSasso 4022:Wmcduff 3983:Eldumpo 3976:notable 3909:DyeStat 3877:DyeStat 3855:subject 3301:DJSasso 3284:Vodello 3252:DJSasso 3231:Dewelar 3208:DJSasso 3189:Dewelar 3157:Dewelar 3092:Dewelar 3036:Dewelar 2871:DJSasso 2810:Greswik 2752:Greswik 2720:Greswik 2628:Greswik 2581:Cricket 2567:DJSasso 2501:DJSasso 2486:DJSasso 2330:DJSasso 2229:DJSasso 2070:Cattivi 2055:loosens 2017:Cattivi 2002:DJSasso 1988:Cattivi 1920:DJSasso 1879:DJSasso 1789:DJSasso 1759:DJSasso 1577:DJSasso 1544:DJSasso 1390:DJSasso 1263:DJSasso 1084:DJSasso 784:Chelsea 524:Echetus 392:Echetus 272:or the 217:entropy 202:DJSasso 160:DJSasso 39:archive 4625:lived 4511:, and 4487:Boxing 4384:Drmies 4356:WP:GNG 3859:WP:RSN 3831:person 3400:WP:GNG 3341:(FIG) 3130:WP:GNG 2863:WP:GNG 2789:WP:AGF 2531:Is it 2291:passes 2138:can be 1813:WP:ENT 1805:WP:BIO 1422:it. -- 1353:WP:GNG 1130:WP:GNG 1126:WP:ATH 1118:WP:GNG 1114:WP:ATH 1110:WP:GNG 1106:WP:ATH 1102:WP:GNG 1098:WP:ATH 1014:WP:GNG 1010:WP:GNG 780:Barnet 568:FA Cup 270:FA Cup 4619:ESPN2 4517:NYSAC 4256:Clubs 3343:elite 2533:point 2262:might 2040:noted 1809:every 1480:WP:NM 1410:would 253:talk 16:< 4710:ASEM 4688:talk 4673:talk 4635:talk 4608:talk 4592:talk 4577:talk 4558:and 4475:talk 4449:talk 4434:talk 4418:talk 4388:talk 4364:talk 4341:talk 4322:talk 4316:. -- 4298:talk 4275:talk 4246:talk 4230:talk 4219:Golf 4209:talk 4193:talk 4178:talk 4140:talk 4108:NCAA 4088:talk 4062:talk 4047:talk 4026:talk 3996:See 3987:talk 3958:talk 3952:. -- 3930:talk 3899:talk 3885:talk 3845:talk 3820:talk 3802:talk 3787:talk 3767:talk 3752:talk 3732:talk 3644:talk 3621:talk 3595:talk 3573:talk 3557:talk 3530:talk 3494:talk 3478:talk 3462:talk 3447:talk 3408:talk 3388:talk 3353:talk 3305:talk 3288:talk 3256:talk 3235:talk 3220:The 3212:talk 3193:talk 3176:talk 3161:talk 3139:talk 3118:talk 3114:BRMo 3096:talk 3069:talk 3051:News 3040:talk 3007:talk 2970:J04n 2924:J04n 2901:and 2889:and 2875:talk 2853:talk 2833:talk 2829:Fram 2814:talk 2798:talk 2782:and 2756:talk 2741:talk 2724:talk 2709:talk 2705:Fram 2695:talk 2678:talk 2674:Fram 2660:talk 2632:talk 2607:talk 2603:Fram 2571:talk 2505:talk 2490:talk 2415:talk 2407:deux 2366:only 2343:day. 2334:talk 2293:the 2246:ASEM 2233:talk 2191:ASEM 2140:and 2123:ASEM 2093:talk 2074:talk 2047:more 2021:talk 2006:talk 1992:talk 1965:rule 1937:ASEM 1924:talk 1901:ASEM 1883:talk 1843:talk 1823:ASEM 1793:talk 1778:talk 1763:talk 1743:ASEM 1722:talk 1672:ASEM 1662:will 1596:This 1581:talk 1548:talk 1528:ASEM 1486:ASEM 1478:and 1426:ASEM 1394:talk 1377:talk 1351:The 1291:tend 1267:talk 1252:talk 1227:here 1170:talk 1138:talk 1088:talk 1054:talk 1030:talk 977:talk 936:talk 920:talk 890:talk 876:talk 845:talk 830:talk 814:talk 792:talk 770:talk 755:talk 740:talk 732:only 721:talk 693:talk 648:talk 612:talk 580:talk 553:talk 545:talk 519:here 485:talk 470:talk 455:talk 441:talk 427:talk 412:talk 382:talk 368:talk 354:talk 338:talk 321:talk 306:talk 290:talk 225:talk 206:talk 164:talk 4661:GNG 4651:At 4543:or 4541:HBO 4521:NBA 4513:WBO 4509:WBC 4505:WBA 4501:IBF 4404:one 4038:all 4016:or 3915:or 3816:TCO 3783:TCO 3748:TCO 3728:TCO 3591:TCO 3569:TCO 3526:TCO 3458:TCO 3443:TCO 3429:or 3384:TCO 3349:TCO 3088:why 2940:not 2824:not 2737:Pby 2734:Str 2691:Pby 2688:Str 2656:Pby 2653:Str 2647:NYT 2643:BBC 2542:was 2473:did 2464:-- 2379:-- 2321:-- 2227:" - 2216:-- 2159:-- 2142:are 2112:-- 1977:-- 1916:are 1629:-- 1612:AfD 1568:-- 1517:-- 1458:-- 1371:". 1312:-- 1116:or 659:are 248:DGG 193:-- 151:-- 4717:) 4690:) 4675:) 4637:) 4610:) 4594:) 4579:) 4519:, 4477:) 4451:) 4443:-- 4436:) 4420:) 4390:) 4366:) 4343:) 4324:) 4300:) 4248:) 4232:) 4211:) 4195:) 4180:) 4142:) 4134:-- 4090:) 4064:) 4049:) 4028:) 3989:) 3978:. 3960:) 3932:) 3901:) 3887:) 3847:) 3822:) 3804:) 3789:) 3769:) 3754:) 3734:) 3646:) 3623:) 3597:) 3575:) 3559:) 3532:) 3496:) 3480:) 3472:-- 3464:) 3449:) 3410:) 3390:) 3355:) 3307:) 3294:) 3290:• 3258:) 3237:) 3214:) 3195:) 3178:) 3163:) 3141:) 3133:-- 3120:) 3098:) 3071:) 3042:) 3009:) 2877:) 2855:) 2835:) 2816:) 2800:) 2758:) 2743:) 2726:) 2711:) 2697:) 2680:) 2662:) 2645:, 2634:) 2609:) 2597:? 2593:? 2573:) 2557:— 2507:) 2492:) 2417:) 2336:) 2266:is 2253:) 2235:) 2206:-- 2198:) 2149:-- 2130:) 2095:) 2076:) 2023:) 2008:) 1994:) 1944:) 1926:) 1908:) 1885:) 1845:) 1830:) 1795:) 1780:) 1765:) 1750:) 1724:) 1679:) 1619:-- 1583:) 1550:) 1535:) 1493:) 1467:is 1433:) 1396:) 1379:) 1344:” 1330:“ 1269:) 1254:) 1189:— 1172:) 1157:— 1140:) 1090:) 1073:— 1056:) 1032:) 991:, 979:) 964:— 938:) 930:-- 922:) 914:. 892:) 878:) 858:, 847:) 839:-- 832:) 816:) 808:-- 794:) 772:) 757:) 742:) 723:) 695:) 680:— 650:) 642:-- 630:— 614:) 606:-- 599:— 582:) 555:) 487:) 472:) 457:) 443:) 429:) 414:) 384:) 370:) 356:) 340:) 323:) 308:) 300:-- 292:) 255:) 227:) 208:) 183:-- 166:) 94:→ 64:← 4715:t 4713:( 4708:M 4686:( 4671:( 4633:( 4606:( 4590:( 4575:( 4536:. 4523:. 4507:, 4503:, 4473:( 4447:( 4432:( 4416:( 4386:( 4362:( 4339:( 4320:( 4296:( 4283:) 4278:· 4273:( 4244:( 4228:( 4207:( 4191:( 4176:( 4138:( 4120:. 4086:( 4060:( 4045:( 4041:- 4024:( 3985:( 3956:( 3928:( 3897:( 3883:( 3843:( 3818:( 3800:( 3785:( 3765:( 3750:( 3730:( 3642:( 3619:( 3593:( 3571:( 3555:( 3528:( 3492:( 3476:( 3460:( 3445:( 3406:( 3386:( 3351:( 3303:( 3286:( 3254:( 3233:( 3210:( 3191:( 3187:- 3174:( 3159:( 3137:( 3116:( 3094:( 3067:( 3038:( 3005:( 2976:) 2972:( 2930:) 2926:( 2893:? 2873:( 2851:( 2831:( 2812:( 2796:( 2754:( 2739:( 2722:( 2707:( 2693:( 2676:( 2658:( 2630:( 2605:( 2569:( 2555:C 2552:F 2549:W 2503:( 2488:( 2462:C 2459:F 2456:W 2413:( 2377:C 2374:F 2371:W 2332:( 2319:C 2316:F 2313:W 2251:t 2249:( 2244:M 2231:( 2214:C 2211:F 2208:W 2196:t 2194:( 2189:M 2157:C 2154:F 2151:W 2128:t 2126:( 2121:M 2110:C 2107:F 2104:W 2091:( 2072:( 2019:( 2004:( 1990:( 1975:C 1972:F 1969:W 1942:t 1940:( 1935:M 1922:( 1906:t 1904:( 1899:M 1881:( 1877:- 1841:( 1828:t 1826:( 1821:M 1791:( 1776:( 1761:( 1748:t 1746:( 1741:M 1720:( 1677:t 1675:( 1670:M 1627:C 1624:F 1621:W 1579:( 1566:C 1563:F 1560:W 1546:( 1533:t 1531:( 1526:M 1515:C 1512:F 1509:W 1491:t 1489:( 1484:M 1456:C 1453:F 1450:W 1431:t 1429:( 1424:M 1392:( 1375:( 1323:: 1310:C 1307:F 1304:W 1265:( 1261:- 1250:( 1193:4 1187:C 1184:F 1181:W 1168:( 1155:C 1152:F 1149:W 1136:( 1086:( 1082:- 1071:C 1068:F 1065:W 1063:— 1052:( 1028:( 975:( 962:C 959:F 956:W 934:( 918:( 888:( 874:( 843:( 828:( 812:( 790:( 768:( 753:( 738:( 719:( 691:( 678:C 675:F 672:W 670:— 646:( 628:C 625:F 622:W 610:( 597:C 594:F 591:W 589:— 578:( 551:( 543:( 530:e 528:X 483:( 468:( 453:( 439:( 425:( 410:( 398:e 396:X 380:( 366:( 352:( 336:( 319:( 304:( 288:( 251:( 223:( 204:( 191:C 188:F 185:W 162:( 149:C 146:F 143:W 115:, 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 6 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index