Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

Proposal for association football (soccer)

Hello, everyone. I have noticed some different proposals based on GiantSowman's, RadomCanadian's and Fred Zepelin's proposals, but they could not find a clear consensus on these conflicting proposals based what to include on N:SPORTS and N:FOOTY, but there is still no consensus here. So I have proposed a modified in this place the following regarding significant coverage, and for the sake of general notability guideline:

Proposal

Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for players if:

  • They have played in at least one match, either in a at the starting lineup, or as a substitute, in a major senior level international competition (e.g. the FIFA World Cup with qualifiers, the continental championships with some qualifiers depending on which confederation, and the continental Nations Leagues), excluding friendlies
  • They have played in at least one match either in a at the starting lineup, or as a substitute, in the playoff stages of major international club competitions (e.g. the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Copa Libertadores or the Copa Sudamericana, etc.)
  • They have played in at least either in a at the starting lineup, or as a substitute, in of the following leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), Ligue 1 (France), Major League Soccer (United States and Canada), Argentine Primera División (Argentina), Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (Brazil), and other leagues listed here
  • They have been at least called up and/or is in the official squad list in a major senior level international competition (e.g. the FIFA World Cup, the continental championships, and the continental Nations Leagues Finals)

Significant coverage is likely to exist for coaches if:

  • They have coached the senior national team, and has coached in at least one match in a major senior level international competition (e.g. the FIFA World Cup with qualifiers, the continental championships with some qualifiers depending on which confederation, and the continental Nations Leagues), excluding friendlies
  • They have coached in at least one match in the playoff and/or group stages of major international club competitions (e.g. the FIFA Club World Cup, the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Copa Libertadores or the Copa Sudamericana, etc.)
  • They have coached in at least one match in of the following leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), Ligue 1 (France), Major League Soccer (United States and Canada), Argentine Primera División (Argentina), Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (Brazil), and other leagues listed here

Significant coverage is likely to exist for referees if:

  • They are appointed to officiate at the major senior international tournament (e.g. the FIFA World Cup, the continental championships, and the continental Nations Leagues Finals),
  • They have officiated at the group stages of the major international club competitions (e.g. the the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Copa Libertadores or the Copa Sudamericana, etc.), as well as the appointees at the FIFA Club World Cup, and is on FIFA International Referees list
  • They have officiated at the highest first division the following leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), Ligue 1 (France), Major League Soccer (United States and Canada), Argentine Primera División (Argentina), Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (Brazil), and other leagues listed here, and is on FIFA International Referees list

Players and/or managers who do not meet the above may still be notable, although sources should not be assumed to exist without further proof. A listing of other competitions wherein participation may lead to significant coverage is maintained by the WP:FOOTY wikiproject, at leagues listed here.

Assistant referees may not counted to meet the criteria unless it satisfies with further proof to meet the W:GNG. Referees who do not meet the above may still be notable, although sources should not be assumed to exist without further proof. A listing of other competitions where they may lead to significant coverage is maintained by the WP:FOOTY wikiproject, at leagues listed here.

That would be all for that. I also would recommend that if you can share your thoughts, whether you support, or oppose that proposal to sustain that consensus. I know that I felt like I'm repeating myself once again, but I am open to hear your opinions. If you support or oppose this proposal, let me know here, or if you have a question to add on this proposal, please let me know here, or leave a reply on my talk page for further questions. Thank you all, and have a peaceful day. Cheers. Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  • proposed leagues that are deemed notable, linking to WikiProject Football. That link should not be included, as WikiProjects are not permitted to decide policy or guidelines.
While I generally think participation criteria are a bad idea, they can be useful, but these are too inclusive. In particular, while there might be extensive coverage of La Liga players today, that was not true in 1929; the same is true of other leagues and competitions. Any proposal that includes participation criteria needs to carefully define the data range that the criteria is useful for. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Fixed, and updated. Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • If participation criteria are to be reintroduced despite the RfC, then at least change the wording to something like "recurring participation" or "participated significantly" in order to avoid the old loophole of players becoming "notable" after playing for 5 minutes. The wording doesn't need to be precise (it's SIGCOV that ultimately matters anyway), nor does an arbitrary lower limit of time need to be established, but the technical threshold of one second implied by "have participated" cannot stand. Avilich (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Avilich: Would the words "played in at least one or more matches" be acceptable enough? And if you don't mind, at least for the squads, could I add the following words, "haven be called up and/or listed in the official squad list for the FIFA World Cup, the continental tournaments and continental nations leagues"? Ivan Milenin (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Avilich: P.S. I have modified the proposal in behalf of your query. Ivan Milenin (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    It's better, though 'multiple matches' is simpler. Avilich (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    Fixed, and updated Ivan Milenin (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think "one second in two matches" is better than "one second in one match". --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Participation criteria were deprecated in the RfC; full stop. Ravenswing 04:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • For reference, there was some discussion of this proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 173 § Notability guideline for association football on Wikipedia:Notablity (sports). isaacl (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Personally I couldn't support a proposal that is based solely on participation. Also the use of "such as" is not satisfactory. We need precision here. Also I couldn't support the "proposed leagues that are deemed notable." part. We need that list in here and currently that list it too extensive, eg includes all English Football League matches which is also unacceptable to me. Nigej (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • As above, any proposal must be specific in nature (no woolly language) and not defer to a Wikiproject essay. However, I am not averse to the reintroduction of participation criteria where they are shown to be accurate predictions of significant coverage for their entire scope (timeframe is where these things generally fall down); but no evidence has been presented that the proposed criteria meet that requirement, and it's difficult to believe they could given how wide-ranging they are. wjematherplease leave a message... 06:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. I'm not against participation criteria per se. However (as an example) I am unconvinced that a very high proportion of those who played just one match in the English Football League throughout the period from its founding in 1888 to the present day are in fact notable, especially in the lowest tier. Nigej (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • This was already discussed here. I'll note the incomprehensible addition of further leagues; qualifiers, etc... I'll note there may be a case for including participation-based criteria where these rely on merit (such as the major international competitions themselves [not their all-inclusive qualifiers]; or the very top flight of modern football, i.e. the top European leagues which attract most if not all of the world's best players, listed here, on which a previous proposal is based). The expansion suggested here, however, seems unhelpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'll also note that "will have significant coverage" is plainly incorrect. Such wording is not used anywhere else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I think we need to replace "multiple" with "at least 3", and I think we should just drop the called up figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@John Pack Lampert: In terms of the match appearances, I will update that, but what is your opinion on why we should drop the call up situation? Ivan Milenin (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The idea of placing any value above 1 on the number of appearances has been rejected multiple times. It's not OK to just suddenly decide 3 is OK - it's not. There's abolsutely no logic whatsoever for choosing 3 - it's more or less a random integer. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but not 3 productions. Or 5. Or 20. It depends, doesn't it? There are very clearly people who played once - or were only in one production - who are obviously the subject of enough coverage to show notability. And those with 20 or 30 appearances/productions who might not be. Anyone who's followed the debate about what the number should be should know that any number other than one can't be specified with any confidence whatsoever. To even suggest it is questionable at least given the history of the conversations that have taken place. In reality, a trivial pass of *any* notability criteria should be questionable at AfD. It certainly seems to be consistently at ones about footballers. Changing the number to 3, 5, 7, 20 or 100 will make no difference whatsoever to that and is totally unnecessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: The proposal embraces mere participation as a criteria for dozens of leagues across the globe. The broad scope makes me reluctant to endorse it. A participation criteria would be more likely to receive acceptance if it were limited to the world's most elite leagues, e.g., Premier League (UK), La Liga (Spain), Bundesliga (Germany), Ligue 1 (France), Serie A (Italy). Cbl62 (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't be awfully helpful though. Tbh you'd be better off writing "someone who's played professional football might be notable if suitable sources exist". Which they obviously do for so many other leagues. Otherwise it'll only end up with people writing "delete, fails NFOOTY as they didn't play in one of those leagues". Which isn't very helpful either. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The list of leagues is too large - but being as limited as you suggest simply does not reflect the reality of significant coverage that players in may other leagues receive. I am working on a better proposal as we speak. GiantSnowman 20:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • This low-threshold participation criteria is largely why the previous RfC happened. Rachelle Bukuru played in the 2018 African U-20 Women's World Cup Qualifying Tournament for example, but is currently at AfD due to the abounding lack of SIGCOV in RS. That situation describes probably half of the Burundian footballers. I really don't understand why there is this attempt to essentially undo the RfC. We all know exactly what's going to happen if criteria like this is reintroduced. First, a bunch of database sourced stubs will be created. Queue AfDs in which half of the votes are "Keep because NEWNFOOTY: there is a record of this person once accidentally wandering onto a pitch". The AfDs will close as no consensus. No SIGCOV will be located, and we will be left with a handful of near-perma-stubs. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    Well that resulted in delete with all 3 editors who contributed to the discussion supporting deletion. In some ways I am surprised we are not seeing more football related deletion discussions, but the fact of the matter is it takes longer to do background to build an AfD nomination than some editors took to create the article in question in the first place, so the speed at which this is happening is probably to be expected. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    There is nothing in this proposal that would make players at youth tournaments notable (indeed, they weren't even notable under the old guideline) so that article is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • "Won...", not "played in...". Levivich 06:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    Again, not correct. GiantSnowman 06:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose No one has yet presented any example of why we need such a criteria, instead of just following GNG. I think we would only be helped by this proposal if we could show cases that some actually think are broderline GNG, but a full consideration of the context suggests we should not have an article on that person. Without such cases I see no benefit to such a rule. To explain what I mean, with many unelected political candidates we can find multiple indepdent sources that give indepth coverage, at least if they run for city council in a city with 2 major newspapers, each paper would do a profile on candidates. We have decided that not all city council candidates, and not all nominees for major party for congress, and default notable, so the incidental election coverage is not enough to justify an article. If someone could show how a Football criteria would be doing the same I could see it being justified, but I see nothing that indicates it actual would be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The reason for having a criteria remains what it always was: a way of quickly judging whether an article is likely to meet the GNG. Personally I'd throw out every single SNG and go with GNG each time, but that's probably a touch impractical and it would probably be better for everyone if there were some workable SNG around. Fwiw I'm not sure there are right now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment How exactly is one supposed to have scored at least one goal in a tournament that they didn't play any matches in? Seems the "scored at least one goal" criteria is unnecessary. Or does "played at least one match" mean played a full match (or at least most of it, such that getting subbed out with two minutes to go is fine but getting subbed in that late isn't)? If the latter, it should be more clear. Smartyllama (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    It's an utter nonsense proposal, because it means goalkeepers would not count! GiantSnowman 18:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman: But surely goalkeepers could have played at least one game in these tournaments/leagues/etc, and they're much less likely than field players to only appear for two minutes, and on the rare occasion it happens, it's much more likely to generate coverage since it's usually so they can come in for a penalty shootout like Australia's goalie last week. So they'd still qualify under the standard I would think. Smartyllama (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    then what is the purpose of 'and/or scored one goal'... ;) GiantSnowman 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    That's what I was asking! Unless there's some incredibly bizarre play where the player was sitting on the bench and tried to toss the ball to someone after it went out of play but it wound up going in the net and the idiot ref decided to count it as a goal, or some equally contrived situation which has virtually zero chance of ever happening, there is absolutely zero way for someone to score a goal without playing in a game. Smartyllama (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    Understanding your concerns, it was subsequently amended. Ivan Milenin (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
    Nathan Horton did it in hockey. [1] Levivich[block] 05:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not saying it doesn't happen - List of goalscoring goalkeepers - I'm saying it's a silly thing to based presumed notability on. GiantSnowman 06:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Change to Sports Personalities section

An RfC is pending at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RfC: Change to Sports Personalities section. Cbl62 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is NBAD?

There was a five point section for badminton here but it is removed now. Why? zoglophie 21:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As @Dlthewave: removed it here can they explain it a bit? zoglophie 21:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

A larger number of guidelines were removed based on an RfC to deprecate appearance-based criteria. However a number of the NBAD ones in the edit you mentioned were achievement-based, which I thought were still ok. Spike 'em (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Spike'em, the RfC was WP:NSPORTS2022. I went ahead and restored the three of the achievement-based criteria and I'd be glad to discuss the others if there are any concerns. Keep in mind that the SNG is still based on "SIGCOV is likely to exist", which means that simply meeting NBAD is not sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the current WP:NBAD. I think point 3 should be removed. For point one and two, I think gold medalists is sufficient as you are likely to have coverage based on winning a tournament. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Changing Orienteering Notability Guidelines

Hello fellow wikipedians! I am new to Notability guidelines, but I have been editing articles related to Orienteering for a while. I would like to suggest several changes to the notability guidelines, as I feel that they are not strict enough and the community is not active enough to follow the guidelines appropriately (see WP: WikiProject Orienteering is inactive, and many of the articles in Orienteering are stubs with very little information on them). I would like to streamline the articles as follows, with major changes in capitals:

Orienteering: NOTABILITY AS OF NOW

Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete who competes in the field of orienteering if they meet any of the criteria below
  1. Have finished top 3 in the World Orienteering Championships or the European Orienteering Championships.
  2. Have finished top 3 in any other major senior level individual international competition according to the criterion below. Presently that means the three medalists in H21E and D21E in O-Ringen, except for the competitions until 1968, when there were not so many runners.
  3. Have won an individual gold medal at the Junior World Orienteering Championships, in a World Ranking Event (Swedish League etc)
  4. Have won a senior national championship in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships.
Significant coverage is likely to exist for an orienteering club if it meets any of the criteria below
  1. Has got a medal in a major relay (according to the criteria below, which mean presently Tiomila (both the Tiomila relay and the women’s relay, since 1970 when the number of team became so large that it could not anymore be organized from point A to point B) and the Jukola relay (both Jukola, from 1972, and Venla).
  2. Has won a senior national championship in relay in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships.
  3. Has been represented by ten runners who fulfill the criteria above.
Significant coverage is likely to exist for an event apart from the championships mentioned above if it meets all the following criteria
  1. It has an international elite field.
  2. It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors.
  3. It has been held over a period of 25 years.

Presently that means O-Ringen, Tiomila, and the Jukola relay.

Orienteering: PROPOSED CHANGES

Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete who competes in the field of orienteering if they meet any of the criteria below
  1. Have finished top 3 in the World Orienteering Championships or the European Orienteering Championships.
  2. Have finished top 3 in WORLD CUP OR WORLD GAMES (NO OTHER COMPETITIONS INCLUDED, INCLUDING JUNIOR WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS); (I believe this is better as it cuts down on articles such as Silja Tarvonen, Siri Ulvestad, Barbara Bączek, others which have barely been visited or edited for decades and add very little information or value. Also no useful news coverage really exists for any of these athletes with very few exceptions; they have accounts on the International Orienteering Federation page and little else)
  3. REMOVE COMPLETELY Have won an individual gold medal at the Junior World Orienteering Championships, in a World Ranking Event (Swedish League etc) (those unfamiliar with the sport may not be aware that there are hundreds of such ranking events and very few of them are notable or receive coverage; most Junior World Championship champions do not receive much coverage, and there are many with no articles as we do not have the manpower to produce them)
  4. REMOVE COMPLETELY Have won a senior national championship in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships. (I do not know a single article for somebody who fulfills this criteria; it seems superfluous. These events do not receive much coverage, and there are dozens of countries championships which fulfill criteria, and many championships within each country!)
Significant coverage is likely to exist for an orienteering club if it meets any of the criteria below
  1. Has got a medal in a major relay (according to the criteria below, which mean presently Tiomila (both the Tiomila relay and the women’s relay, since 1970 when the number of team became so large that it could not anymore be organized from point A to point B) and the Jukola relay (both Jukola, from 1972, and Venla). (There are too many clubs that fulfill this criteria! We do not have time to produce that number of articles! I think this is less problematic than the above points, however, as these clubs often receive coverage in Finnish news etc. I would KEEP)
  2. REMOVE COMPLETELY Has won a senior national championship in relay in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships. (Clearly under the argument for individuals winning the national championship this is just too broad. Has anyone here heard of Octavian Droobers?)
  3. Has been represented by ten runners who fulfill the criteria above. (I would keep this; this may be a valid notability guideline, as I do not think there are many clubs that pass it. Likely to overlap significantly with winning Jukola Relay)
Significant coverage is likely to exist for an event apart from the championships mentioned above if it meets all the following criteria
  1. It has an international elite field.
  2. It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors.
  3. It has been held over a period of 25 years.

Presently that means O-Ringen, Tiomila, and the Jukola relay. (Keep this. Only three pages! That is manageable.) (ADD TO THIS SECTION: Junior World Orienteering Championships, World University Orienteering Championships, European Youth Orienteering Championships. Worth keeping these articles, and as they no longer appear in above notability they must be moved to this section).

Conclusion

Please let me know what you think and how to go ahead with this. How do I notify the community and can I simply make the changes directly? What are your opinions on the changes? Just trying to make my community better and give more time to articles that are of high importance in orienteering. Cheers. Spiralwidget (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits made

I have gone ahead with the edits after 10 days with no comment. Please give me feedback if you wish. Spiralwidget (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Horse racing group/grade

I’ve searched the archives for a discussion of this, but apologies if I missed it.

Where the article says “Grade I/Group I graded stakes race”, I’ve just moved the link from the line below, but “Group I” should maybe link to Group One. Grade and Group seem to be different things. I haven’t done that, to avoid MOS:SOB, so rephrasing would be better but I don’t know enough about the topic to suggest any more substantial changes. —Northernhenge (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Medalists of multi-sport events

Hi there, recently Taekwondo at the 2013 Southeast Asian Games and Sailing at the 2013 Southeast Asian Games got deleted as an expired PROD with WP:NOTDATABASE as reason (and others are nominated as well at the time of writing). I'm trying to understand this better because it affects how we present multi-sport events and what we're working towards. There are quite a few "sport at YYYY event" pages and many historic ones could be created as well (or perhaps not).

My question is: I'm tempted to WP:REFUND the above pages but does that make sense and where should the information go? I would say the Southeast Asian Games are among the multi-sport events for which we should have an overview of the medalists but I can also see that each page should pass WP:GNG. We could have a single page with medalists (e.g., List of 2022 World Games medal winners) but is that indeed the intended approach? Should perhaps only popular sports (which pass WP:GNG) have their own page and for the others, we should redirect to a large overview page with all medalists? Thanks, Simeon (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

To take an example, List of 2019 Southeast Asian Games medal winners seems better to me as one list rather than splitting it up by sport. Levivich (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't come across that page yet - I think that's a good way to do. It'll be quite a big page though, given that the linked page only goes from A to F with many sports not yet mentioned. Simeon (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Gymnastics (including college/NCAA gymnasts and more)

As of now the notability guidelines for gymnastics excludes NCAA/collegiate gymnastics, which has been slowly but surely growing in popularity. Due to this exclusion, many notable gymnasts that deserve Wikipedia pages can't have them. I propose the expansion of the notability guidelines to include them. Here are my proposed additions:


1. Won an NCAA National Championship in the all-around or on any specific event.

2. Did not win an individual NCAA National Championship but won at least 2 titles with their respective team

3. Won a Conference Championship (SEC,Pac-12,Big Ten, etc.) in the all-around or on any specific event.

4. Has won at least one of the following awards (AAI, Honda, Gymnast/Specialist/Freshman of the Year).

5. Has scored a perfect 10

6. Became a collegiate gymnastics coach after retirement from competition (examples: Jordyn Wieber, Katie Minasola)

7. Was previously an elite gymnast or competed in elite during their collegiate career or after (Katie Minasola (Teft) would be in this category as she competed at the 1996 Olympic Trials, competed for UMass and is currently the head coach at Eastern Michigan).

  • I also want to propose a guideline to include gymnasts who won a certain amount (or more than that amount) of all-american awards, but I am currently unsure of what that number should be.

This new set of notability guidelines can help begin a project to help collegiate gymnastics information become more accessible to the mainstream. Of course, pages for gymnasts that follow these guidelines would only be made if there was enough information available to make an article following site guidelines. I hope you (whoever makes these decisions) consider making these changes.

TheWAGymFan (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@TheWAGymFan, I believe your perception of the purpose of NSPORT guidelines is flawed. Due to this exclusion, many notable gymnasts that deserve Wikipedia pages can't have them. Anyone who meets GNG can have an article; if they don't meet GNG then they are not notable. In order to add these to NGYM, you'd need to demonstrate that 95% of people who meet any one of those criteria also pass GNG. You would also need to have a very compelling reason why gymnastics alone should have guidance on collegiate athletes when few other sports include that level of achievement. Why is NCOLLATH not sufficient for your purposes? JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @TheWAGymFan:: There are some problems with your proposal. First and foremost is the point raised by JoelleJay -- i.e., we would need a showing that at least 90% of the gymnasts included would also pass GNG. Beyond that, prong 1 creates a presumption of notability from a single championship, whereas NCOLLATH requires multiple championships. Conference championships are even more dubious, as I seriously doubt that a Big Eight or Mid-American champion in pommel horse is overwhelmingly likely to pass GNG. As to the last prong, simply becoming a college coach (at any Division I, II, or III school, and for any brief duration) is not a valid basis to presume notability in any other collegiate sport (compare WP:NCOLLATH). Cbl62 (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Cbl62@JoelleJay
    I suppose I've been misinformed as I have heard of gymnast pages being quickly taken down and that gymnast pages have to follow the specific gymnast guidelines or it would be taken down even if following GNG. At the very least, however, I wanna push for those that won individual national championships and/or scored a perfect 10 while in college as they would all follow GNG. These would include gymnasts that already have pages such as Alex McMurtry, Haleigh Bryant and Ashleigh Gnat. These athletes are very notable to the sport, as are others that at least follow these 2 guidelines out of the ones I previously proposed. Since collegiate/ncaa gymnastics has become extremely notable within the sport (especially since the college gymnastics season happens during the international elite off-season), I think it's important to have at least one or two additional guidelines that allow for at least the most notable of collegiate gymnasts in its history to have future wikipedia pages. TheWAGymFan (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, passing GNG is all that is neeed. FWIW, I've created a number of articles on college gymnasts (e.g., Newt Loken, Chris Cameron, Syque Caesar, Sam Mikulak), and it's been my experience that not every NCAA single-event champion will pass GNG, particularly in the pre-Mary Lou Retton era. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Bolded sentence yet again

@BeanieFan11: care to explain why there isn't a consensus here, considering that there were only two (or three) dissenters, including your own vote which contains no rationale at all? Avilich (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: The edit summary quoted above is misleading since the discussion I linked was in fact a new RfC, ongoing at the time of the reversion (the tag was afterwards removed when the period expired), something I assume the reverter was unaware of. Avilich (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Baseball

The only criterion stated for baseball says that significant coverage is likely to exist for baseball players if they "Are a member of a major Hall of Fame, such as the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum or the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame." That seems far too cautious. Can we imagine that a baseball player could possibly be a member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame without there being significant coverage of him? Not to mention that the number of articles we have in each position category of Category:Major League Baseball players by position (except designated hitters) exceeds the total number of members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The whole sports guideline was gutted earlier this year. Failing to meet the current high standards of the HOF, subjects can still meet WP:GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Can we imagine that a baseball player could possibly be a member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame without there being significant coverage of him? No, and that's the whole point of an SNG. The individual criteria listed in each SNG should be such that we cannot imagine someone meeting the criteria without there being significant coverage of that person. The purpose of the criteria is to tell us what is likely to receive significant coverage. Levivich (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The purpose of an SNG is not to give guidance only on painfully obvious cases like the Baseball Hall of Fame. It's equivalent to having an SNG merely reciting that a scientist or novelist is likely to be notable if they won a Nobel Prize, or that a musician is likely to be notable if they have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Each of these is true but completely useless as real world guidance on notability. We really should provide better guidance than what we now have in NBASE. Cbl62 (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If a subject can't be presumed notable for meeting an SNG (per this recent edit), I don't see what's to be gained by investing any more time here, dealing with the overhead of a guideline which has no more weight than WikiProject guidance. —Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This SNG was gutted to the extent that I don't see what purpose it serves any more. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
This is true, in my opinion, of just about every sports SNG now - none serve any purpose and only seem to cloud debates at AfD with some editors arguing for sports SNG over GNG at one AfD and then GNG over a sports SNG at another, depending on which "proves" their point. My advice would be to reply on GNG and WP:BASIC as well as things such as WP:ANYBIO (which covers HoF members in my view). Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

There are still redlinks at Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame, so this criterion isn't totally irrelevant if anyone wants to take a hack at translating some JP wiki articles. (And yes, hypothetical speaking, "participation criteria" might have been useful if they'd been set more strictly, rather than admitting someone on a pro roster for one game but warming the bench the entire time being sufficient under the old guidelines. Maybe something like 300 at-bats or innings pitched for pre-1945 players, and 200 at-bats or innings pitched for post-1945 players, but I think the well has been poisoned too much toward participation criteria by the incredibly lenient old standards.) SnowFire (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I initially thought the same thing. But in the end, a 300 at-bat guideline would be construed by many to mean that players with less than 300 at-bates aren't notable. The reality is that anyone who has played MLB in the last 100 years is notable. We now just have to show that to be true case-by-case. Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
No, it would be construed to mean that a player with less than 300 at-bats (or whatever was established as the benchmark) wasn't presumptively notable, and therefore immunized against deletion. What does pretty much immunize against deletion is meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 03:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Request of expansion of the notability of Olympic athletes in the top 16

Or at the limit of the top 10, but certainly the top 8 (finalist in swimming, athletics and other sports disciplines). It is believed that the decision to bring notability from simple participation to winning a medal was too drastic. Paradoxically, one could also ask for the cancellation of a fencer or a tennis player who played in the final for third and fourth place. --Kasper2006 (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I think top 8 (the size of many finals) in individual events is reasonable, and that will be enough for notable coverage in the athlete's country in most cases. But I am aware that there has been a long discussion on this previously. Adpete (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
But as you said yourself there is a strong inconsistency because for example are admitted the top 8 to the Commonwealth Games, where for example it could happen that a top 8 in swimming would not reach the top 32 at the Olympics. --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Based on early Olympics, I have to strongly disagree with the premise that finalists or top-8/10 are (almost always) notable. And please note that all athletes need to meet GNG anyway, even medallists. However, there may be a case for such a change in a limited number of sports, which should be addressed via that individual sport's specific guideline. wjematherplease leave a message... 06:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
"It is believed ..." Well, you believe it, anyway. But one of the critical fallacies that caused all this mess in the first place is by the creation of sports notability criteria based not on a shred of proof, but on amour propre -- of course All X Are Notable, whether or not the premise was ever examined. Ravenswing 08:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Olympics

Its been a few years, I apparently haven't been paying enough attention to every edit in this policy. Someone has pushed through a bad concept in the {Olympics section. Significant coverage is likely to exist for Athletes from any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games,. Wrong, wrong wrong.

The Olympic are the highest level of any sport included in the program. Anybody making it to the Olympics, even being named to a team and failing to go WILL HAVE significant coverage. For someone to get named to represent any country, for someone to pay the money to get them in uniform to the Olympics, we must presume there will be a history of their ascendency en route. If there isn't (say the prince's son gets named), there's a scandal. This was settled years ago and has suddenly been changed to medal status, eliminating the vast majority of Olympic participants from notability.

OK I dissected this. The addition was made here October 18 last year after almost a decade and a half of stability with this policy and my involvement with it. There is an RfC mentioned in the edit notes BUT NOT IDENTIFIED. Obviously after years of being involved in this article, I was not invited to comment on this momentus change. Mom said no, lets ask dad.

What that does is opens the door to unnecessary AfDs. There are far too many inappropriate AfDs to sort through already. It takes far too much time to prove, again and again, that sources exist. The word of an incompetent editor that says "sources don't exist" is worthless. We have always had a concept of WP:BEFORE. Nobody seems capable of doing it. When they prove a negative all they prove is their inability to type the word google into their url bar.

I've been down this road too many times with much more ambiguous AfDs. Olympic participation, PERIOD, must be the standard. If you give these feckless deletionists an inch, they will take a mile. They love to delete content in areas they have NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT and are ruining content across Wikipedia on a daily basis. There are not enough people like me who have the time to prove them wrong IN EACH CASE.

The example that set this off was Justin Best, an Olympic 8 man team rower, whose team finished 4th place last year. At the start it was a stub article. The NOM said A stub about an athelete who competed in one Olympic Game, in one team event. Made the rowing 8s final via the Repechage but finished out of medals. Simply competing, even if it had been an individual event, does not meet WP:NOLYMPICS, thus he does not meet WP:ATHLETE. He had some success with the US team rowing in junior events. I have been unable to find any independent indepth coverage of him to show he meets WP:BIO. At that time he already had links to his listing at the USOC, Olympics.com, Olympedia, World Rowing and his college team the Drexel Dragons. I know nothing about rowing, I just googled "Justin Best rower" and all the above links showed up, plus Facebook and even a linkedin. At age 24, this guy has over ten years of experience in the sport, has represented USA in international competition in 5 different years, he's won two international world medals, including one I just noticed was barely over a month ago. Multiple reports mention he got into rowing after watching a movie. I was able to expand the article into two paragraphs and that was the amount of time I wanted to devote to it. Fortunately this NOM had the honor and good sense to withdraw his nomination for deletion. Most don't. Was his initial statement about being unable to find sources disingenuous or incompetence? How many other articles have been successfully deleted based on this (new) weakness in NOLYMPICS, with other well meaning editors voting to delete based on similarly strong "unable to find sources" statements? How will we ever know? How will we right this wrong, particularly against the perception of WP:SALT that this article has previously been deleted? I've climbed that mountain, it ain't easy. It takes months, maybe years of persistence.

Over most of my 15 years of editing experience, I have successfully found sources for every article I have attempted to rescue. This is not about me. There could be dozens of me proving the point time and time again. It takes hours to find sources and edit prose. It takes minutes to set an AfD in motion. Deletionists are lemmings to echo delete votes, particularly if you give them the weakness inherent in the new NOLYMPICS. Without somebody noticing, it could take one additional vote plus the NOM to delete an article with no other comment. The removal of legitimate content detracts from the value of Wikipedia as a worldwide reference. Trackinfo (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Your comment would be slightly more convincing if you didn't use as your sole example an AfD which was (without your participation) speedy kept, and instead gave us some AfDs which ended in delete but which you can show to be about notable people anyway (WP:GNG notable, not "Olympian = notable"). Yoru example shows that the AfD system, contrary to your claims, actually works, and that poor nominations get found and speedy closed. Your generalizations about coverage of participation at the Olympics also fails to make any distinction between recent Olympics and the early ones, where it was more a case of "anyone can participate" than anything else. The fact that after more than hundred years, Olympic historians still haven't been able to tell us anything more about "Caillet" (no dates, no first name) or "Franzen" (no dates, no first name) or many similar ones should be sufficient to show that your claims about coverage for all of them is seriously exaggerated. Fram (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
What Fram said. Any claims or assertions that significant coverage exists for all Olympic participants are demonstrably false since no known records even exist for many participants in early events (e.g. 16 unknowns, 26 unknowns, etc.). You say legitimate content is being removed but articles need to be much more than simple mirrors of entries in the OlyMADMen's database (either via Olympedia, Sports-Reference or anywhere else) that add nothing to having their names listed in the event articles. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The notion that significant coverage is likely to exist even for all medalists I do not believe has been shown through actual study of articles on medalists. It has been clearly shown that significant coverage does not exist for anywhere near all non-medaling Olympians. There have been multiple cases where I have found as one of the few sources a family made obituary on someone who competed in the Olympics that did not even mention that fact. The Olympics have not been the top international sporting event from their start, the 1904 Olympics was almost completely American and an adjunct to the St. Louis world fair that year meant to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Lewis and Clark journey. Prior to 1970 the Olympics had amature rules that were basically meant to exclude the top competitors in sport, the current football (soccer) competition in the Olympics is limited to players under I think 23 years old, so built to exclude the top players, and there is more. The coverage of the Olympics does not translate into us having enough on every player ever to justify an article, and the false assumption that it does has lead to Wikipedia being flooded with thousands of articles lacking any sourcing to significant sources. It has also lead to Wikipedia being flooded with articles that are Olympic snapshots of people who actually were closer to being notable for other things. Over and over again on examination people have not been able to find significant coverage sources for these people. This was the subject of a huge discussion last year, and the clear consensus was that for non-medalists we did not have enough correspondence between having significant sources and coverage. Just because someone is involved in a notable event does not in fact make that person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Actually the amature rules is only one of the issues. Modern Olympics have more stringent pre-qualifcation rules as well. The Jamaican bobsled team that showed up to the Olympics without ever having done any bodsledding before is maybe the extreme example of loose pre-qualification. The 1904 case where people were representing teams made by specific sports clubs in specific cities, in fact some sporting clubs sponsored multiple teams in the same event at that Olympics, or some other cases are extreme examples of a general trend. Just having been in the Olympics does not guarantee that someone has created substantial prose covering the life of the person in question. Even odder is that at present it seems we have articles on the fast majority of Olympic arts competitors with no evidence that these people ever met any inclusion criteria, and most of the articles sources to basically one database source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Does discussing notability criteria (which inevitably affects deletions) in a thread that was started by a discussion on a specific AfD violate JPL's topic ban on "deletion discussions, broadly construed"? This is clearly not an actual AfD, but the "broadly construed" suggests it extends beyond just AfD. In any case, the issue with older Olympics compared to more modern ones is why some users, myself included, suggested different notability guidelines for different eras, but this was explicitly rejected by consensus at the RfC. Smartyllama (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
        • That feels like a stretch to me. Spartaz Humbug! 14:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
          • If you're referring to the TBAN, it didn't feel like a violation to me but I could see arguments that it was - I wasn't accusing him, I genuinely wasn't sure which is why I was asking. To get this discussion back on track, just about any Olympian from recent Games is going to receive significant coverage in their home country, while even a medalist from 1896 or 1900 may not since the Olympics simply weren't as big a deal back then. But consensus at the RfC was against having different guidelines for different eras, so this is where we are. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
            • Priot to imposing the ban one arbcom team member said that if the discussion is such that it could result in an article getting deleted, I should avoid it, but if it is a general discussion about broad policies it is OK. The above is a general explanation of the broad reasons that not all Olympic competitors are not notable, with an illustration of some very broad issues that make it very hard to even begin to see them all as notable. There are really no specifics about anything. It is a very broad discussion about such matters. My comments themsleves do not even touch on anything specific.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • RfC The relevant RfC was at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_43#Formal_proposal:_Olympic_athletes.—Bagumba (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
At that time he already had links to his listing at the USOC, Olympics.com, Olympedia, World Rowing and his college team the Drexel Dragons. I know nothing about rowing, I just googled "Justin Best rower" and all the above links showed up, plus Facebook and even a linkedin. What does this have to do with anything? None of those links can be used to demonstrate notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • (rolls his eyes) "OMG, those evil, evil deletionists are out to DESTROY WIKIPEDIA!!!" Please, spare us the pseudo-political ranting. As it happens, the RfC in question had a couple weeks' worth of heavy comment from many editors, a consensus of whom plain disagree with you. You had every opportunity to comment in that RfC -- which was a year ago now -- especially since you were scarcely on a Wiki break, with over 1400 edits in August 2021. And it wasn't as if there weren't staunch inclusionists (including more than one ARS member) attempting and failing to rebut the premise.

    If you want to try to reverse the decision, sure, knock yourself out ... with actual proof, not discredited canards like all-olympians-are-notable-because-well-they-just-are, or with "This AfD I was in once was a bad nom!!" Ravenswing 22:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The Olympics are not the highest level of men's football, and have not been since well before World War II. I believe there are other sports that have existed in the Olympics and the Olympics were not considered a top performance in that sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree word by word on what Trackinfo said. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I have a vague suspicion that all this mess was caused by that user, now banned, who had created like six million stubs of athletes with only the Olympic participation. Common sense, in my opinion, should have led to the limitation of encyclopedicity to athletes at least semi-finalists starting from the 1948 London Olympics, but the hunt for wild cancellation only for stubs with less than a set number of bytes. Instead, as Trackinfo said well, there is a risk of asking for the cancellation of athletes who, on the other hand, poor guys, encyclopedic. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Always in the light of what was said by Trackinfo, I would ask that at least the one who makes the request for cancellation, perhaps for an athlete who arrived only 20th at the Olympics, if he really does not want to do the search on Google, that he does a "Pages that link to" he may find that, for example, as in the case of the rower told by Trackinfo, this athlete has even won medals at the world championships of his sport. That is, not because it is a stub must not necessarily be encyclopedic, precisely because the stub shows incomplete data on the athlete's sports career. Therefore, the one who requests the cancellation, should lose a few more minutes before formulating the request and above all motivating it in more detail. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
As well as anyone who opposes deletion ... the more so with that now-banned user's public declaration that he inserted false information into many of the sub-stubs he created. Ravenswing 06:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Some Olympic competitions have less than 3 competing units. We do not even treat all medals as default notable, not when the number of competing units is less than 4 in a particular competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Skiing

This subject may be archived (time crunch and didn't look) but I didn't see anything on skiing so thought I would ask why? -- Otr500 (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

A similar question did come up recently, to which the answer was that some are covered via WP:NOLY. Countless sports are not covered here and there's no particular reason why they should be, You'd need to come up with a set of criteria and to demonstrate that a high proportion of those covered (95% is sometimes quoted) are indeed notable. It's a tough challenge which is probably why no one's done it. Nigej (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Statistical databases

This is more in the way of a question than a proposal but is NSPORT firm enough on statistical databases? Are these sites actually reliable?

Reading WP:SPORTCRIT overleaf, it includes non-trivial among the criteria for presumption of notability. That links to footnote #4 which says: Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database, and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

I may be on the wrong path but some sporting statistics databases depend on volunteer input. CricketArchive, for example, obtains its fundamental match scorecards in that way and then its software produces the statistical summaries for players, teams, venues, world records and so on. There is little if any oversight because transcription errors make it through to the published pages. The site has also had some serious software problems. Their pages on Shaun Pollock, one of cricket's top players in the 2000s, were in a dire state for a very long time because, apparently, they confused him with another player. From what I'm told, these issues still exist and never receive prompt attention. I can't say if the same is true of sites like CBZ, Soccerbase, Golfstats or TennisStats247, to name a few, but perhaps an investigation would be worthwhile? BoJó | talk UTC 19:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Some stats databases are professionally run; some are not - but some of the amateur ones are better than the corporate ones! Some are reliable; some are not (Transfermarkt being a big one in the 'no' pile). All make mistakes - but that is arguably true of all reliable sources. What point are you actually trying to make here? GiantSnowman 19:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, Devil's Advocate. SPORTCRIT rejects databases. Is that only because of limited coverage or also because many are unreliable? If the latter, should they be named and prohibited? Notability is one thing but verifiability by reliable sources is much more important. As I said above, it's a question, not a point or a proposal, because I don't know the answer. BoJó | talk UTC 22:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
It's because databases of just statistics are not "significant" coverage. They still can be reliable, but it's not enough for the subject to be verifiable, they must also be notable. In this case, statistical databases (with some exceptions, like transfermarket) can provide verifiability in a reliable manner, but if they're just statistical databases and nothing else, they don't contribute to notability. That being said, some sources are mostly statistical databases but do occasionally provide in-depth coverage that would satisfy SPORTSCRIT, so each source needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Additionally, some mostly reliable sources can have parts that aren't - Baseball Reference is mostly reliable (though still a statistical database that can't contribute to notability) but it has its own wiki that is user-created like Wikipedia and would not be reliable. So again, you have to consider on a case by case basis. Smartyllama (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Smartyllama. I think that answers it very well. It comes down to individual cases, then, and how well, or how badly, a given source provides coverage of that subject. I have seen the Transfermarkt site, btw, and it didn't impress me one bit. Okay, no problems. I think we can probably close this discussion. Thanks to you both for your views. BoJó | talk UTC 13:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Notability criteria track and field athletes (see WP:NTRACK)

Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes who compete in the field of athletics if they meet any of the criteria below

It has been argued for days that the notability passed from simple participation to medal has been too marked and to me, who propose to mediate in the top 16 at the Olympics (and the world championships), do you say that I want to be too inclusive? How do you delete the tens of thousands of pages that met the criteria that lasted 15 years but that would not meet the current ones? --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Inventing arbitrary achievement criteria is not the solution. New criteria will only be accepted based on evidence of their validity (and demonstrated need). Dealing with existing articles that apparently no longer meet notability guidelines (due to absence of evidence of significant coverage) is a different issue, and one that will be the subject of an RFC, coming out of the recent ArbCom case. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Can't support without data to back it up. Cbl62 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No data to support the assertion, nor do I honestly see a need for it. Rely on the GNG. Ravenswing 07:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per above. We really need some evidence that backs this up. The Wikipedia entries for the top-16 in the Athletics at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk doesn't inspire much confidence.that a very high proportion of this set of athletes are notable. Nigej (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the evidence provided above appears to be actual medalists so the data is irrelevant to the proposal. I fail to see what problem is being solved. Spartaz Humbug! 16:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no data. Levivich 16:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no evidence provided that almost everyone within these criteria will meet GNG. We should only create default inclusion criteria when there is strong evidence that they will be the same as meeting GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:SPORTCRIT overleaf says: The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. In athletics, only the Olympics (from perhaps 1936 or 1948) and the World Athletics Championships (from 1983) can justifiably claim to be "major international competitions at the highest level". Even in these, only a few events can be considered the highest level of competition, such as the 100m finals, the 1500m finals and the marathons. But events like the hammer and the 3000m steeplechase do not have anything like that level of interest or prestige. A case could be made for medallists only in the handful of top-class events but I think we need significant coverage for everyone else. BoJó | talk UTC 18:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You can't use a guideline to bypass WP:GNG. This solves nothing and will end up causing debates and AFDs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    I oppose this, too, but where do you get bypass WP:GNG from? This proposal, like this entire SNG, and all SNGs, is about telling editors what is likely to receive WP:SIGCOV; nothing here bypasses GNG, or is even capable of bypassing GNG. Levivich 19:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    Like many proposals, it seems to set a lower bar to pass the criteria than GNG allows, so it's misleading. ie: you will see articles that don't pass GNG, arguments about them at AFD, including arguments about "but it meets WP:NTRACK", erroneously thinking that they don't have to meet GNG. This isn't the first time low thresholds have caused this problem. The solution is worse than the problem, which doesn't seem to exist. I'm not a huge fan of these many "subcriteria" to begin with. GNG is sufficient by itself. Either they have multiple RS/SIGCOV or they don't. But then, I've worked a great deal of AFDs over the years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    I don't mean to badger you, but the SNG is plainly not "a lower bar to pass the criteria than GNG allows". There is only one bar, and it's GNG. The SNG isn't setting a bar at all. NSPORTS explicitly says this, multiple times (in bold in the intro, and again in the body). And this was confirmed twice, at WP:SNGRFC last year, and again at WP:NSPORTS2022 this year. What I don't understand is why you describe it as "set a lower bar" when the community has had two RFCs and agreed that SNGs and NSPORTS are not alternatives to GNG. I just don't get it: do you think that, because the GNG requirement is (or has been) ignored at AFD (despite the plain language of the guidelines and despite the two RFCs) and closers give full weight to those votes anyway, that therefore we should not have SNGs at all? And that's the reason you oppose any expansion of NSPORTS? Or if I'm not understanding you correctly, is there any expansion of NSPORTS that you would support, and if so, what would it look like? Levivich 19:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not up for a lot more detail. My perspective is that of the admin that has to close these AFDs, and my goal is to find solutions. This would be more problem than solution. Most of the subcriteria have been, from my perspective. They muddy the waters. Our standards are already ridiculously low, with almost anything with 2RS/SIGCOV getting an article. I've explained it, call the failure mine, but to me, it comes across as trying to lower the bar, or at least it will be perceived that way by some editors. At the same time, it really isn't helping any editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
    Levivich: That you don't want it to be a bar, doesn't mean that people who aren't you (and I've checked. The people who aren't you outnumber you, by a fairly wide margin) won't use it as such. Once you put it in writing, people will think it's a standard, and will treat it that way. We know this because they do and they have been for many many years. How many AFD debates come down to 30 people saying "Keep, passes WP:NFOOTY" and that's it? We don't want to encourage that. The more different standards you put in writing, the more confused you make the system. Let GNG rule all, and we should be reducing or eliminating competing guidance, which suggests that alternate pathways to article creation exist. They do not. --Jayron32 18:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many of the athletes that would be presumed notable by this aren't notable, and it would open the door to renewed disruptive mass creation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

"Not inherently notable"

@Cassiopeia: I have attempted to rephrase the three instances where the guideline says certain things are "not inherently notable". The instances are:

  • An individual person with a connection to a notable horse is not inherently notable for that reason only, see WP:BIO1E, though if the individual's role is a large one, a significant connection to a single notable horse might justify a spinoff article (e.g., Eddie Sweat, groom of Secretariat). Conversely, a horse is not presumed notable just because the owner is famous – of Jim Rome's racehorses, Shared Belief is notable, Gallatin's Run is probably not.
  • Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable. To be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers).

In my edit summary, I noted that Per WP:NRV, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable", thus rendering this word formulation somewhat purposeless, as nothing is inherently notable... changing to "presumed notable", as that seems to be what this is suggesting. I don't know what exactly warrants discussion here. The concept that the wording in these guidelines are pointing to is clearly a matter of presumed notability. As in, "X subject is not presumed notable, unless Y criteria are met" which is clearly the formulation being used here. I do not think my change materially altered the practice of the guideline. Since nothing on Wikipedia inherently notable, it's practically a non-sequiter to point that out. The only logical alternative is to add "X thing is not inherently notable" to every single line item in every SNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I was just about to post here as well. Edit summaries are a poor method for lengthy conversation. @Cass, do you have a substantive objection to this change? Surely you don't think our policies/guidelines impart inherent notability on any person? This seems like a very noncontroversial change to me, just a bit more cleanup post-RFC. Levivich 02:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    First, it can't be assumed that editors know about WP:NRV. Second, I believe there is purpose for pointing out these are not inherently notable in Notability (sports). We've already had plenty of controversy about claiming that certain sports related people and events are "presumed notable" and are therefore notable without proper sourcing. This has caused a lot of trouble and discussion. The idea is to move away from the "presumed notable" definition. So, I think an RFC is in order for making these changes. Also, I don't agree with an editor unilaterally changing Wiki-wide notability criteria. I recommend changing it back or open an RFC somewhere. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Actually, the edits need to be changed back before an RFC is opened. Thanks---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Nevermind, I guess. I looked at the edit history of Notability Sports. The criteria says "not presumed notable" in agreement with the recent RFC. I think I misunderstood the changes that were happening. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • This was already decided at the WP:NSPORTS2022 RfC, no further discussion needed. –dlthewave ☎ 12:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think the "unless" aspect was clear in your edit. If there were to be a change, I would suggest saying something like "regular season games are not presumed by default to be notable". isaacl (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    • The "unless" aspect is already made clear in the current wording. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Levivich Changing any text in the Wikipedia guidelines always need to have consensus by larger community. If a recent RfC has specifically stated the exact wording then we can use it and if not a would suggest (provide hist diff/closing of the discussion) and if not then a new RfC would be raised. Cassiopeia talk 03:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    • You haven't read WP:BRD then. Lots of really significant stuff has just been added over the years but sticks because people agree with it. So if your argument is you can't make changes without consensus then that is just bogus. If you disagree with the changes then by all means explain why and we can discuss. Spartaz Humbug! 04:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Bogus is a strong word as it might imply "deception has been attempted' which I was not. It is good idea to discuss inherently vs presumed by larger community and not by one editor for Wikipedia guidelines; but I guess you disagreed and that is ok but do let other editors voice their opinions. Cassiopeia talk 05:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
        • You kind of make my point by failing to discuss what your actual objection is except for an invalid process point and my post requested you to give this opinion.. I guess we can accept that change has concensus as you haven't put any non process objections forward. Spartaz Humbug! 09:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have any substantive objection to the changes I attempted to make? -Indy beetle (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    I appreciate you disagree with my viewpoint. Nonetheless, I believe I have offered feedback based on the substance of your edit: I feel a slight rewording would make the transition to the following sentence less discordant. isaacl (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • So "not presumed notable unless..." ? That works for me.-Indy beetle (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    There shouldn't be any presumption of notability at all, only presumption of SIGCOV sources existing. JoelleJay (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    Repeating the example I stated: "regular season games are not presumed by default to be notable". isaacl (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's not like a change to our guidelines will make any difference whatsoever in discouraging inherent/presumptive notability-based local consensus at AfD... JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree the only thing that should be presumed is SIGCOV. And I agree with Isaacl's proposal. It provides clarity. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression presumed notability meant presumed SIGCOV...though I see how that could be open to misinterpretation. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Nothing in Wikipedia is inherently notable, I agree changing from "not inherently notable" to "not presumed notable". Cassiopeia talk 09:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Nothing in Wikipedia is inherently notable and so that word should get removed from all notability guidelines. In most cases, "presumed" was the intended word and a simple substitution will work. North8000 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Olympic changes have left some inconsistencies

I note that the guidelines for notability for Olympic athletes changed earlier this year. It used to be that any Olympic athlete was presumed notable, and this has tightened considerably to only Olympic medallists. For athletics, this was done by simply removing the old point 1 (have competed at Olympics or World Championships). But this has left behind some inconsistencies:

  • For athletics, an athlete is presumed notable if they finish top 8 in a second tier international competition (such as Commonwealth Games or European Championships) (WP:NATH point 1), but only if they finish top 3 at the top tier competitions Olympics.
  • There is no presumed notability at all for World Athletics Championships achievements, not even for winning.

I suggest resolving the inconsistencies by making an additional athletics criteria which is one of:

  1. Top 8 at Olympics or World championships (which makes it inconsistent with other olympic sports, but given it tends to one of the most covered olympic sport, that may not be a problem);
  2. Top 8 at Olympics or World Championships after a certain date;
  3. Medallists in world championships are notable; (and tighten the requirement on second tier events to only include medallists).

Also, there is no guideline at all for swimming. It should probably be similar to athletics. There both have high profile world championship meets that are close to the Olympics in prestige. Alternatively, there could be a general section on World Championships in all sports, with a list of world championships (world athletics championships, world swimming championships, etc) in which medalling gives notability. Adpete (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if it was casual or esoteric but after 17 minutes we practically raised the same question. --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with Adpete and Kasper2006 that NATH needs attention. Of the suggested remedies, the first one seems okay on the face of it as track and field is arguably the highest profile sport at the Olympics, so it is perhaps reasonable that anyone who reaches a final event and finishes in the top eight should be presumed notable. However, while it may be reasonable to assume that there will be coverage of anyone who reached an Olympics track and field final, I think we have to insist on that coverage being found and cited ahead of a reasonable deadline (say, six months after the article is tagged for improved references). BoJó | talk UTC 03:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I have amended my above entry after reading NSPORT with greater scrutiny and taking into account the changes made after the RFC this year. I need to give this more thought but I do have one or two questions I may raise. Apologies for the change of mind. BoJó | talk UTC 16:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Support 3, Oppose 1, Could support 2 depending on the date. I assume we're talking about the proper World Athletics Championships starting in 1983. As to options 1 or 2, I'm pretty doubtful about the early ones, but post-WWII would be an option. We really need some data, especially about those who finished 8th. Many other questions too. Have there always been 8 in the track finals? Have there always been heats for these events? What about relays/team events? (eg Athletics at the 1920 Summer Olympics – Men's team cross country - are the non-scorers covered?) What about walking events? Nigej (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Data needed. Before we consider any of these, we should have some data showing that participants in these groups, and across varioius time periods, almost always pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support 3; Oppose 1 and 2, which require supporting evidence to show that individuals meeting the criteria are highly likely to meet GNG/BASIC – none has been provided. wjematherplease leave a message... 06:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Data needed (and oppose all until that time): Honestly, can we just be done with airy assumptions? If anyone has ever done the work to demonstrate what body of athletes, in what disciplines, in what competitions, upon what date ranges can reliably meet the GNG, they've kept very quiet about it. No, I don't care that it's a daunting task. Until such time as such work is presented for our examination and review, I cannot in good conscience support -- and honestly do not see any need for -- any new NSPORTS notability criterion beyond simple reliance upon the GNG. Ravenswing 08:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    But even when such work is done and presented, you oppose, as you wrote below: Even stipulating that it has been proven that all NBA players can meet SIGCOV -- which has not been done -- I'm still not seeing any reason to recreate this rule: any reason, that is, beyond handing an excuse to editors not to trouble themselves over sourcing their articles. Levivich 17:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, two comments: 1. The top 8 finishers at the Olympics receive an Olympic diploma, which in many smaller nations are covered as much as medals. 2. A couple years ago, articles were made for most Olympic competitors in the art events, even when the event isn't known - now, the notability is going to be much different with the artists, but I just thought to mention this so people can also comment if their proposals and supports encompass the artists as well as the athletes. Kingsif (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    • evidence not opinion would be really helpful. Which smaller countries please? Have you done a systemic study showing in which specific countries the diploma leads to reliable sourcing. If the sourcing exists why not just add it to the articles in question rather then looking for a run around doing that. Spartaz Humbug! 13:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I have not done a study but last year I created several female Olympian bios and wrote up the whole article on the Venezuelan participation. Venezuela lists their Olympic aims with getting diplomas first, and the discussion of the aspirations of individual athletes (few who achieved) was focused on diplomas for Guyana and Gabon, off the top of my head. Oddly, Mexican sources also talk about diplomas (oddly as they are not an underachieving nation at the Olympics).
        However, I completely disagree that some study of how nations view the significance of diplomas is necessary, nor really relevant. The top eight placings get a diploma, get a form of award for their result, the IOC gives this, thus they are results that inherently matter. And this will still apply in overachieving nations (US, GB, China) where most people never hear about the diplomas. Kingsif (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
        • What is required is evidence that significant coverage is likely to exist for 95% of participants meeting this proposed criteria across the span of all Olympics. The diploma is notable in itself, but no evidence has been put forward to suggest that (almost all) its recipients are (let alone top-8 finishers before 1981 who didn't get diplomas); that you only refer to "many smaller nations" doesn't suggest it will be possible to demonstrate otherwise. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
        Yeah, well, every athlete gets a nice plasticized badge from the IOC, which "inherently matters," since with it they're not arrested and escorted out of the Olympic village. Are you really asserting a link between receiving an "Olympic diploma" and being able to meet the GNG? If so, where is your evidence beyond "I believe this strongly?" Ravenswing 02:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Data needed. NSPORT has always been subordinate to GNG; the recent guideline changes merely remove the unfounded presumption of notability and move up the timeline for demonstrating SIGCOV. The subjects who are being "canceled" now should have been deleted eventually anyway per the old NSPORT. If we're going to add criteria presuming SIGCOV exists for particular achievements, then someone needs to prove those achievements garner GNG-meeting coverage in 95% of cases. JoelleJay (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Since three editors have questioned even my minimal option 3 (that medallists at World Athletics Championships should be presumed to be notable) and requested some data, let's start there. Here are 2 independent significant sources on 12 WC individual bronze medallists, limiting to those who have not won Olympic medals. In general my task was easier if the medallists were recent (because source tend to disappear from the web over time) and in English-speaking countries; but as WP:PUBLISH points out, it is not necessary for sources to be online. So while coverage of medallists from the 1980s will mostly be harder to find online, I think we can reasonably assume they would have received roughly the same amount of mainstream press coverage as the ones in this list.

Hopefully this will convince people that as a minimum we should add world championship medallists, as in my option 3. Adpete (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

But do you realize that we are talking about nothing? Is there anyone who would like to delete Trayvon Bromell from the encyclopedia? I mean, I appreciate your effort because, like me, you feel frustrated having to fight this "hard line" that wants to pass. But so, certainly not your fault, we almost touch the grotesque. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support all 3 - I would think they would all be notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support 1 - and I find it restrictive because in my opinion even a top 16 at the Olympics and world championships is abundantly notable. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support 3 - medalists is a safe assumption; beyond that, data needed. Levivich 16:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The idea that Olympic athletes were all even close to notable was just ludicrous. Keep it to medals, and if you can find good sourcing for non-medalists, create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
    • @Johnpacklambert: You have written "Oppose" but your reasoning sounds like support for Option 3. Is it fair to say you support option 3? Adpete (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support option 3 As others have said above. --Enos733 (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Data needed per above. Please provide evidence, using a wide variety of disciplines and years (particularly regarding events from a long time ago), and without cherry picking, that individuals satisfying any of these criteria meet GNG. Until that is shown, this is simply reinstating the old way of "presuming Notability" with no other evidence, which is what the community rejected. And the above list of medallists picked from the 21st century world of incessant internet coverage does not remotely cut the mustard!)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment wouldn't the remedy to 1 be to change it from top 8 to top 3, the same as the Olympics? Someone finishing 8th at the Commonwealth Games will almost always garner less coverage than someone who finishes 4th at the Olympics. And we're not going to get an overturning of the top 3 requirement for Olympic competitors, as that has been hotly debated, and a seeming consensus reached for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    That is my option 3. Adpete (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose These proposals are based on "feels", not any actual evidence, which was the root of the sports-specific notability guidelines massive problems in the past. If there isn't vast evidence that around 95% of these subjects pass GNG then this proposals should be thoroughly rejected. Alvaldi (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCYCLING

I tried to send Madeinox-BRIC-AR Canelas though AfD but commenters wanted to keep it because of WP:NCYCLING (and, to be clear, I'm not trying to relitigate that AfD here). However, after the AfD closed I did some research and found that NCYCLING was added by Lugnuts in this edit as a result of this discussion at WikiProject Cycling. Furthermore, I found that the notability guidelines for men's teams was only explicitly mentioned by @XyZAn in this comment, the proposals, and in a comment by Sander.v.Ginkel asking about if there's wikilinks to what the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd tier teams of UCI are. Seeing as how it came about mostly as a result of fan discussion at a WikiProject, I'm questioning whether it enjoys wider community consensus and how accurate parts of it are in predicting notability. I'm putting this here because I'm curious what other editors think about it. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 15:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this should be revisited and probably overhauled to bring it in line with the rest of NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
For the specific AfD, there wasn't a rebuttal that the cited sources all seem to be databases. Per WP:PRIMARY:

Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

.—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
From the UCI rules on Continental Teams (the 3rd tier teams): "2.17.004 A UCI Continental team or UCI women’s continental team will comprise riders who may or may not be professional, ...". There are around 20 WorldTeams (1st tier), around 20 ProTeams (2nd tier), and around 180 Continental Teams (3rd tier). I am sure that 1st and 2nd tier teams are all notable, but I see no reason that all 180 current Continental teams (nor the many more previously existing ones), which as indicated may be amateur teams, should be automatically considered to be notable. So I would have no problem to remove the 3rd tier teams from NCYCLING. (Just to be clear: that does not mean that I think all articles on 3rd tier teams should be removed.) --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Passing WP:NCYCLING does not make anyone automatically notable. Likewise, failing WP:NCYCLING, does not make anyone automatically non-notable. In both cases the subject must be shown to pass WP:GNG when taken to AfD. Has there been any research done that gives evidence that the 1st and 2nd tier teams regulary pass WP:GNG? Alvaldi (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion about relation NSPORTS and GNG
Passing WP:NCYCLING does mean that the subject is presumed to merit an article according to Wikipedia:Notability. For me "should be considered to be notable" is very close to "presumed to merit an article". The intro of Wikipedia:Notability puts subject-specific notability guideline on the same level as GNG, so Lex specialis derogat legi generali for sporters NSPORTS is the relevant guideline, and GNG seems to be irrelevant.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 10:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:NSPORT, which WP:NCYCLING is part of, is rather clear on that it does not replace GNG as can be seen in the FAQ on the top of its page "A1. The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline." I do recommend giving the full FAQ a read, it clears up alot of misunderstanding regarding the sport specific guidelines. Alvaldi (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

And as I showed, the GNG is pretty clear that specific notability guidelines replace the general ones. I recommend that you read what GNG actually says. If you want to change GNG, please discuss it there, until then I will respectfully choose to ignore a FAQ which contradicts it. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Despite your comments above, its clear from countless earlier discussions here that the consensus is that passing this particular subject-specific notability guideline (NSPORT) does not determine notability. NSPORT says "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." and the "guidance" given doesn't determine notability. Nigej (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
So there were countless discussions, but nobody thought to go have a look at GNG? The FAQ is currently contradicting the definition given in the parent guideline. The parent guideline says "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article". A FAQ and discussions here don't change the parent guideline, you need to do that at the talk page of GNG. Or be bold, and change GNG. But until GNG is changed, we should follow that guideline. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
During the discussions, GNG was referenced countless times and the inconsistency in that wording noted but deemed not to affect how NSPORT operates within the bounds of consensus. And community consensus is clear – NSPORT does not replace GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The intro in WP:NOTABILITY you mentioned states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and. The SNG in question, NSPORTS, clearly states that the criteria for sport related subjects is for them to pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
To "pass" NSPORT you need to "pass" GNG. Satisfying the criteria given is another matter, but that's just guidance. Nigej (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Notability says that a topic merits an article if it passes GNG or an SNG. That means that passing GNG is sufficient to be presumed notable. Now you can choose:
1. An article has to pass all GNG criteria to pass NSPORTS. In that case, all other NSPORTS criteria are useless, because GNG is already sufficient according to WP:N. That would make NSPORTS a useless guideline, you could simple replace it by "same as GNG" to have the same effect.
2. NSPORTS replaces GNG, despite what it claims in the FAQ. In that case, NSPORTS is useful.
3. The introduction to Wikipedia:Notability is wrong, and for sports-related articles the GNG is replaced by an SNG. (And NSPORTS can choose to include GNG as criteria.)
I tend to go for the positive interpretation, in which the parent guideline is not wrong, and NSPORTS is useful. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
1 is correct. "The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance". eg A new page reviewer looking here and finding that it satisfies a criteria will have some confidence that the subject of the biography is "likely" to be notable. Nigej (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
No, if the new page reviewer is logical and 1 is correct, they will see that one of the criteria is "follow GNG", and from GNG they will see that an article that follows GNG can be considered to be notable. The new page reviewer will then think "why should I bother to also read the rest of NSPORTS, I already have my conclusion". Any SNG that includes GNG is useless. I am honestly surprised that I seem to be alone in this, it feels like basic logic. I might be missing something very stupid, in that case please point out what it is. I have tried to be very clear in my logic, but the point does not seem to come across. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
However there are countless articles out there that do not pass GNG. Under the current system those that are notable should still be kept. Nigej (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I am stepping out of this discussion, because I realize that I'm not going to change your point of view, and the outcome of this discussion does not really matter to me because I almost never join notability discussions. To be honest, the sentence "I do recommend giving the full FAQ a read, it clears up alot of misunderstanding" triggered something in me, it felt really condescending, as if I had never read the FAQ, and that I was just "misunderstanding" things, while I just clearly indicated a mistake. It felt like the response of a helpdesk from a company that does not want to admit a mistake. I should have ignored that feeling, and I should have told myself that it was not intended in that way. But I did not do that, and it became a matter of principle to proof that I was correct. My apologies for that. I still think that I was correct with my point, but that I was wrong in engaging in the discussion just to prove a point. I'm sure that we all could have spent our time better. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@EdgeNavidad My apologies if that came out as condescending, that was not my intention. We might not agree on this particular point but what a boring world it would be if everyone would agree. Happy weekend :) Alvaldi (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all for your comments. I'll examine the extent of coverage for the 18 teams at the WorldTeam level in 2018 (arbitrary year in the past), and if that's satisfactory go down to the UCI ProSeries and look at the 19 teams during its inaugural season (2020). I will probably also spot check the other UCI team categories. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 19:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hockey criteria

I've recently added the following [26] to the ice hockey criteria. As it reads today, the guideline makes no reference whatsoever to the world's best leagues. If this wording (which i copy-pasted from an earlier version) is no longer consensus, how can we then include these leagues in the guideline? 162 etc. (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NSPORTS2022, and the talk page discussions on this page since then. The basketball one in particular may be enlightening. Levivich (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
As discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability (see link at the top of the talk page), single-game participation criteria have been removed from the sports-specific notability guidelines. A new consensus would have to be determined in order to change the hockey-specific guideline. Note sportsfigures can meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article by satisfying the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
For starters it would be good to establish that there is evidence that appearing in one game in those leagues is a good indicator of the players passing WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's my comeback to that: with participation standards deprecated, why would we need to do so? Do you have any doubt whatsoever that NHL players (for instance) can easily meet the GNG? Ravenswing 22:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, if we're just going to use WP:GNG, why have WP:NHOCKEY at all? (Which I guess is a point that some made at the aforementioned discussions.) It just seems really strange to me that someone like Patrick Roy doesn't meet the criteria as they are written today. 162 etc. (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand this point of view based on the predictor principle, which has long been used to set criteria in sports-specific notability guidelines. From an in-practice point of view, though, Patrick Roy isn't the one that needs extra buffer time to ensure that appropriate sources are found, but some obscure goalie from before World War I. isaacl (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
What Isaacl said. In a certain way, who cares if Patrick Roy doesn't technically satisfy any of the surviving NHOCKEY criteria? He doesn't satisfy WP:PROF, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NACTOR, WP:AUTHOR or numerous other notability criteria either. But leaving aside that he does satisfy the basic WP:SPORTSPERSON, his notability is not remotely in question, and he'd satisfy the GNG fifty times over.

The purpose of notability criteria is not to enshrine ourselves as self-appointed prizemasters, handing out awards; what would seem strange to me is the implication that anything we editors could do could mar or burnish the immense legacy of a Roy. The purpose is to determine whether or not players are notable enough to merit articles. Over twenty years in, I like to think that the encyclopedia is mature enough that no one's going to question the inclusion of far less accomplished players than superstars like Roy. Where notability criteria might still be useful is on the margins: the aforementioned obscure pre-WWI goalie. Ravenswing 01:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  • @162 etc.: If you decide to pursue this, I suggest looking at the recent proposal regarding NBA players. As was done there, you will need to collect and present solid data from each time period showing that > 90% of the players have received WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. If players from a particular era (e.g., 1910s or 1920s) fall below the 90% threshold, you should exclude them from the proposal. I would also recommend that you limit the proposal to the NHL which is the top of the pyramid and the most likely to have SIGCOV readily available. Cbl62 (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
As I understand it, there are two (at least) different issues here.
1) Is appearing in a single game in one of those 'best leagues' enough to confer inherent notability on a player? (My view, FWIW, is that it shouldn't be.)
2) Why are the top leagues excluded from the notability criteria, when the second-highest ones are included? As it currently reads, achieving preeminent honours in Liiga (top Finnish league) doesn't make you notable, but achieving the same in Mestis (second-highest league) does, which makes no sense. (Or have I missed something?)
Obviously where a player satisfies GNG, there's no problem, and usually the higher up the pyramid one climbs the more coverage one tends to accumulate, which probably covers many/most, but not all, players in the top leagues. Therefore, the question NHOCKEY needs to answer is what happens when GNG notability is not established? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
When a sports subject does not have the significant coverage to pass GNG, the article gets deleted. There is no inherent notability established by passing any of the criteria in WP:NSPORTS. Passing one just means that the subject is supposedly very likely to pass WP:GNG and the article should not be speedily deleted. However, if taken to AfD, the subject must be shown to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_52&oldid=1122997854"