Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 → Archive 50

Regarding Athlete

Hi all, I need to understand that why this athlete Wikipedia page keep denying, he has won 4 medals including one gold in European championship final last week. He has won two silver medal in junior championship in Karate and won bronze medal too. Three time the page was denied and each time I made it better with new references and added detail of championship. His country females who have won same amount of medals in same category and event have Wikipedia pages but this athlete hasn't so i wanna ask where is the actual problem, either he is not passing wp:Athletes or the references are not enough. Draft:Raybak_Abdesselem --Static Hash (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

See this athlete from his country, she has Wikipedia and took part in same events but in female category Sophia_Bouderbane--Static Hash (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Sophia Bouderbane probably would not survive an AfD in its present form, the sources are all databases and one trivial mention in an article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I saw your comment and took it upon myself to improve Bouderbane's article. Hopefully it's up to snuff now (or at least far closer). I'm sure a French-speaking editor could bring it up to a decent quality. Domeditrix (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I think it is much better now.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
But it's not about Sophia, there are many Wikipedia pages from same Karate group who has a wiki but Raybak page is being denied & I am here to understand what is the issue, Is he is not passing the notability of an athlete who has won 4 medals in championship, including world championship of Karate.--Static Hash (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Competitors only at youth level aren't generally notable. I see this was previously deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raybak Abdesselem), and don't see that anything has changed since then to make them more notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Sophia Bouderbane did not compete in the same events: Abdesselem medaled at youth level, Bouderbane medalled at senior level, which is considered much more notable for most sports. Fram (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


Hi Joseph2302, after AFD I have changed the article and added 4 new references, and added one more event that he took part in. He won the gold medal in U21 Europe Championship winning 8-0 in 84 KG category, so I added this information after last AFD, this was a senior championship for U21 Karate champions.--Static Hash (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Fram, Sophia took part in the European championship in Finland that was held in 2014 and won gold medal, while Raybak won the gold medal in same championship that was held in August 2021, in Finland & here is the latest article of him which I Didn't add https://www.laprovence.com/article/edition-arles/6474253/monica-michel-en-campagne-pour-voir-le-karate-aux-jo-de-paris.html--Static Hash (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
No, Raybak didn't win a medal at the 2021 European Karate Championships, he won with the "espoirs", the "promising" athletes literally, not the seniors. Fram (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
That page seems to be more likely significant coverage about Monica Michel than about the athlete in question, though it's paywalled so I can't exactly confirm that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there even an SNG here for karate? If not, the medals are not inherently notable, and the subject will need to satisfy WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There is an essay on martial arts notability at WP:MANOTE. It's criteria have generally held up at AfD discussions. It's worth noticing its emphasis on non-age limited competitions and its "repeated medalist" criteria. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
That essay uses the subjective significant quite frequently. The recent trend at NSPORTS has been to reach consenusus and enumerate specific events, organizations, etc. instead of having the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at a given AfD vary depending on the participants' interpretation of significant.—Bagumba (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
In a field as broad as martial arts, it is difficult to specify every event in every style that would carry notability. There is some relative specific items, such as "Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization; - more than a few dozen competitors ... competitors from multiple nations". That refers to each specific division, not an overall tournament. A significant book also seems fairly well defined as "book that is recommended study for the art (e.g. by an organisation they do not lead) or by someone who is an artist from a different style and/or school, but beware vanity press." Not sure how that's worse than WP:AUTHOR saying "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Very few WP SNGs offer very specific quantitative criteria. If they did, AfD discussions would be simple, if not unnecessary. Papaursa (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Very few WP SNGs offer very specific quantitative criteria: WP:NBASKETBALL, WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NBASEBALL are quite specific. Unfortunately, there's legacy SNGs that haven't evolved, which might be better served by using GNG if they cannot be refined.—Bagumba (talk)
I was talking about SNGs in general, not just sports ones. While it's simple if you just have to play one game, it's not clear that makes it a better standard. It's not always clear that GNG is a better standard (or more easily interpreted). I remember a U. of Maine football player who clearly failed WP:NGRIDIRON being kept because there were articles about him in several local Maine papers. As I pointed out above, lots of oft-used SNGs are more vague than WP:MANOTE. The words "significant" appear often in almost all SNGs as well as the GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
... player who clearly failed WP:NGRIDIRON being kept because there were articles about him ...: That is expected and as designed, per NSPORTS' lead: Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Officials

Hi. I noticed that since that Wikipedia has a notability guideline policy for sports athletes, players and sometimes coaches to see whether or not they have passed that notability guidelines. However, I also noticed that sports referees, particularly association football (soccer) referees, most of them are prone to not meet notability guidelines. Here are my options:

1. The first primary option is to make a separate notability guideline for referees, umpires, match officials, etc, either within the sports notability guideline or a guideline for general match officials in professional general sports, along with football (soccer) referees.

2. The secondary option: is to make the similar guideline to the first option I have stated, but at least have notability guidelines for a how to meet the notability criteria with mostly a topic referring to football (soccer) referees, and/or with other match officials in other major sports.

3. The third option might be tricky to specifically describe but in a nutshell for describing the case: to include a notability guideline for referees for most particularly football (soccer) referees which includes the following categories:

A. Any referee, men and/or women who had officiated it summoned in a major international "senior" tournament such as the FIFA World Cup, the Olympics, the UEFA Euros, the AFC Asian Cup, the Copa America, the CONCACAF Gold Cup, the Africa Cup of Nations, and the OFC Nations Cup, along the UEFA and CONCACAF Nations League, plus the qualifiers, particularly with World Cup qualifiers, Euro qualifying, as they are supposedly deemed to have significant coverage, can be deemed to meet the criteria.

B: Concerning about notability guidelines for players and coaches within a fully professional club league, referees who have been summoned and officiated in a fully professional league such as the Premier League, LaLiga, Seria A, Ligue 1, Bundesliga, Major League Soccer, the Argentine Primera División, etc, or have officiated in their respective club tournament within a league, or a confederation based club tournament, such as the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Copa Libertadores, the Copa Sudamericana, and/or is listed in the FIFA International Referees list can be deemed to meet the criteria. Referees who officiated in a non-professional league are not deemed to be notable, unless they could have significant coverage as they have either been summoned or had officiated in a professional league, a major professional league tournament, or a confederation-based club tournament, or the “senior” international match, and is a listed international referee. Minor club and confederated-based tournament referees including friendlies, even in a senior international friendly match, unless they have meet the significant coverage or some other forms of general notability guidelines.

Continuing with the third option could add a few examples about female referees, which may not meet the criteria due many women’s league mot being fully professional. (It’s not gender-biased this way.) Having said that, if women referees didn’t have enough strength to meet the criteria, they may not be notable, unless they have summoned and officiated the major tournament, such as the FIFA Women’s World Cup, and the Olympics, . The only difference from men’s scenario is that the female referees who have officiated in a league, tournament, club tournament, or a confederated-based club and/or international tournament, may not be deemed to meet the criteria, unless a referee has been summoned and officiated in a FIFA tournament, or the Olympics, and is a listed international referee.

There are some cases that female referees (e.g Kateryna Monzul, and Stéphanie Frappart whom they had officiated in top senior men’s tournament, club and/or international) can meet the criteria. They can meet the criteria if they have officiated an international women’s tournament, summoned and officiated a professional men’s league with their respective football association, has significant coverage, and/or is a listed international referee.

As to referees in other major sports, I don’t know if they could have significant coverage to every sport, and I am aware that this suggestion of the new separate guideline could be controversial, but let’s just say it for the sake of the argument.

Any match official, or umpire who have have officiated in the finals of their respective international tournament, such as in tennis, the Grand Slam tournament, US Open, an IIHF World Cup finals, the IFBA World Cup finals included, and sports in any Olympic final can be deemed notable if they have officiated, has most of the significant coverage, and other methods that passed general notability guidelines.

Assistant referees in any sports are not deemed notable.

I know that I was suggesting a lot in this regard, but these are the conditions.

We can discuss further whether to add the new guideline in a separate article, within the article with athletes, or have any other discussion on how to implement that in many other ways. I am open to any discussion within this topic.

With that being said, please to hesitate to discuss either here, or leave a reply to my talk page.

Thank you, and have a nice day. Ivan Milenin (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Ivan Milenin (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  • This is already covered by WP:GNG. Are there really that many articles about football referees that making a guideline would clarify things and guide future article creation? Any notability guideline should not be based on achievements or where officials have officiated, but on whether there is likely to be significant coverage of them. If there are only a few articles on football refs, then that's probably a good sign that a guideline is not necessary (i.e. as that would be a sign football referees don't routinely get coverage, or that such coverage is not strongly correlated with any position or achievements). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    I could understand your point just a tiny bit, because Wikipedia:NSPORTS, usually refers to athletes, players, and coaches on all aspects of sports, and not just soccer (football). And you might be right, significant coverage is required to meet the notability guidelines with any reason, for any referee in all aspects of sports, besides football. And speaking of that, you might be right that referees that didn't receive significant coverage that may not meet notability criteria. All I'm saying is that, if you would consider adding a subsection within the NSPORTS, that's fine. But what ever the case may be, if there are some cases that it will be within the GNG with significant coverage and other required and reliable sources that counts, or maybe have a subsection within the sports section, I will take that decision. Ivan Milenin (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • (Repeating what I said at WiRed talk) I think the wind is set against sports SNGs (special notability guidelines) in general, and I doubt any version of this will obtain general buy-in. Most referees only get sufficient coverage to meet the GNG when they make highly controversial decisions, or are notable for something else, so I think the SNG idea of presuming notability is inappropriate, except for extreme cases like the ref for the FIFA World Cup final. I don't see why we can't just use the normal GNG criteria. The numbers we already have in Category:Association football referees by nationality seem absurdly high to me - 187 English and 68 Scottish ones leap out. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    As to the WiRed, that was a mistake to put there. But as to you're saying, could you elaborate a bit more specific, please? Ivan Milenin (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say that the wind was set against it so much as with all these years into the devolved NSPORTS SNGs, a great many of us think that there's no longer any significant stones unturned, for which presumptive notability competition-wide would be indicated. There's also a broad tacit sentiment -- in and out of the sports Wikiprojects -- that calls for new SNGs too often are code for "I want to buff up my article creation totals without troubling for proper sourcing of my stubs." The only time referees in any sport get any coverage beyond the trivial match mentions that wouldn't qualify for notability for anyone else is when they make epic bad calls in high profile matchs, and that's a 1E issue better handled by a link to said match. Like Johnbod, I've a hard time imagining that as many as 250 football officials from the UK alone could meet the GNG (absent notability for other reasons, such as being former top-flight players themselves), and think the GNG serves perfectly well here. Ravenswing 20:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    Of course not all 250 football officials can meet the criteria. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, the Premier League, and the English Football League, as governed by the The Football Association, are fully professional football leagues, and can have referees can meet the criteria, if, like anyone says, has significant coverage to pass the GNG. I don't believe that referees lower than the EFL will meet the criteria. My proposal, and, again with significant coverage to pass GNG, is any referee who have officiated in a fully professional league, and/or is a listed international referee, could meet the criteria, as long as they have significant coverage, with reliable and independent sources, can presume notable. Let me know what you believe and discuss this further. Ivan Milenin (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    If there are a number of officials who cannot meet the criteria, then demonstrably the criteria is flawed. If there are officials who meet the GNG, then a SNG is unnecessary. A new SNG shouldn't be created for the sake of having more SNGs: the whole point of a SNG is to indicate a group highly likely to be able to meet the GNG. Show me the research you've done to ensure that 90-95+% of the officials covered by your proposal can meet the GNG, and I'm likely to support it. Ravenswing 03:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Tennis: remove Fed Cup and Davis Cup from criteria?

Removed. Consensus is that having played in these cups does not predict meeting WP:GNG strongly enough to justify presuming notability based solely thereon. (non-admin closure) TompaDompa (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the tennis criteria, having played in the Fed Cup (now the Billie Jean King Cup) or the Davis Cup is considered sufficient for inclusion. However, it looks as if for many players, having played in these cups doesn't really guarantee sufficient coverage at all. For example Jordi Trilla Clanchet has played 2 games in the Davis Cup this year, and one won[1], but hasn't received any attention beyond statistical sites[2], and has no ranking. Similarly, in the Fed Cup there was Arney Jóhannesdóttir (also known as Arney Rún Jóhannesdóttir, from Iceland, who played one game in 2009, but seems to lack all actual notability[3]. These are just some examples of Western players (so easily searchable), from this century, who apparently don't pass the GNG by a wide margin. Making them acceptable article subjects because of the Sports SNG seems wrong, so I propose to remove the Fed Cup and Davis Cup from the criteria. Fram (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Remove If a criteria does not reliably indicate that a person has almost certainly received significant writing about their lives in reliable sources (beyond trivial mentions) then it isn't serving as a proper criteria for an SNG. Criteria which encourage the creation of articles that could never pass minimum standards should be removed. --Jayron32 16:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Now International players in any sport playing official matches are notable. Now players from Micro nations like Andorra ,San Marino and smaller nations like Iceland are also notable in any sport if they played for there country Jordi Trilla Clanchet plays for Andorra and Arney Rún Jóhannesdóttir for Iceland. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    • On which grounds are they notable? "Notable" here means "has attracted enough coverage in reliable sources that we can write a decent enough article about it" - or in less abstract words, WP:GNG (remember, WP:V is a requirement, everywhere, but it needs to be enforced even more strictly for biographies of living persons). If there is evidence that playing in the Fed/Davis Cup does not necessarily attract sufficient coverage, then, although we probably need to do something about WP:BIAS, that doesn't override the basic verifiability and sourcing requirements, so the correct thing to do is remove and let the remaining articles stand on GNG or other tennis-related criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
      Now International players in any sport playing official matches are notable as per various SNGs. Davis cup is played by over 140 Countries ,I agree with you that some of these players like those from micro nations may fail to attract sufficient coverage but overall see no issue to change the criteria as it could hundreds of articles right from 2002.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
      You seem to be missing the point of my comment. The SNG is not adequate, since it does not adequately act as a reliable indicator of meeting GNG (that is the only and single purpose of an SNG - it's not an alternative to GNG). Unless the above two are the only examples (I've personally identified other tennis players who meet the Olympics SNG but don't meet GNG, so I'm quite sure there are also plenty of other examples of Fed/Davis Cup players who also don't meet it...), I'd have a hard time being convinced that we should keep allowing a free pass to players about whom we can't actually write encyclopedic articles. To quote somebody in the RfC above, "Wikipedia does not exist to commemorate someone's achievements". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    Pharaoh, that isn't true at all. Only for very few sports are all players in international matches considered notable in NSPORTS (football, tennis, anything else?), for most (even Olympic) sports this isn't true at all. This criteria is not listed for e.g. basketball, curling, ice hockey (which explicitly states that only some international games qualify for notability), or rugby (both versions). It also doesn't apply to the many sports not included in NSPORTS (handball, volleyball, ...). Fram (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I was referring AFD side as well in most cases over the years , International players articles getting deleted is very rare.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove or add qualification that restricts this criteria to a level at which almost all players will meet GNG (which may be impractical given the structural changes over the years). wjematherplease leave a message... 08:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove in the case that their only international appearance is in the Davis/Fed Cup, then the examples above indicate a player would not generally be notable. Most notable tennis players will satisfy one of the other criteria anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Did you search for local coverage (e.g in newspapers, not all of these are online, even for "Western" countries) before opening this section or just do a Google search? The players who play in the Davis/Fed cup are usually the best in the country and receive significant local coverage, to the point that even the top players from countries that don't play in the Davis/Fed cup meet GNG (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Adegoke). The small number of possible exceptions found so far don't justify gutting or removing the SNG. Iffy★Chat -- 11:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem with this is that if people keep saying "coverage must exist", nobody's doing the actually important bit, which isn't discussing the article at AfD, but looking for those darn sources which are supposed to exist. And then we end up with hundreds of thousands of short, sourced-to-database-and-reading-like-database-entries articles about sportspeople who aren't really notable but because of some inherent systematic bias towards it never get deleted. And this isn't really that controversial: "biographies" about sportspeople of all kind are by far the most common kind of article around here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I went to Andorra and Iceland and checked the national libraries. Obviously. As did the people who declared that all Davis cup and Fed cup players are notable, as did you before declaring unequivocally that they "receive significant local coverage". We usually don't have or want articles for sportspeople who only get very local coverage, or else every half-decent U16 soccer player in every village would be eligible for an article here. That there are people who don't meet NSPORTS and are notable anyway (which your AfD shows) is hardly an argument against the opposite (people who currently meet NSPORTS but aren't notable). Furthermore, Adegoke is a Fed Cup player (Nigeria Billie Jean King Cup team), so no idea what your reason is for bringing up that example. Fram (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
      • She wasn't at the time of the AFD (Nigeria's BJK cup team was only founded this year), and she didn't play in any of the matches Nigeria have played [4], so she still fails NTENNIS until she actually plays a competitve match for her team but GNG was shown at the AFD. My point is that the very top tennis players from most countries usually do meet GNG, and the simplest way to identify those top players is to check whether they've played in the Davis cup or the Fed cup, which is the whole point of having these SNGs in the first place. Iffy★Chat -- 12:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
        • And the above discussion actually shows that it is a largely inadequate way, so it should be removed.Tvx1 21:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment My understanding is that they had to have played in the main tournament and not in one of the lower divisions in order to meet the criteria, something none of the players suggested as non-notable in this discussion have done. If this is not the case already, it should be, but my understanding is that it is. Smartyllama (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove Yet another example of sports SNG that sets the bar ridiculously low as claiming that sportspeople are notable just for having made an unremarkable appearance in some competition. The reality with this criteria is that players meeting the GNG will already meet one of the other criteria and those who don't meet any of the other but just this one do not meet GNG. Thus the only right decision is to remove it.Tvx1 21:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove If the presumption of coverage does not exist in reality, we should remove the presumption. --Enos733 (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove to increase the ludicrously low bar of sports notability. MER-C 18:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a clear near-unanimous consensus for removal here, so I've gone ahead and done that; although I'm not sure whether the other competitions listed (Hopman Cup and World Team Cup) should be removed too (those at least seem to be limited to a few teams). @Fram, Jayron32, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Wjemather, Iffy, Tvx1, Smartyllama, Enos733, and MER-C: Any opinions on that too? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
    • No, there isn't a clear consensus here. If you want a clear consensus, open an RFC and get the whole community's view on this rather than just those who have this page watchlisted. Most of the Remove arguments above assume that Fram's assertion that [I]t looks as if for many players, having played in these cups doesn't really guarantee sufficient coverage at all. is true, or that this is [An] example of [a] sports SNG that sets the bar ridiculously low. I have disputed both of these points and do not see what the counterargument is. Iffy★Chat -- 16:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Your assertions that there is no counter-argument seems blatantly incorrect, especially given you appear to even have responded to at least some of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - I just now noticed this. It would have been nice to let those at Tennis Project know about this. Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cups are the foremost international team events on the ITF calendar. ITF... the foremost governing body of tennis. Players have intentionally dropped out of Wimbledon if it could affect their play in Davis Cup. Every country's tennis association that participates picks their best players, not their worst players, to represent the nation. There may be a few that shouldn't be notable, but that doesn't mean mean with throw out the baby with the bathwater. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously this discussion pertains to the Tennis WikiProject, but no sort of notification was given. As a result, there is a significant bias from having mostly non-tennis editors lead the discussion, while leaving out many tennis editors. Also, Jordi Trilla Clanchet and Arney Jóhannesdóttir don't have articles, so I don't see how bringing them up supports the idea that this criteria has been used to allow articles for Davis Cup and BJK Cup players who don't warrant them. If that were true, Clanchet and Jóhannesdóttir would have articles, but they don't. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
    But the fact is they could exist under this criteria, despite not meeting GNG. Given there are multiple examples, obviously this SNG needs to be tightened up at least a wee bit (to only include the top level, or not at all since players who get there are usually already redundantly covered elsewhere)? Your and Fyunck's comments do not in any way address this, simply claiming that these players have some form of inherent notability (wrong, WP:NRVE) - if you can't provide evidence that players who meet the criteria are almost certain to be kept per GNG, then you're just asserting that they're notable without providing evidence, i.e. WP:JUSTNOTABLE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep but limit to main tournament. There are a number of sports SNGs that need tightening. That's a given. However, the appropriate remedy here would appear to be the middle ground suggested above by User:Smartyllama -- i.e., clarifying that the presumption applies only to playing in the main tournament and not in one of the lower divisions (where the non-notables get weeded out). Cbl62 (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    So you would look at the non-main events as more of a play-in match? Countries that have no real chance of playing in the main event? And if one of those no-chancers does make it in then they are covered by notability given to the main event, which includes the 16 top nations. I could get onboard with this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I think you have accurately captured what User:Smartyllama had in mind, and it makes sense. This sub-guideline needs to be narrowed/refined but not abandoned. Cbl62 (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion of closure

  • This closure is being challenged... 8-6 with no other explanation is almost always no-consensus to change when you've had longstanding rules. Plus narowing the focas might have been gaining traction. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    It's WP:!VOTE, and the close didn't say it was based purely off of a count. However, it's fair if you would like a more detailed explanation (which I see you have already posted on the closer's talk).—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    It's not a vote, but you would be hard pressed to see something close by consensus 8-6 when it has longstanding precedent. This was something that either needed more discussion or should have been closed as no consensus. It also was not mentioned to those at wikipedia Tennis Project until the very end. This needs a formal looksee into improper closing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    It would help if you could count correctly. Assuming Fram (the OP) was for removal, the count (only bolded !votes) is actually 7-4 (and some of these are conditional/partial, i.e. "only those that played in the main tournament"). And the arguments are there to match. If you don't like the close, you're free to challenge it, but there's no fault with the close of the discussion as it stands. You're free to make a new RfC if you think this one was not good enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    LOL... I have to agree that counting would certainly help me. I was looking at three of these types of closings and mixed up two of them them. Thanks. I still feel that with a major interested party (Tennis Project) not being informed till near the end, the resulting close should never have happened without more time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Fyunck(click)@Bagumba I am joining in this fight, too. I can't believe I did not get to vote in time. But no problem. A new proposal is certainly in order. Either that or I will reopen the discussion myself. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this should be reopened. I'd only come across the notice on WP:Tennis two days before the close and hadn't yet gotten around to voting. Figured there would be more time allowed as the project had only just been informed and discussion of a possible compromise solution was progressing. With this in mind the closure seemed abrupt Jevansen (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment from closer I have replied to the request on my talk page, and I'll recapitulate my points here.

The key thing about this discussion was the relation between WP:GNG and WP:SNGs. There was for instance Jayron32's comment that If a criteria does not reliably indicate that a person has almost certainly received significant writing about their lives in reliable sources (beyond trivial mentions) then it isn't serving as a proper criteria for an SNG. This formed the main argument for removal; Fram likewise remarked that it looks as if for many players, having played in these cups doesn't really guarantee sufficient coverage at all in their opening argument, RandomCanadian said The SNG is not adequate, since it does not adequately act as a reliable indicator of meeting GNG (that is the only and single purpose of an SNG - it's not an alternative to GNG)., and Tvx1 made the somewhat more specific argument that players meeting the GNG will already meet one of the other criteria and those who don't meet any of the other but just this one do not meet GNG.

Considering that WP:NSPORT does indeed say The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline., I determined that argument to hold a lot of weight. I consequently expected the editors who favoured keeping the status quo to rebut that argument. The only real attempt at doing so came from Iffy, who said The players who play in the Davis/Fed cup are usually the best in the country and receive significant local coverage, to the point that even the top players from countries that don't play in the Davis/Fed cup meet GNG (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Adegoke). The small number of possible exceptions found so far don't justify gutting or removing the SNG. and the very top tennis players from most countries usually do meet GNG, and the simplest way to identify those top players is to check whether they've played in the Davis cup or the Fed cup, which is the whole point of having these SNGs in the first place. I found that to be a comparatively weak counterargument, relying fairly heavily on generalizations and qualifiers ("most", "usually").
I noted that nobody seemed to dispute the first half of Tvx1's argument: players meeting the GNG will already meet one of the other criteria (and Joseph2302 made basically the same point: Most notable tennis players will satisfy one of the other criteria anyway.). This is not an argument for removal in itself, but it does weaken arguments for keeping "to be on the safe side" (such as Fyunck(click)'s comment There may be a few that shouldn't be notable, but that doesn't mean mean with throw out the baby with the bathwater.). The second half—those who don't meet any of the other but just this one do not meet GNG—is both an argument for removal and something that weakens arguments for keeping "to be on the safe side", but it seems like Iffy disputes this part of the argument (even if the part about not meeting any other criteria was not explicitly specified, it seems likely enough that that's what they meant that I can't say that it's undisputed).
Otherwise, arguments for keeping were mostly assertions that the people who have played in these cups are notable because they have played in them (e.g. Pharaoh of the Wizards's comment Now International players in any sport playing official matches are notable.), which is not a counterargument against the main argument for removal at all.

The possibility of restricting the criteria for presuming notability to some specified subset of those who have played in these cups was raised (specifically, the suggestion was to restrict it to those who have played in the main tournament), but this was not sufficiently discussed for consensus to emerge either for or against it. It does however seem likely that consensus would emerge one way or the other if this were to be discussed separately, rather than as a part of this discussion.

The discussion was opened on 31 August. The consensus was correctly interpreted and implemented by RandomCanadian on 6 October, when there had been no new comments since 23 September. That was entirely proper even though they were involved in the discussion; the discussion had come to a natural conclusion and the consensus was clear. That was however quickly reverted, a WP:Closure request was posted, and a notice was added to WT:TENNIS. Then, three new editors joined the discussion within a few hours of each other. None of these editors addressed the core argument made in favour of removal—not predicting meeting WP:GNG strongly enough—and their contributions consequently did not materially affect the consensus.

I have no personal opinion on this particular WP:SNG, but the WP:CONSENSUS based on the strength of the arguments was clear. If anyone thinks wider community input is necessary, I have no opinion on that either. But I also don't think that is an issue with how or when the discussion was closed. When I closed the discussion, no new editors had joined the discussion in roughly three and a half days (and the last ones who joined did so very shortly after the notice was posted to WT:TENNIS) and there had been no new comments at all for over 60 hours. I saw no reason to expect any significant influx of additional editors or arguments. TompaDompa (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  • For my part, nothing here violated WP:Closure request, which explicitly states that non-admin may make such closes, and that closes where head counts are close should include detailed reasoning for the same. This was followed. I agree that notifying the tennis Wikiproject would've been courteous, but not required (nor, of course, should they get vetoes) ... and c'mon, folks: Wikiproject members had nearly a month and a half to comment, and we're not required to hold discussions open indefinitely until they got around to it.

    Beyond that, the Keep arguments were more threadbare than in most such discussions. All international players are notable, even from micronations? Did people really look for sources? The discussion's biased because most of the participants are "non-tennis editors?" (Says who? quite aside from that I'd proffer that a discussion dominated by editors without a direct stake would be less biased.) Countries pick their best players for these competitions? (Stipulating so, so what?) Ravenswing 07:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

    • What a ridiculous comment. I replied in less than two hours. There were three comments from Wikiproject members opposing this proposal in less than a day. It didn't take a month and a half to reply. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • If the only objection is "people were not notified", and "people did not have time to offer their opinion" (despite this having been open nearly a month a half; and despite no new comments in more than 48 hours before the close, which is certainly enough time if somebody had something significant to add), that doesn't seem convincing. Wikiproject members don't have a right of veto or extra weight (WP:OWN), either, unless their arguments can convince the broader community (which they do not appear to have done here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Who said anything about extra weight? Usually, when something that would fundamentally change a guideline comes up, the Project that helped create that guideline in the first place would be notified. They didn't have the luxury of a month and a half, and people do take vacations. All I asked was to re-open this for a couple more weeks. Especially since the close was a quite strange "consensus" which is very dubious. Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup are the premier team events in tennis.... important enough that players would skip a major tournament if they got in the way of preparation. The NSPORT tennis guideline was pretty much created in August of 2010. A small one was there but it was created by someone who knew nothing about tennis. NSPORT then brought in people from the tennis project to craft essentially what we have today. I guess that same curtesy doesn't exist 11 years later? And a 7-4 vote can change 11 years of relatively stress-free compliance? Something just isn't right with this closure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
          • "People do take vacations?" Sure, but what's your excuse? You made continual edits to Wikipedia every day this discussion was open. Sportsfan77777 didn't hit every day, but likewise was continually posting all five weeks of the discussion. Cbl62 took a day off, and otherwise racked up a pretty awesome 3000+ edits in that time. Ravenswing 18:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
        • If the only objection is "people were not notified"... That is not the objection. The objection is that no opportunity was given to discuss the most recent comments. Three days is not adequate time to close a discussion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • What a ridiculous response. This discussion was opened August 31st. Sportsfan77777's first comment was posted in OCTOBER. That's rather longer than two hours. If you can't be bothered to monitor the talk page associated with a notability guideline, that's your lookout, but kindly don't insult our intelligence. RandomCanadian is right that you do not own this guideline, your personal approval is not required to change it, and the clock on the discussion didn't start only when you first noticed it. Ravenswing 17:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Ravenswing, I was notified on October 6th and replied on October 6th. Same for Fyunck. Cbl replied on October 7. By the time I came back, I saw RandomCanadian's comment, but the discussion was already closed. If you want me to reply, just tag me. That's certainly not on you. Fram is at fault for starting the discussion without notifying interested parties. At least RandomCanadian tried to notify other participants before submitting a closure request. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I never claimed any ownership. If there is clear consensus to remove the SNG, then remove it. (But if you read the above discussion, that certainly is not the case.) On the other hand, you seem to be asserting that whoever monitors this talk page owns all of the SNGs. Not much surprise there if you're one of them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm certainly asserting that if you want input generally on the NSPORTS guidelines, following the NSPORTS talk page is axiomatic, and that no one is under any onus to chase you down to notify you of discussions. I am also asserting that as per WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote" and "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." I likewise assert that the Keep arguments made in the discussion were surprisingly weak and threadbare, and went to some lengths to avoid actually addressing the core issue at hand: did the SNG reflect (or not) whether players who met its criteria were highly likely to meet the GNG? Ravenswing 21:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
            • If it's not standard practice to notify the relevant WikiProjects for every discussion, then it certainly should be. Obviously, there are lots of editors who are not going to follow this page because they are only interested in no more than one or a few sports. I've been editing for more than five years, and the WP:NTENNIS guidelines have never changed until now, so what is there to follow here? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
              • Your final sentence is one of the most egregious appeals to tradition I have seen, and it is of course an entirely fallacious and unpersuasive argument (especially considering the fact that many SNGs which were similarly "left unchanged for X time" have been challenged recently...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
                • Well, how would I know a lot of SNGs which were similarly "left unchanged for X time" have been challenged recently if I don't follow this page? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
                  • Whether you knew it or not (its an easily verifiable fact from the archives; and from the very large section preceding about the Olympics, of all things), it does not change that you should try not to make such obvious informal fallacies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
                    • What fallacy? You're saying I should have been watching this page before this discussion occurred because of all of the recent changes to SNGs. But how would I know about those recent changes if I'm not watching this page? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
                      • You're right: you wouldn't know about these recent changes if you weren't following the page, and you're the best judge as to whether following this page is something that interests you or not. None of us gets to tell you how you ought to spend your time here. But the bottom line is surprisingly simple: decisions are made by the people who show up. If you want input on these SNGs, you follow this page. If you don't want to bother to follow this page, you're not up on potential changes to the SNGs. You've got better things to do with your time than follow this page? Hey, you do you. Me, I've got better things to do with my time than be your personal assistant. Ravenswing 05:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
                        • A relevant quote I found in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Archive 10#Project Goals (from 2012): "I don't think that it's worth creating an article for every notable tennis player. Since every player who represented his country in Davis cup is notable I could name some guys who are notable even though they couldn't be called professional tennis players. There wouldn't be anything to write about them, no articles, even finding some basic information could be difficult. I think that we can have different criteria for players who may have an article on WP and for players who should have one.". It was decided that making an article for every "notable" player given the Fed/Davis Cup SNG thus wouldn't be a project goal ... that about says it all. Sod25 (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
                          • Sod25, this discussion is closed. We are discussing the closure, not the proposal. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
                            You indented my comment to be part of this discussion [5], when it was intended to be a standalone addition of context. I agree WP:Tennis should have been notified earlier as it's not particularly fair to expect editors to watch a heavily edited guideline talk page that is only relevant to their subject of interest once every few years. I think the closure is sound here based on the arguments presented from those who did show up, but that a more restricted subset of Fed/Davis Cup players could be proposed as a "new" SNG. Sod25 (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
              • I would actually disagree with this; I find that notifying specific projects to be problematic. It does have some benefits, such as allowing those more knowledgeable on the topic to contribute, but it can also function as canvassing, and though the intent is rarely there, the intent is not what makes canvassing problematic.
As a side note, you mention that this was added after a WP:TENNIS discussion some ten years back. Was this a broad RfC, or simply a discussion within WP:TENNIS? BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This particular notability guideline is really solely in the hands of the Tennis Project. As mentioned by other Tennis members, those tournaments are indeed notable within the Tennis realm. If members of the Tennis Project (including myself) are unitedly opposed to this, why on earth would anyone continue forward.
  • The closer was not valid...
  • and the vote by non-tennis people was not valid.
- Mjquinn_id (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Mjquinn id, you are quite plainly wrong. Wikiprojects don't WP:OWN guidelines related to them. In fact, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS clearly says that if guidelines of a Wikiproject conflict with broader community consensus, the broader community is quite naturally given priority. Dismissing this as being "non-tennis people" is an entirely fallacious argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
If anything, Mjquinn id, RandomCanadian's response is on the mild side. Editors are not required to jump through hoops in order to make their opinions known, and there is not a single SNG on Wikipedia immune from being explainable to their satisfaction, whether they are knowledgeable on the subject or not. In this particular case, what about an assertion that mere participation in Davis/Fed Cup play is an insufficient guide to meeting the GNG do you claim is incomprehensible to "non-tennis" editors? Ravenswing 21:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
These Tennis competitions are by national teams. They represent Nations competing against each other. Is there ANY sport where participating in a "World" competition representing your nation is NOT notable? Why would these competitions be any less notable than the Olympics? Do we NOT recognize the lower level group competitions in the World Cup? Or anyone that participates in them? Is Wikipedia a place where we say, "You are not notable for your effort or commitment to your country because you did not win"? Or are you saying because it is Tennis...and you don't think that sport is "not notable". Seriously, would you delete an NFL player because he only played on one game? A baseball player that only played on one game?
I will use a different forum to talk about the lack of respect by "superior" editors to a group of editors that have made a specific long-term commitment to a topic. Seriously, would you tell the Medicine project that they have NO RIGHT to manage what is notable to their project? What on earth makes you think they would respect your non-medical opinion from outside the project? Frankly, I would be disappointed if they did. - Mjquinn_id (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
As long as you address your lack of respect for the facts, feel free. No one has been told they have "NO RIGHT" to have input on anything. What has in fact been stated -- and what is in fact Wikipedia policy -- is that no editor or group of editors has any manner of dominion over, or veto concerning, any notability standard, and you have been around Wikipedia quite long enough not to be ignorant of that fact. Part of the reason for this is practical -- if you choose to use me as an example, neither you nor the medical-oriented Wikiproject/s have any idea whatsoever about my professional qualifications (or lack thereof) to judge medical topics. All you know is that I'm not an active participant in such Wikiprojects.

That's not unusual, I'm sure -- of the 113 articles I've created, only ONE has been in my area of professional expertise, and no doubt the great number of editors prefer not to bring their workplaces to Wikipedia. In like fashion, the editors in those Wikiprojects have not been required to prove their credentials in order to edit those articles. Never mind that the result would be utter disaster. Would you go on to claim that a registered nurse's opinion trumps a paramedic's? That a MD can veto a nurse? Well, THAT doctor has her degree from a more prestigious institution, so STFU. Oh yeah? Well, THAT doctor has a Wikipedia article himself, so HE gets more say ... (Sure, that doctor's a podiatrist in Milwaukee, and has a Wikipedia article because he was a pro tennis player at one point, but sure, he gets to have a veto over articles dealing with tropical diseases ...)

The main reason is this, though. We are not a consecrated elite here. Notability standards are, and should be, broadly comprehensible to editors. Your inference that there is something about the question "Do these players, generally speaking, meet the GNG" that requires such a consecrated elite to understand is at the level best peculiar. I recommend you ditch it. We are required to treat fellow editors with civility. We are not required to pay any group of editors deference. Ravenswing 21:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "broad rfc". There weren't usually broad rfc's to determine this notability article. There weren't many rfc's at all. Even Wikipedia MOS was done that way. It was discussed here if I recall correctly, not tennis project. The original was written by someone who barely knew tennis existed so editors from Wikiproject Tennis and editors who were very knowledgeable in tennis were asked for the re-write. Many sports here at NSPORT were done this way. Having editors who were proficient in a specific field was not such a dirty word 10 years ago, where now it seems like some think it's a sin. I do not find notifying projects problematic at all but rather good will and good advice from those who know a subject really well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The guidelines were added to WP:Notability (sports) in this edit based off the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 5#for tennis players. They were copied to WP:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines about six months later [6]. Sod25 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that.... it's about what I remember. While the Tennis project team was instrumental in forming the guideline we were slow in fixing our own guidelines so we could practice what we preach. Our guidelines were undergoing a lot of changes in those days. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Eh, you don't need to have that happen to have guidelines updated a fair bit. I made a critical error in drafting the original NHOCKEY guideline: I presumed that editors would apply common sense in good faith, and not try to game the system to buff up their article creation tallies. That proved to be terribly naive. We've tightened and revised the guideline a dozen times since. Ravenswing 21:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok. We have tweaked our guidelines at Tennis Project several times. We haven't made any critical errors as far as I can see, and we didn't go into it with naivety or try to game the system. Most of our changes have to do with accessibility guidelines and clarifications. Could Davis Cup notability be tweaked in our guidelines... sure it could and we are looking at it. Could it be eliminated from notability... no chance of that as that would not be applying common sense to the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
(points back up at the close result) Ravenswing 05:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
(points back up to common sense) Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:Common sense is not common. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Claims of "common sense" don't impress me. Only one thing here would: your evidence that participation in these Cups proves to be a reliable indicator of a player's ability to meet the GNG. Have you any? Simply parroting "It's important" wasn't remotely good enough when it came to the close, and it is not remotely enough now. No one here is asserting that the Davis Cup isn't a notable competition, but notability isn't transitive. Ravenswing 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Reopen this should have been framed as an WP:RFC regardless of the arguments given Atlantic306 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse with no prejudice against a new discussion. This one has run its course, and WP:NOTBURO and established precedent usually has it that bureaucratic mistakes are not sufficient to overturn the result of a discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse: This was framed no differently than any other discussion on this talk page for regulating/altering the SNGs listed on the project page. That a number of editors dislike the result is apparent; what is far less apparent is what policy supports their claims that it was done improperly. Ravenswing 04:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
See WP:RFC, if something is done wrong once it shouldn't become a pattern. It's obvious from the comments above that editors in the topic area were not aware of this discussion which is a problem regardless of the arguments and adhom remarks, Atlantic306 (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It's obvious, in fact, that several of the editors were MADE aware of the discussion, had a few days to make their opinions known, and did so. What, in fact, do you claim was "done wrong" here? That the closer didn't (against stated policy) rule exclusively on head count? That the discussion wasn't held open for several months? That (as no policy in fact requires) participants in the tennis Wikiproject didn't receive personal invitations?

For my part, I'm not at all a fan of pettifogging and bureaucracy for the sake of pettifogging and bureaucracy. Despite my firm stance that the close was done in accordance with relevant policy, I'd flip my position at once were the antis to present genuine evidence that the decision was wrong. They can do that through presenting evidence that participation in these tournaments is a highly likely indicator that all such participants can meet the GNG. Seeing as every Wikiproject should be prepared to defend their criteria with such evidence as a matter of course, this shouldn't be a hardship. Ravenswing 04:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse. The explanation from the closer as to weight of argument is a reasonable and entirely defensible one. "I didn't know the discussion was happening" is not a valid reason to overturn a close, nor should notification of a Wikiproject be required to do—well, really anything; Wikiprojects hold no special authority at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Motorsport

A discussion has taken place at WikiProject Motorsport regarding the notability guidelines for motorsport figures, with discussions so far having led to this proposal:

  1. Drivers or riders who have qualified for any of the following events:
  2. Drivers or riders who have competed for at least one full season in any of the following series:
  3. Drivers or riders who have finished on the overall podium of any of the following events:
  4. Drivers, riders, or co-drivers who have won any of the following events overall:
  5. Drivers or riders who have won any of the following championship titles:
    • The overall championship title of any series in the previous category without winning a race (a relatively common occurrence in series whose points-scoring systems favour consistent finishes over inconsistent victories).
    • A major championship in which a large number of the competitors are amateur "gentleman" drivers or privateers, such as the European Le Mans Series, Intercontinental GT Challenge, or European Rally Championship.
  6. Any driver who does not meet the previous criteria who has received an FIA platinum driver categorisation can be presumed notable. Drivers who have received an FIA gold driver categorisation are likely to be notable, although a minority of drivers in this group may not meet the general notability guideline.
  7. Have owned or been team principal for a team in a major racing series (Formula One, the World Rally Championship, MotoGP, Formula E, Indycar, DTM, Super GT, the Nascar Cup Series, V8 Supercars, CART, or top-level IMSA) for a full season or more. This includes Cup Series crew chiefs.
  8. Have been enshrined in any notable motorsports hall of fame.
  9. Hold or have held a significant motorsports record, such as a land speed record.

Obviously further comments or recommendations here are welcome if anybody has them. There seems to be something of a consensus that the current guidelines are too vague and potentially include too many individuals who would not pass the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My full support. It highlights WP:GNG, yet offers a clean and easy to understand criteria (I feel like the current iteration is at certain points either very vague and leaves too much for subjective interpretation, or too inclusive). Though, like mentioned above, "primarily-professional single-class series of significant international importance" is still going to need a list similar to the WikiProject Football one. You should definitely open a RFC for this, so we could have a wider pool of opinions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the current criteria would be reasonable enough as a stopgap until such a list could be created. One of the early concerns raised during the Wikiproject discussion was the use of the Trans-Am Series as an example of a series which competing in indicates notability, which from what I can tell is the result of Sports Car Club of America definitions of "professionalism" getting applied somewhat literally to the criteria. I would hope that it's relatively apparent that the British Touring Car Championship or Super GT (generally the most prominent national racing series in the UK and Japan) are a step above Trans-Am in terms of notability (Trans-Am at absolute minimum falls behind the three national Nascar series, Indycar, and the IMSA Sportscar Championship in terms of prominence in the US). Such a Wikiproject-maintained list would be useful however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Definitely support this proposal.
5225C (talk • contributions) 05:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I participated in that discussion (linked here for those who might like to read it) and while I do still see issues with it, it is an improvement by such a degree on what we currently have that I think it should be implemented. The key is that very few if any people not meeting GNG would meet these new guidelines but that is not the case with the old/current ones. Minor details can be dealt with later (in particular I feel the reliance on "championships" would exclude a lot of older drivers who do meet GNG but if they do meet GNG there's no issue anyway!). A7V2 (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    Championships are more useful for establishing long-term notability beyond WP:ONEEVENT (although I do think that winning a minor championship still counts as a case of somebody being notable only for one event). I agree that these criteria could be improved, especially if a Wikiproject maintained list of events and series was created, as has already been proposed. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
But what is a championship? It is ultimately just a series of races, and no doubt the top F1/GP drivers would still be notable without a championship existing. To quote Peter Higham's Formula 1: Car By Car: "...the specialist press seemed more interested in the Grand Prix of Europe courtesy title awarded in the build-up to that inaugural race" (as opposed to the 1950 British GP being the first world championship race). Of course a driver who participated in say, one pre-war Grand Prix is unlikely to be notable, but a driver who participated in (arbitrary number) even without being on the podium probably is. But having read some of the other discussions on this talk page, I think the standard must be reliably indicating notability. I think what we have here reliably indicates notability if met, but it must be understood (and I'm not suggesting this isn't the case) that not meeting these requirements doesn't automatically indicate non-notability. A7V2 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
"but it must be understood ... that not meeting these requirements doesn't automatically indicate non-notability" - this is already understood as the same is true for any of the criteria listed on WP:N ("A topic is presumed to merit an article if", emphasis on "presumed" is mine). The lead of this section is also very clear: "failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb" SSSB (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
But that's exactly my point. I've never seen a motorsports biography deleted where I thought they shouldn't have been, but reading some of the other discussions on this talk page some users claim (correctly or not) that articles are sometimes deleted, and are often nominated, for failing to meet the criteria on this page for other sports where the person does meet GNG. But as you say they are not meant to be used in that way. They are supposed to be a definite indicator of notability (meeting GNG) and that is what this proposal does. Very few would meet these criteria without also meeting GNG (which cannot be said for the existing criteria) and so I support this change. A7V2 (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Updating broader guidelines with NSPORTS in reference to the changed Olympic guidelines

PROCEDURAL
There's a clear sentiment that this should be procedurally closed (probably per WP:TRAINWRECK). There's already signs that some criteria would likely be removed, others maybe not, ... Better if each is treated individually (since each sport is, after all, different). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Now that we have reduced the scope of WP:NOLYMPICS to medallists only we find that specific guidelines like WP:NTRIATHLON are no longer aligned, saying "Have competed in Triathlon at the Summer Olympics or have had a podium finish at the Commonwealth Games.", emphasis mine.

Now, it may be relevant to mention that this was apparently added without consensus in June 2010, as I was unable to find any relevant discussion about this. (Based on what I have found I suspect this lack of consensus for aspects of these guidelines extends further, such as to cycling, but that is a discussion for elsewhere).

As such, I propose that we make the following changes to ensure that the other aspects of NSPORTS match the consensus agreed above; while I believe these to be non-controversial changes on that basis I wanted to discuss them briefly here first.

  • Association football: Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA, or the Olympic Games. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria. → Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  • Athletics/track & field and long-distance running: Have competed in the Olympics, the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Cross Country Championships, or the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships (former IAAF World Road Running Championships). → Have competed in the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Cross Country Championships, or the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships (former IAAF World Road Running Championships).
  • Badminton: Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships → Participation at the World Championships
  • Baseball: Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup, or Olympics) as a member of a national team. → Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup, but excluding the Olympics) as a member of a national team.
  • Cycling (x2): Has competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup → Has competed at the UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup
  • Equestrian sport: Have participated at the Olympic Equestrian Events as a rider or official team coach → Have participated at the Olympic Equestrian Events as an official team coach & Have participated at the Paralympics as a rider, driver, or official team coach → Have participated at the Paralympics as an official team coach
  • Figure Skating: Have competed at an Olympics or at an ISU senior World Figure Skating Championships (Competing in a world championship qualifying round does not guarantee notability.) → Have competed at an ISU senior World Figure Skating Championships (Competing in a world championship qualifying round does not guarantee notability.)
  • Gymnastics: Competed at the Summer Olympics or World Championships → Competed at the World Championships
  • Rugby Union: A team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, World Rugby Sevens Series, Commonwealth Games, Olympics, or → A team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, World Rugby Sevens Series, Commonwealth Games, or
  • Triathlon: Have competed in Triathlon at the Summer Olympics or have had a podium finish at the Commonwealth Games. → Have had a podium finish at the Commonwealth Games or Olympic Games

Many of these result in some interesting inconsistencies, such as athletes being notable for competing in Olympic trials for Curling, when they wouldn't for actually competing in the Olympics, but I think that it would go beyond the scope of the above discussion to correct that. BilledMammal (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Canadian curling, it's a result of the extensive coverage the sport receives in Canada. Most participants in the Canadian Olympic trials have already participated in other bonspiels listed in the criteria, so the criterion is only relevant for a small number of curlers. isaacl (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
... is only relevant for a small number of curlers: The policy WP:NOTBURO seems relevant. If it's only applicble to a few, it seems reasonable to just fall back on WP:NSPORTSWP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
By "fall back on WP:NSPORTS", do you mean fall back on the other criteria listed in the curling-specific notability guideline? Participation in the Canadian curling Olympic trials is a highly-accurate predictor of the existence of suitable coverage satisfying the general notability guideline. "Small" was just a quick, subjective evaluation; I'd have to do more ground work to figure out if the overlap with other curling-specific criteria was sufficiently big such that the criterion was largely redundant. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Oops, I meant fall back on GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I would be opposed to making blanket changes like this, though I am open to changing individual ones following discussion. Many participants noted, and the closure mentioned, that merely participating in the Olympics may be sufficient for some sports even if it isn't for all. The closure also explicitly stated it should just affect NOLYMPICS and not any individual sports guidelines, which it explicitly noted there was no consensus to change. Therefore I would oppose mass changes on the sole ground that NOLYMPICS was changed, since the closure explicitly said that shouldn't happen, but if anyone has an argument as to why any guideline in particular should be changed, I'm open to hearing it. I would suggest withdrawing this discussion and instead opening up individual discussions on specific guidelines with specific proposals for how to change it if people feel they should be changed for some reason other than the change to NOLYMPICS. Smartyllama (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Mikehawk10: in case they want to comment on their closure and if I am interpreting it correctly. Smartyllama (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd support changing the association football criteria as outlined above. It will only affect male players (as women's Olympic football is full age teams and therefore AFAIK, all matches are tier 1 internationals) and I don't think it would be a big loss to have some amateur or U23 players cut out of the criteria. Cheers, Number 57 13:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    I have no objection to this but if we're going to be discussing individual sports rather than blanket changes, I think it's procedurally best to close this and open a separate discussion rather than create a mess where we're trying to separately discuss about 12 guidelines in the same place. Smartyllama (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose per Smartyllama - each sport needs to be discussed separately, otherwise this discussion will soon turn into carnage. GiantSnowman 13:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it does not make any sense to me. If the criterion was saying "notable if competed at the Olympics or the world championship" the amended criterion should say "notable if medaled at the Olympics or the world championship" not "notable if medaled at the Olympics or competeted at the world championship". This does not apply to association football where Olympics is not a major competition, but should apply pretty much to every other sport.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    And, indeed, it should be discussed individually per sport.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose all of these sports need to be discussed separately. For association football, it seems sensible (as men's football at Olympics is under-23, women's is Tier 1 International so already covered), but other sports need a proper rework. How can someone who finishes 4th in an Olympic event be non-notable, yet anyone who competes in a World Championship (which is a lower standard event) be presumed notable? This is why I suggested looking at all the sports criteria before bludgeoning the Olympic criteria (which certainly wasn't the most accommodating criteria out there). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • To further my point, just removing Olympics from all of them makes no sense, at least include "has won a medal at the Olympics or..." But do it project by project. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose per above, different sports should be looked at differently.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, we have just established that participating in the Olympic Games is in general not by itself an indicator of notability. While further cleanup will be necessary, this is a reasonable first step. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bowling

Hello, there's no guideline right now for bowling (i.e. Ten-pin bowling). This is a widely-televised sport that gains significant coverage, at least equivalent to several other sports with a specific guideline, so I feel it should be added.

Below is a suggested framework that I feel would work:

Bowling figures are presumed to be notable if they:
  1. Are a member of the PBA Hall of Fame or PWBA Hall of Fame
  2. Have won at least one title on the PBA or PWBA Tour
  3. Have reached the televised finals or stepladder of any televised PBA Tour event
  4. Have competed in the Weber Cup or PBA League

This is an easy-to-follow guideline for those with a working understanding of professional bowling. The "televised finals or stepladder" is usually the top five of any given event significant enough to be broadcast on television. This is a stage only reached by top bowlers who are thus afforded significant coverage, the majority of professional bowlers never reach this stage. The Weber Cup is an international event and constitutes selection for either Team USA or Team Europe, akin to the Ryder Cup in golf. The PBA League is the team competition.

Would this guideline work for everyone else? I feel it covers all of the important bases without qualifying many minor players for articles (as just entering a competition is not enough, a player must make the important stages). This makes it stricter than a sport such as, for example, tennis, as only top or otherwise long-established players will qualify. It also excludes the winners of events on minor tours, so it should work for preventing vanity articles. KaisaL (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps my initial suggestion was a little too generous. I feel that expanding the Hall of Fame point to include any significant Hall of Fame would be fair, but I'm not sure how to best word that. KaisaL (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems that the proposed guideline is almost entirely focused on professional bowling in the United States. A look at Category:Ten-pin bowling players turns up 252 articles, with just over half being American. To me it seems that 1 and 2 are perhaps reasonable. https://archive.md/20130411145220/http://news.pba.com/page/All-Time-PBA-Tour-Titlists.aspx has a list of PBA Tour winners. I'm more doubtful about 3 and 4. For one thing I find the term "televised" somewhat ambiguous in the modern internet world. Also I'm not keen on a phrase like "Have competed in" unless there's good evidence that the event is at a high-enough level in the sport. Personally I'd have thought that is would be more useful to improve many of the articles first, like PBA League which currently doesn't give any indication that playing in it is notable Nigej (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that ten-pin bowling is noteworthy enough to merit a guideline, but like RandomCanadian, I'm curious about what legwork's been done to verify that those who meet these proposed criteria will meet the GNG. Ravenswing 08:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Number one seems reasonable (although I assume you mean Professional Bowlers Association half of fame, as that link goes to something completely different). Number two seems reasonable, but I don't see how just competing in events gets sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG, as bowling is a niche sport. I doubt that most people in any PBA Tour event would have significant coverage, so wouldn't support points 3 or 4. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • NB The faulty link is my mistake, not the author's. Nigej (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I planned earlier this year to create some articles on women's bowling. I ended up creating PWBA Hall of Fame, Dotty Fothergill, and Shirley Garms. I found that coverage of women's bowling was sparse (more common actually in the 1960s and 1970s) and that WP:SIGCOV was easily found only for the truly legendary players. Finding the coverage wanting, I did not move forward with my plan to create more women bowler articles. (As with other sports, coverage of men's bowling was more common.) Accordingly, it strikes me that a guideline that presumes notability for anyone who participated in a professional tournament (men's and women's) is a significant overreach. If we wanted to create a guideline, I'd suggest limiting it to Hall of Fame inductees and bowlers who have won one of the "major" tournaments. The "majors" have shifted over the years, so it would require some legwork to compile a historic list of those events. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
A further note. The various bowling halls of fame include large numbers of inductees who contributed to the sport as administrators and such. For example, the United States Bowling Congress Hall of Fame has 417 inductees, and only 217 were inducted for superior performance as bowlers. Another 118 were inducted for "meritorious service". I seriously doubt there is much SIGCOV for the great majority of the "meritorious service" inductees. I'd suggest limiting the presumption of notability to those inducted to the halls "as bowlers". Cbl62 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Or, if such halls of fame are so overbloated (417???), they're obviously suspect at best as an indicator of notability: drop them from any proposal altogether. Ravenswing 22:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The USBCHOF appears to be particularly bloated. On the other hand, the PWBA Hall of Fame (the women's hall) is pretty tight, limited to about 50 inductees so far. The Professional Bowlers Association#Hall of Fame also appears fairly tight (54 for performance, 35 for "meritorious service"); as noted, I have doubts about "meritorious service" inductees. I'd suggest limiting any SNG to (a) the latter two Halls and further limit to those who were inducted "as bowlers" rather than as administrators and other "meritorious service" types, and (b) bowlers who have won at least one major tournament.
Do the ~50 + 54 bowlers in question meet the general notability guideline? isaacl (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
That seems fair, to limit it to bowlers, anyone else would then have to qualify on the GNG. KaisaL (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Having read the comments I'm inclined to agree that the initial suggestion was a little too generous. However, I am concerned that reasonable gaps could be encountered if Hall of Fame status and winning a title are the only listed criteria. One point I feel could be reasonably ported over to point two is to include winners of the PBA League, as that's essentially equivalent to winning a title anyway. I also feel there's questions on players not based on the American tour, some of those overseas tours probably don't get equivalent coverage to include all title winners, but certainly it should be a consideration. My knowledge of bowling beyond the PBA/PWBA is unfortunately fairly limited so I can't really comment further there.
With all of that said, I'm revising the original suggestion based on feedback:
Bowling figures are presumed to be notable if they:
  1. Are a member of the PBA Hall of Fame, PWBA Hall of Fame or other major bowling Hall of Fame (bowlers only)
  2. Have won at least one title on the PBA or PWBA Tour, including the PBA League
The wording of the first point is a little long-winded, and I still feel the list needs to better consider eligiblity from other bowling tours, such as the tour in Asia, but it's a more reasonable criteria at this point. KaisaL (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Bit confused as to what "winning on the ... PGA League" means, since it seems to be a team event while (I was assuming) the others are individual events. Also "other major bowling Hall of Fame" is too vague for my liking. Better to have a specific list. Nigej (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Before we create a guideline, is there any evidence that bowlers who meet the criteria listed above meet the general criteria of having sufficient reliable, independent source text to write a good article about them? Which is to say, if a bowler has, for example, "competed in the Weber Cup or PBA League" do all of those bowlers have sufficiently detailed and extensive source material we could read about to use as research for writing a Wikipedia article? If they don't, it isn't a good criteria for an SNG. The point of an SNG is to give ideas on who would already meet the GNG (which is about who can we actually write well-referenced articles about) and not meant to be an end-around for creating permanently under-referenced sub-stubs for subjects that would not meet the GNG otherwise. --Jayron32 16:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    Actually, I'm going to oppose point 2, because Professional Bowlers Association and Professional Women's Bowling Association aren't international tournaments (like the names suggests they are), and so I doubt that winning a national tournament makes you inherently notable. We shouldn't be creating US-centric guidelines for any sport, which this is doing by saying that "some subset of American bowlers are almost certainly notable, but no-one else"- this seems like a clear WP:BIAS to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    That may be actually true, however. For example, almost certainly the only league that grants presumed notability for American football is the National Football League, in the sense that players who participate in the NFL are almost certain to have sufficient source texts that we can use to build an article with. No other league of American football can likely lay claim to that. I'm not saying it is or is not true in this case, but being primarily played in one country is not, of itself, sufficient to determine whether or not sources about a subject exists. First and foremost, the actual existence of the sources are what is needed, but the SNGs, if they are to be useful, can help indicate that such sources are very likely to exist. We can't put the cart before the horse, however. If someone is claiming that membership in a league (whether it is of local, regional, national, or international level) means someone is notable enough for a Wikipedia article what that means is that we expect everyone in the league to already meet the GNG, so that we shouldn't have to check each and every one. That hasn't been established for the two American leagues, or indeed for any other league. --Jayron32 17:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • On further look, I have to oppose even the less ambitious proposal. PWBA Hall of Fame has more redlinks than blue ones (and some of the blue ones, like this one, only appear to have something from obituaries); (and can anybody give links for at least some members of the PBA one, since there is obviously no listing of them?)... This suggests the criteria would be used as a justification for writing the articles, instead of the criteria accurately reflecting a presumption of GNG (i.e. the argument here is WP:WTAF, in essence, applied to a notability guideline). Show us that those meeting the suggested criteria are likely to meet GNG (for example, by creating well sourced articles, or showing us that one is likely to find sources on them: if the respective halls of fame have websites, please link to them, so we can see if they provide biographical information about the inductees); i.e. to repeat the point by Jayron, the criteria should only be added if there are convincing reasons to believe one who meets it is "almost certain" to have sufficient sources: that is not met at this time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ice hockey update

Okay, I tried to update the guideline for college ice hockey in WP:NHOCKEY #4 here, but was reverted by User:Cassiopeia. Does anyone have any objection to this non-controversial housekeeping update? For the background here, the men's WCHA has been disbanded and is now defunct (and WP:NHOCKEY/LA has already been updated to reflect this), and all of the teams that were formerly in the WCHA are now either in the CCHA or are competing as independents, so this is really just a reorganization of leagues between WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA with no actual effectual change to the guideline itself. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I would leave out the independents. Since they don't play in an actual conference, players in them aren't eligible for any "preeminent honors" or conference top-ten career scorers ... other than All-American status or the Hobey Baker Award, which would qualify them all the same. (I expect no one could get on the top-ten NCAA career scorers' list and avoid one or the other.) Otherwise, switching to cite the CCHA makes sense. Ravenswing 10:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Right, because they aren't in a conference, the part about honors or career scorers doesn't really apply to them. I'd just hate to have some Wikilawyer come along and argue at AfD someday that an independent All-American doesn't meet the guideline because independents aren't listed there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree. Independents should be listed. Obviously some parts of that don't apply to them but others do so they should be included. It doesn't just require conference honors but national honors so frankly it should just say NCAA Division I to avoid any ambiguity but I understand people didn't like that. But my understanding is you have to be (or have been at one point per WP:NTEMP) a top-ten national goal scorer, not just top ten in your conference, and All-American is certainly a national honor, so what conference (if any) you played in is irrelevant and listing them just creates confusion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I would probably just change #4 to Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer in a conference or First or Second Team All-American) in NCAA Division I men's hockey or similar. It would allow for the independents via All-American status and state scoring is explicitly conference-based and not for the entire division. (And yes, at a minimum, WCHA should be removed and replaced by CCHA.) Yosemiter (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    There seems to be consensus to implement this in some form and nobody has commented in some time, so I have reinstated Ejgreen's language. As there isn't consensus for any particular wording to say effectively the same thing, others can refine the wording as appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Tweak to notability criteria

FYI: following discussion about the non-notability of a new article, I tweaked the discussion of notability for clarity's sake. -Reagle (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Do we have criteria for university football players?

Hi, I know this is probably not the best place to ask this question, but maybe some page watchers would have the answer from the top of their head. Do we have specific criteria for the notability of American football players who play for college or university teams? I was surprised to see that WP:NAFOOT only mentions the NFL. Have I missed something? JBchrch talk 20:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

American football players at the college/university level are covered at NCOLLATH. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, thanks a lot BeanieFan11. JBchrch talk 06:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Kickboxing, Muay Thai guidelines update request

Hello, with respect to the user(s) who wrote the Kickboxing and Muay Thai notability guidelines WP:NKICK, it is now sorely outdated and no longer corresponds with the current scene of the sports. For Muay Thai, the Lumpinee and Rajadamnern Stadium titles may be historically the most respected, but even since the early 2000s, the Siam Omnoi Stadium and mid 2000s, Channel 7 (TV7) Stadium titles have both been highly coveted[1][2][3][4]. I would like to request that both of these titles be added to the list in WP:NKICK. As for kickboxing, the One Championship and RISE titles are now the best promotional titles in the sport, alongside the K-1 and Glory titles as One Championship hosts fighters such as Superbon Banchamek and Giorgio Petrosyan as champions of the promotion and RISE hosts champions such as Tenshin Nasukawa. Thank you for considering the suggestions. PhanKS1505 (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.siamfightnews.com/lumpenee_stadium/
  2. ^ https://www.siamfightmag.com/en/the-tv7-stadium/
  3. ^ https://www.siamfightmag.com/en/the-omnoi-stadium/
  4. ^ http://www.muayfarang.com/en/omnoi-stadium/
It would be nice to have a specific proposal, showing which ones you are proposing to add and which ones you propose to delete. If you're simply adjusting the events, people will generally be quite happy. Simply adding more and more events without removing any, will not go down so well and people might want evidence that the fighters involved are highly likely to be notable. Generally such changes are best discussed on the appropriate Wikiprojects first (eg WP:KICK) before being brought here. Nigej (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Beyond Nigej's comments -- the general trend here has been to tighten the criteria, not expand them -- whether these titles are "highly coveted" or the "best promotional titles," or that their champions meet the GNG, are utterly irrelevant. What work have you done to demonstrate that 90-95% of the fighters participating in these competitions can meet the GNG? Ravenswing 19:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers Nigej and Ravenswing . The general scene of kickboxing - unlike boxing and MMA - is very fragmented with strong competition stretched out among many more promotions than in WP:NKICK or that I have listed here, as can be demonstrated by the consensus standard kickboxing divisional rankings of Combat Press, and WBC Muay Thai and WMO for Muay Thai. It is difficult to tighten the criteria, especially since the two sports are distinct (though both are indeed kick sports) and each have their own extensive network of governing bodies and promotions. Furthermore, to adress Ravenswing 's point, neither modern kickboxing nor Muay Thai are popular sports in Europe or the Anglosphere to be more specific, as such, coverage is limited and often (mostly) on social media. The majority of fighters currently contracted to the promotions (or fighting under the governing bodies) listed in WP:NKICK would not meet the WP:GNG. I will discuss further with WP:KICK about changes to the criteria, thank you. PhanKS1505 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Motorsport

I see that the discussion on updating the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria received no opposition when it was archived. Can we treat this as an endorsement? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for a sports venues guideline

Discussion and proposal over at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Sports_venues_proposal ... Ravenswing 07:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Olympians

Hello. I tried to add this but was reverted. I was referred to a recent discussion but it is not on this page, perhaps the October RFC is what was meant? Anyway it appears the NSPORT guideline still auto qualifies Olympians in the following sports whether they have received a medal or not: soccer, running, badminton, baseball, cycling, equestrian, figure skating, gymnastics, rugby union, triathlon. Until there is an RFC that removes these from the guideline, I think it makes sense to add a mention of this to WP:NOLYMPIC, so that it is clearer to people visiting the page. My suggested text is Athletes from some sports are presumed notable if they have participated in the Olympics with or without winning a medal. Please see individual sports above for more information. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I was referring to this discussion. I think we should determine which of the individual sports we want to keep the Olympic criteria for, and which we want to remove, before altering the current Olympic text. BilledMammal (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • As a practical matter, I'm confident that those participating in deletion discussions or are seeking guidance will look at the sport-specific guideline for the sport in question, or be rapidly pointed to it by someone. Thus I don't see a need for the proposed addition. isaacl (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It's pretty meaningless to restrict NOLY only to medal winners but keep "this person simply appeared at the Olympics once and literally nothing else can be said about them at all, PS the only citation in the article is to a sport-reference.com listing" as a inclusion guide for sports that make up the overwhelming majority of listings anyway, and if that is how things are panning out then yes, there really should be another RFC to tighten up all of the NSPORTs guides. I get pretty annoyed when I see that (to get over WP:NAUTHOR, but also because I like writing actual encyclopaedia articles) I had to spend a long time building up an article about Ingrid Andersson the author and then see that Ingrid Andersson the gymnast is literally a one-line database entry written as prose and sourced to a single source that does not constitute significant coverage of any kind. FOARP (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not really sure this is an issue for NSPORT. The point is that some editors have been creating these articles on an industrial scale (we're talking 100s of thousands probably). They can create one in a couple of minutes but the process to remove them (by AfD) takes vastly more effort. The result is that these articles proliferate and there's currently no practical way of getting rid of them, even if a large majority fail the NSPORT criteria. Nigej (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Challenge them and they'll just point to the relevant NSPORT guide as justifying what they're doing. It's the same with Geostubs and GEOLAND. Push further and they'll try to say they are raising inclusivity by writing articles about minorities and disadvantaged groups, but this is a red herring because these contentless articles that tell you nothing really about the subject don't raise inclusivity except maybe in a meaningless statistical sense. Really, if people are doing this, then they should lose WP:AUTOPATROLLED at the very least, because creating articles that have only a single source is dumping the job of writing an actual encyclopaedia article on the rest of the community and people with autopatrolled are supposed to be creating articles that are viable from the start. FOARP (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Olympian AFD

Please see here for a deletion discussion related to Francis English, a rower at the 1932 Olympic games. FOARP (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

NCYC: does competing in a World Cup race really give notability?

I just created Mees Hendrikx, who meets WP:NCYC but is truly borderline notable (and if people would prefer to move it to draft for now, feel free). It looks to me that many other riders who have competed in a World Cup race will not even be borderline notable, but will fail to meet the WP:GNG completely. Note that according to NCYC, competing in any world cup (at elite level presumably) is sufficient, but that for three of these World Cups, we don't even have articles: UCI Trials World Cup, UCI Cycle-ball World Cup, and UCI Para-cycling Road World Cup. And even for those were we have articles, like the cyclo-cross, it seems that many riders will not meet WP:GNG. Should the "World Cup" be removed from NCYC (for men and women)? Fram (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If NCYC is meant to cover all the events noted at UCI World Cups, I would definitely say that was unsatisfactory. Personally, for individual sports (as opposed to team ones), I'm not keen on having "competed in" as a criteria, unless its clearly a high standard, like playing in the Ryder Cup. "Significant coverage" in individual sports nearly always goes with success, not just competing. Nigej (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I actually have the reverse view - someone who plays 15 minutes in one soccer game the English Third Division is likely going to receive less coverage than even the last place finisher (or second-to-last, since the last place finisher often gets more coverage than those just ahead of them, particularly in cycling where the Lanterne rouge is a thing) in a major individual competition like the Olympics or World Championships since the coverage on the former would be on the whole team, not necessarily on an individual who played very briefly and did absolutely nothing of note. Smartyllama (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_44&oldid=1071344270"