User talk:League Octopus/Club notability tables (and test)

Please leave you comments on the essay that I have prepared on the Club Notability Tables (and Test) here. Many thanks. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Background to the preparation of this essay

The key discussion in WT:FOOTY that led to the preparation of this essay is detailed below:

Need for short essay detailing on a country by country basis those levels where leagues are considered notable

This initial discussion and the issues raised particularly with regard to the need for a club articles to meet WP:GNG provided the foundation for the essay.

Other related discussions have followed including:

National Cup in Canada

Australian Football Clubs - is there any unwritten club notability criteria?

Indian club notability again.

Club notability in the United States and Canada (fourth tier leagues)

Club notability in Brazil (State Leagues)

Club articles that meet WP:FOOTYN but fail WP:GNG

National Cups - are there more competitions that we should refer to?

Regard has also been given to many other discussions in the preparation of the essay:

and many more.

Feedback on draft work received from GiantSnowman and Kosm1fent is much appreciated. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Australian club notability

Good work on User:League Octopus/Club Notability Tables (and Test). Just a couple of things re Australia. You probably need to list Australian Cup (soccer) and the NSL Cup. The NSL Cup was kind of a league cup but did on occasion include random state league clubs. Hack (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added Australian Cup and the NSL Cup to the Tables. I have also placed your comment on the Essay's Talk Page. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

India

I see that you added the 33 Indian state leagues. I think before we move on we should figure out which Indian state leagues should grant notability. I still stick with the Mizoram Premier League, Nagaland Premier League, Calcutta Football League (FINAL ROUND), and Goa Professional League. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the one that I left to the very last before posting the Tables. The problem that we face is that I do not have enough information at the moment to clarify that clubs in Mizoram Premier League, Nagaland Premier League, Calcutta Football League (FINAL ROUND), and Goa Professional League meet WP:GNG. If I include them at the moment we will be challenged - it would be helpful if articles are prepared for the clubs. Kind regards. League Octopus (League Octopus 19:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Well the easiest one of all is the Goa Professional League in which I can provide an example (see User:Arsenalkid700/Margao SC [I am creating this now, sorry for the wait]) and I can provide you 2 top Goan newspapers which cover the league (and surprisingly all 3 levels of Goan Football but I am looking for GPL notability) like Navhind Times and OHaraldo. Now I would say that the Nagaland Premier League would be the second easiest for again I can provide an example (see User:Arsenalkid700/Kohima Komets when the link is blue) and I can provide you with 3 newspapers online that cover the league like Nagaland Post, Eastern Mirror Nagaland and Morung Express. And actually this league has its own website (see here) and the website has club profiles in which they show the history and ambition of the clubs. This is what I can use as a source on my articles. (see Kohima Komets profile on NPL website). Now the Calcutta Premier League and Mizoram Premier League will be hard because they both get a lot of coverage. More then the GPL and NPL actually but the problem is the language barrier which stops me and google will not translate articles in Mizo for the Mizoram League and the Bengali is a bit off as well. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are following the right approach tackling the strongest contenders first. If we can establish that all of the clubs in the Goa Professional League meet WP:GNG following the completion of club articles then we can move on to the three other candidate leagues. However I suggest that you first need to clarify whether Churchill Brothers S.C., Dempo S.C., Salgaocar F.C., SESA F.A., Sporting Clube de Goa and Vasco S.C. play their first team or reserves in the Goa Professional League? I also question why the GPL is not showing up in the honours sections of the respective clubs? League Octopus (League Octopus 08:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you. I am actually happy that you agree that the GPL is easier than the Nagaland Premier League because I did give more info for the NPL but the NPL is only 1-year old, the GPL actually has a history. I am also still busy on the Margao SC user page. Anyway in answer to your question... here. This link has every match result & report for the 2011-12 season in it (NOTE: You may only have a few days to view it as the 2012-13 season begins in a few.). From first view it seems that SESA and Vasco play there first-team all the time. While the other clubs do play the majority first team but maybe 5 youth players as well. For example Dempo S.C. played the 2012-13 I-League top scorer Ranti Martins in there GPL matches along with other Indian internationals like Subhasish Roy Chowdhury, Debabrata Roy, Godwin Franco, and even former India national football team captain (2011-12) Climax Lawrence played in a lot of GPL matches. As for why they are not listed... that is a huge mistake on my part. I am the one that removed them, along with results from other small tournaments. I am willing to add them again however. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing your work on the GPL clubs and the restored details on GPL in the club honours lists.

By the way good work on your User:Arsenalkid700/Indian Football Notability. It is important that our respective essays do not contradict and I will add the Federation Cup (India) to my national cups list. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

No need really for the Fed Cup. Every team that plays in the Fed Cup (even qualifiers) will always already have a page already as they all played in I-League or I-League 2nd Division.

Also, sad to say this, but I am delaying the creation of userspanced GPL articles and NPL articles as the I-League starts on 6 October (this Saturday) and I need to make sure all 14 club articles (along with all players and related articles) are ready for the season and I am already behind as it is. So starting next Sunday I will be back with this as it is really something I want to do, to create more club articles. Also I need to redo the Indian football Notability page as a lot has changed since I created that. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Club notability test

Given that your final point (rightly) is that the clubs need to meet GNG then what is the point of having the previous 5 questions, although #4 seems to be very similar to GNG anyway. Eldumpo (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what that means is, just like with players, the leagues that apply to questions 1-4 are already assumed to have clubs that meet GNG and that if your club is not in any of the leagues mentioned that apply to 1-4 but can still pass GNG then go ahead and create it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the issue raised by Eldumpo, the point of having the first 5 questions is to provide a simple framework that enables editors to make an informed decision in a quick and accurate manner before tackling/considering GNG. I will come back to you with an interesting example but it is taking me a little time to re-write the article in question. League Octopus (League Octopus 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I note you are due to get back with an example which may make things clearer, but to me it seems to read that if a club would answer yes to any of the 5 questions they proceed to the GNG test, and if they are not deemed to meet GNG they are likely to be deleted so I still don't see the point of the first five. Eldumpo (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first point that I make in response is that not everyone understands WP.GNG like we do - I am trying to provide easy to follow guidance that will assist a new editor (and possibly a few experienced editors).

I will provide 3 examples of clubs from the town of Santa Rosa, La Pampa in Argentina. All 3 clubs now play at the at level 6 of the Argentine football league system.

(a) General Belgrano de Santa Rosa (known as Club General Belgrano) - is currently the subject of a PROD on the grounds "does not appear to meet wider notability, looked for in-depth sources". Let us put it to the Club Notability Test?

Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? No
Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? Yes - the third tier Torneo Argentino A. .

We then move on to the final question:
Does the completed article generally meet the notability standards set down in WP:GNG? No (It took me around 1 minute to get to this stage)
This then leaves us with the option of taking it through PROD/AfD or to improve the article to meet WP:GNG. My choice was to improve the article - see General Belgrano de Santa Rosa. However, I have undertaken the work with the knowledge that the work will not be abortive. WP.GNG has been met although I would have preferred better sources. In particular I would like to have used the Liga Cultural de Fútbol de La Pampa website but was subjected to a computer attack.
NB: Further research indicates that Club General Belgrano were part of a Copa Argentina 2011/12 Elimination Round but there are no details of results.

(b) Atlético Santa Rosa

Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? No
Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? Yes - the first tier 1983 Argentine Primera División.

We then move on to the final question:
Does the completed article generally meet the notability standards set down in WP:GNG? Yes (with a Google check on "RSSSF Atlético Santa Rosa"). Time - less than 2 minutes.

(c) Club Atlético All Boys (not to be confused with the club of the same name from Buenos Aires)

Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? Yes Argentina - Copa Argentina - 1970 and Argentina - Copa Argentina - 1969

Conclusion - no problems if an article is prepared that meets WP:GNG. This took a lot longer to determine with the confusion of names!

My final point is that I am trying to create a system that is quick and simple to understand that enables more informed decision making. Ploughing straight into the WP:GNG in my view hides the underlying criteria that we use. I can produce a good article on Lincolnshire Football League team Horncastle Town with loads of sources but we would never accept it. In my view it is much better to be explicit and open about our underlying criteria. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I like the way you have tried to test your criteria using real-life examples, although I think you have it the wrong way round. Firstly (sample) evidence should be provided showing that clubs in x league/cup actually meet GNG, and that will help determine the 'colour-coding' the country could fall into (if any). For example, there is no evidence that playing in the Chad Cup confers notability;are there even results for the tournaments?

Regarding General Belgrano de Santa Rosa, despite the good work you have put into it, I'm not convinced it meets GNG. Is taringa.net a reliable source; it looks like individuals can just post there? La Arena is reliable, but the cite is about the BMX event, and the fact it was at General Belgrano is ancillary. You may have noticed I both created and prodded the article. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have identified more information from the La Arena newspaper on Club General Belgrano and league tables are available in RSSSF for the club's 6 Torneo Argentino A seasons. I have other priorities to work on but it is clear that the Club General Belgrano article can be further developed.

Your suggestion that "firstly (sample) evidence should be provided showing that clubs in x league/cup actually meet GNG" has merits but would be very unwieldy to undertake in practice. I have tried to undertake checks to my work wherever practicable and numerous amendments were during the course of finalisation of the tables.

The Chad Cup represents an example of a country which currently has poor internet media coverage but RSSSF indicates that Coupe du Tchad 2008 had 13 participating teams. League Octopus. (League Octopus 12:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Exactly how does General Belgrano de Santa Rosa pass WP:GNG? All I can see so far is 4 references from the club's website (non-independent), one RSSSF list of all Argentinian clubs (non-significant coverage), 2 references from Taringa, a website which appears to be user-generated (not reliable) and 1 newspaper article which, however decent, makes no mention of the club. – Kosm1 fent 11:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have more content and sources (newspaper media and better RSSSF) to add - the difficulty I face is I am spending so much time developing this article. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Iceland

The league system in Iceland is changing for the 2013 season (the 2012 season is finished in three divisions already) so the list will need to be updated to reflect that. Basically, the top three divisions (Úrvalsdeild, 1. deild karla and 2. deild karla) are remaining the same but there is a new national division being added at the fourth tier, which will be called the 3. deild karla, and the current 3. deild karla will be renamed to 4. deild karla. Teams in the top three divisions will definitely be notable per the GNG (although I notice that Íþróttafélagið Grótta has been deleted); both men's and women's football get extensive coverage in Iceland in reliable sources independent from the clubs such as KSÍ.is, Fótbolti.net, Morgunblaðið (Icelandic national newspaper) and Vísir (another newspaper). Clubs in the new 3. deild karla will probably be able to be shown as notable (indeed, some of them already have articles) although those in the new 4. deild karla may not; they are just a mixture of feeder teams and completely amateur clubs. BigDom (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very useful update BigDom that we will need to give more consideration to when the revised league structure/club constitution is finalised. You will notice that in most Nordic countries the fourth tier is defined as the "Grey area" and this decision was undertaken to overcome concerns about lack of consistency with the structures of Mediterranean nations. I have taken the view that club notability of fourth tier clubs in Denmark, Finland and Norway can be conferred through participation in their respective national cups (assuming that GNG can be met) rather than league notability. I suggest that it might be appropriate to maintain a similar approach for the Icelandic third tier. Newspaper/internet media coverage in the Nordic countries is superb which does make demonstrating GNG much easier. League Octopus (League Octopus 11:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure about using the Icelandic Cup as a measure of club notability; the cup is open to KSÍ member clubs outside of the league structure and they probably wouldn't meet the GNG. Also, in the past the under-age teams of some of the "big" clubs were allowed to compete and they wouldn't be notable independent of the parent club. The reason that some Icelandic clubs don't currently have articles is that almost all of the sources are in Icelandic so not many people (from WikiProject Football at least) can read them, and although I do know Icelandic, I don't really have the time nowadays because of other things. I will at least try and find time to create an article about the new division and update the existing ones, and hopefully be able to write about some of the clubs as well but it might be a while till I can. You're right about Nordic football coverage though, if only some other countries were as enthusiastic about football it would make our job here a lot easier. BigDom (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As in France and other countries where there is wide national cup coverage, those lower tier clubs that enter the Icelandic club and do not meet GNG should be put forward for PROD/AfD. League Octopus (League Octopus 11:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

Have been asked to add my comments so I will...

To begin with, I think we need to consider whether there might be a better over-arching short-cut link to this process... something like WP:NTEAM or WP:NFOOTYTEAM. For ease of reading I will refer to this proposal as WP:NFOOTYTEAM. While I do like NTEAM, we obviously have to be careful - using NTEAM will mean other guidelines for other sports would need clarification. Might be best if we consider whether WP:NTEAM should be created as a general "categorisation" guide (like WP:NSPORT is for people) with WP:NFOOTYTEAM as an association football-specific guideline (like WP:NFOOTY is for WP:NSPORT).

I think we also need to be careful about linking this process to WP:NFOOTY to extensively. NFOOTY is about players themselves, many (if not, most) of which are WP:BLPs. The requirements for BLPs (regardless of industry / occupation) are very different to those for organisations. For the most part, this proposed guideline should be setting out criteria (football-specific) to determine whether teams do or do not (in spirit at least) meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Linking it heavily to WP:NFOOTY suggests a cross-referencing between teams and their players, which is not at all the intention (from what I can tell) of this proposal.

While acknowledging WP:NFOOTY is important, we need to be conscious of the fact that one relates to people (with their specific WP:N requirements) and the other related to organisations (with specific WP:N requirements).

In my humble opinion, if we're going to move this forward (and I think there is value in doing so) we need to separate the two quite clearly. There's nothing wrong, I think, with a note in each (once this proposal is complete / accepted) along the lines, "This guideline relates to association football players. For guidelines on the notability of association football teams, please see WP:NFOOTYTEAM. But I think that's about the only link we should be making. I don't think WP:NFOOTY should be rewritten - I think this policy should stand on its own as a separate concept.

The other concern is that less experienced editors might be confused by an essentially merged guideline (that deals with both players and teams) with two different tables - one for professional leagues (for WP:NFOOTY, which is a system that has worked very well as far as I'm concerned) and one for leagues generally (for WP:NFOOTYTEAM). This guideline, I think, is capable of standing on its own merits, in the same way WP:NFOOTY does with its own tables, without being an addendum to WP:NFOOTY.

We should also consider whether the final version should have the tables separated into a sub-page like WP:NFOOTY does. That way the guideline itself can remain fairly easy to read with a separate table for referencing.

All in all I think it's a very good proposal - I would like to see it moved forward. Those responsible for its development are to be congratulated. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are very useful comments that I will first of all "mull over". League Octopus (League Octopus 07:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Your comments are much appreciated. They require some consideration so hence my delay in responding.

I am all for the use of better over-arching short-cut links and the balance in my view is between using WP:NTEAM / WP:NFOOTYTEAM or WP:NCLUB / WP:NFOOTYCLUB. I like your WP:NTEAM but the essay covers Club Notability not Team Notability. References to "teams" (rather than "clubs") makes me feel a little uncomfortable but I could just be me conforming to the heading in WP:FOOTYN and subsequent debates. The term "teams" is also used in the text in WP:FOOTYN and many people use the terms interchangeably.

At the moment I do not have strong views on the method of linkage to WP:NFOOTY - I will be guided by yourself and others on that one. However, I do accept that there would be advantages if in the final version the tables are separated into a sub-page.

A lot of work and thought has gone into the essay and I have moved a long way in my own views since the discussion in WT:FOOTY which represented the starting point for the essay- Need for short essay detailing on a country by country basis those levels where leagues are considered notable. To date the feedback on the essay has been generally positive but the key issue is whether there is a real desire by Editors to accept the proposal. Many Editors already hold strong views on Club Notability and where the boundaries should be. I am now using the Club Notability Test in a variety of different examples and Editors can assess for themselves its working performance as an assessment tool.

Perhaps you can advise the best way forward after intial "testing" (and when to start using the improved short-cut links). League Octopus (League Octopus 14:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I like where you are heading.

I should explain that my references to WP:NTEAM vs. WP:NCLUB probably stem more from the fact that I am Australian than anything else. Here, a "club" is a licensed venue (see Wagga Wagga Leagues Club or RSL Club generally, and the like), though often based around a sporting team. A "team" on the other hand is a sporting team which includes the players, managers, stadium and corporate entity behind the team itself (rather than just the group of players) which might elsewhere be referred to as a "club". See "That's My Team" for a Rugby League-specific example. In short, use of the word "club" would be far more accurate than my use of the word "team" and we Australians can just "get over it!". Ha ha.

My only comment about WP:NFOOTY (as above) would be about making sure the two are not two extensively linked. There obviously needs to be some cross-referencing (given the common topic) but I would be more inclined to think of them as "sub-policies" of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:BIO respectively rather than "joint-sub-policies" of WP:GNG. If that makes sense.

Once you think you have a workable idea, I would think the next step would be to take it to WP:VPR for discussion and consideration. I think that's where it goes, anyway. I think you could start using shortcut tags (which are only redirects after all) - if the proposal is not agreed to, the redirects could be deleted later anyway. Seeing as though this is a "new idea" (as opposed to an idea which aims to replace something else) there isn't really any article name competition which would need to be resolved. I don't think it would be a huge issue to create the short-cut redirects now. I would certainly make explaining your idea at VPR a bit easier. Be bold!.

Keep up the good work! Stalwart111 (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my appreciation for the feedback from Stalwart111 and highlighting the "next step" to take the essay to WP:VPR for discussion and consideration. I have created shortcuts to WP:NCLUB and WP:NFOOTYCLUB. Many thanks. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Gibraltar

Are we having criteria for Gibraltarian clubs now they are a member of UEFA? Kivo (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]