Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Are match reports considered routine/trivial coverage?

Some editors are suggesting that match reports (among other common sources of coverage) are not routine or trivial coverage. Although most match reports appear in reliable sources, such as this, most of the time they only provide a summary of the match outcome and noteworthy events. In that BBC match report, the author notes that Danny Karbassiyoon scored the winning goal and gave Arsenal a place in the Carling Cup fourth round. However, there is nothing else about him (aside from his name being included in the squad listing). Yes, he did something notable in that match, but do we really believe this kind of coverage is anything other than routine or trivial? Jogurney (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think match reports can be considered significant coverage if they focus on a player in detail - in the BBC report above, that does not apply to Karbassiyoon. GiantSnowman 19:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

If it's the type of coverage that is routinely written about matches of that same sort, then it's routine coverage. Someone always scores a winning goal in a victory, and when teams advance due to a victory or non-scoreless draw, someone will have scored the decisive goal. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The specific example in question is a match preview that is similar to the BBC report linked above, however it's in French and mentions one player will likely have good memories of his last time playing the future opponent. The entire text is as follows: Le Grenoble Foot 38 reçoit le FC Montceau Bourgogne ce samedi 27 avril 2013 au Stade des Alpes. Gary Perchet devrait faire le déplacement avec son équipe dans une capitale des Alpes qui lui a sans doute laissé un des meilleurs souvenirs de sa carrière. Le 9 juillet 2007, il a en effet inscrit son seul but en Ligue 2 ; c’était à Lesdiguières et Amiens, son équipe d’alors, s’était imposé 1-0. Does anyone believe this is anything other than routine or trivial? Jogurney (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It's commonplace coverage with similar accounts having been written many times for many players, thus routine (even with the description of the player's only goal in Ligue 2). isaacl (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the French example is also routine. GiantSnowman 09:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well it seems the cadre of editors who consider the above text to be both SIGCOV and non-routine is over-represented at sports AfDs, so even if there's consensus here it won't matter. JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• There's no "one-size-fits-all" answer to the question. It depends on the depth of coverage. Passing references to a player in match reports do not qualify as SIGCOV. The quoted passage above does not qualify as SIGCOV of the player IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The real, and abhorrent, answer based on WP's unfortunate editorial consensus is; "yes" if its a major sport occurring at the highest domestic or international level, unless the matches are occurring in a place culturally distant from the typical AfD reviewer; in which case the answer becomes "no" Jack4576 (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Match reports are usually routine/trivial but on very rare occasions they can focus on a player in enough detail to be considered significant coverage. The above mentioned sources however, are not significant coverage of the individuals in question. Alvaldi (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC, rewording of WP:NCYCLING

Should a sixth criterion be added to WP:NCYCLING reading "#6: a race of equivalent prominence of any of the above. (for example, the African Road Championships)"? Jack4576 (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: multiple AfDs have arisen recently (here, here, and here) where cycling champions of the entire African continent have had their notability called into question as they fail to meet the literal definition of WP:NCYCLING.

My view is that WP:IAR would suggest that the evident prominence of these races suggests they are at least equivalent to a UCI category race. My reading is that they do meet criterion #5, but other editors don't appear to agree. Either way, this is causing confusion.

In my view the addition of the proposed wording above would allow for stronger arguments to be made that the above cyclists captured under the SNG, and so benefit the project. Jack4576 (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Question: Has there been any analysis to demonstrate that this is a strong predictor of significant coverage? The lack of SIGCOV sourcing in the three AfDs linked above would be an argument against, not for, this proposal. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  doing an analysis as to whether coverage can be actually found would not fully resolve the issue

  there are policy reasons why the guidelines allow SIGCOV to be constructively found in certain categories of circumstance, even if in some instances on a case-by-case basis an actual search would not yield any results

  to frame this debate solely with regard to actual sources misleads, as its a policy interpretation with the absurd result of giving no operative effect to the clear presumptive language as written in NATHLETE and many other SNG guidelines Jack4576 (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  The comment above is baffling. Subject specific notability guidelines are handy tools to help determine whether or not a topic is likely to be notable, as opposed to a guarantee or an assurance of notability. If the sports related topic has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it is not eligible for a freestanding Wikipedia article. Find the sources first, then write the article, per WP:BACKWARD, which is "only an essay" but a very perceptive one. Cullen328 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  If I can validly presume that significant coverage exists, then I can validly presume that a subject fulfills notability guidelines

  Therefore, I am able to write an entry based upon a series independent, reliable sources; irrespective as to whether or not the sources I am actually relying upon to write claims about the subject in the entry, themselves amount to SIGCOV.

  It is my understanding that this is the intended operation of the SNGs to ensure subjects of a certain prominence, who in all likelihood have sigcov (that we as WP editors might not have gained access to for a myriad of reasons)

  If you have a different interpretation of the operation of the SNG presumptions; I'd be happy to discuss this further, open a separate talk page discussion on this issue, or take this to another, appropriate forum Jack4576 (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your interpretation is not in line with the global consensus reached at NSPORT2022 that a) reaffirmed the existing requirement for GNG and b) asserted athlete articles must cite a SIGCOV source. NSPORT has nothing to do with rewarding certain achievements with standalone articles. JoelleJay (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: (I'm assuming that this should say "Won a race ...") I'd oppose any addition which was as vague as that proposed. What exactly is "a race of equivalent prominence of any of the above"? All criteria in NSPORT need to be precise. Nigej (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree that precision adds any meaningful value. Discussions about precise criteria tend to distract from meaningful assessments of the underlying notability issue that the guidelines are supposed to assist in determining.

  Regardless, here, a precise (Eurocentric?) criteria is affecting the ability of WP editors to argue that prominent african cyclists are notable for continent-wide victories. To me, that is an absurd, (and perhaps unintentionally racist) result Jack4576 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  If you want the winners of the "African Road Championships" added, then propose that, with evidence that "Significant coverage is likely to exist" for those men. Nigej (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  (1) I don't see why the exception should be limited to only the African Road Championships, we need a catch-all

  (2) The purpose of the SNG presumptions is ensure notable people are included in scope; to ensure WP is including obviously notable people where for understandable reasons significant coverage may be difficult to locate. As I'm sure you'd appreciate, there may be many reasons why African sources on cycling might be difficult to obtain ordinarily for ENG:WP editors. That deficiency makes them no less worthy of an entry (at least where some reliable facts can be obtained). Jack4576 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  A catch-all would be a disaster, we'd just have endless discussions on whether a particular event was "a race of equivalent prominence of any of the above". As I said above I wouldn't be against adding specific events, if there was evidence that "Significant coverage is likely to exist" for them. Nigej (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• The proposal too vague (what races are of equivalent prominence as the others?) At the moment, no evidence has been presented that significant coverage is likely to exist for these individuals. Do the most recent champions of the competitions you are thinking about pass WP:GNG? I.e. those from the golden age of the internet. Alvaldi (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think issues of vagueness in the above criterion can be resolved through consensus achieved after AfD discussion Jack4576 (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  The vagueness of the proposed criteria should be addressed before it is added. As it stands, I Oppose but I'm open to take another look if it there is a more refined proposal. Alvaldi (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  The point of the rewording is flexibility, and so its vagueness is intentional. We need to be able to include non-UCI athletes for reasons of avoiding bias.

  Perhaps 'Elite national or international cycling competitions?' Jack4576 (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  The consensus in most recent discussions here, has been for a tightening of NSPORT criteria and the significant loosening that you're proposing is unlikely to achieve consensus. Also previous discussions have focused on evidence, which is completely lacking so far. Where is the evidence that winners of "Elite national or international cycling competitions" are likely to be notable? Nigej (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm asking whether or not they should be presumed notable by sake of their achievements; irrespective of available coverage Jack4576 (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  The long 2022 discussions noted at the top of this talk page were triggered by the creation of large numbers of articles which passed NSPORT but for which no significant coverage existed and the idea that we should introduce new criteria opening us up to the same issues again, seems crazy to me. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  What seems crazy to me is that WP's guidelines have explicit (although unintentional) Anglocentric, Eurocentric, and Global-North oriented biases; when English is the world's lingua franca, and the project ought to be a humanitarian project serving all people. This proposed change would go some way to addressing that. I don't think the existence of a large number of articles is relatively speaking much of a problem to an (electronic) encyclopedia

  I understand reasonable minds may differ in opinion on this Jack4576 (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  No one's saying that events can't be added. What we need is a specific list of such events and evidence that the winners of each of those events are likely to be notable. I understand that that is difficult but that's where we are currently. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  No we don't. The only purpose of this guideline is a reliable indicator that GNG level coverage exists, not to provide a backdoor to create/keep articles on subjects for which no significant coverage exists (or can be found).

  And no. The competitions must be individually named or have a widely recognised (preferably official) designation, and there must be evidence that competitors will very likely meet GNG. Woolly language is not acceptable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  With respect, that's your interpretation of the policy's purpose, but that purpose has not been made explicit

  In my view, the purpose of the policy is to identify notability. Which can either occur (1) through coverage, or (2) a presumption that coverage must exist, even if we can't (and may never) locate it Jack4576 (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  You are proposing that we make presumptions blindly, without any evidence. That is never going to happen. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  What is the utility of a presumption if you're going to actually perform the search anyway ? Zero. Jack4576 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  It can be done statistically. If N random winners of an event can be shown to all be notable then that might well indicate that other winners of the event are "likely" to be notable without any specific evidence for those people. Nigej (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  It would require a university-grant level of resources to perform such an analysis properly. I suspect this step wasn’t taken in respect of the existing guidelines. Again, we seem to be at odds with regards to the purpose of notability presumptions as a matter of policy Jack4576 (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  It would require a university-grant level of resources--hardly, see prior discussions of the NFOOTY guideline for examples of prior analyses. For African Road Championships in particular, you already have an existing list of championship winners. Generate five random numbers to select entries and see if you can find significant coverage in secondary sources for each of them. Make a note of any cyclists thus sampled that also meet other pre-existing criteria. This analysis should take a few hours at most (significantly less if your proposed assumptions of notability are correct), and would go a long way to persuade people here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe start with the last five winners, where online coverage should be easy to find. If they don't pass GNG, then there is little reason to assume that the earlier winners do. Alvaldi (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Proposals such as this have zero chance of community acceptance. The proposed wording is too vague and there is no evidence that anyone meeting the criteria would pass GNG. Significant coverage is a requirement for sports biographies and when it comes to AFD, NSPORT does not provide a bypass to GNG, which seems to be what this proposal is an attempt to achieve. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alvaldi and wjemather. Cbl62 (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
• Unfortunately no proposal to make NSPORT more inclusive will ever pass. If you don't show the evidence, then it gets rejected because "it would be a poor predictor of notability"; if you provide some evidence, it gets rejected because "you didn't show enough evidence"; even if you show evidence for literally every participant ever, it gets rejected because "well if they're all notable you don't need NSPORT saying they are." BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and this attitude ignores the utility of presumptive rules as a means to constructively infer notability

With the decline of print media throughout much of the world i’m quite concerned that these coverage issues are just going to get worse and worse outside of the Anglosphere / Global North unless we adopt change

I thought the patent absurdity of denying notability to a continental champion might sway a few people here, or at least provoke contributions as to an alternative solution to ensure notability

However i’m saddened to see that most editors here don’t seem to think denying such a person raises alarm bells, and nor do they seem willing to support even small steps to secure African Sports coverage on English Wikipedia

Thanks for your comment it’s nice to see at least some others are also concerned about this issue Jack4576 (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Question Do the African players in question have enough in-depth reliable source coverage to meet the WP:GNG? If yes, then any sort of NSPORTS extended SNG is irrelevant and notability is shown by meeting the GNG. If anyone is arguing otherwise, they should be corrected and reprimanded if they keep trying to push such a fallacious argument claiming non-notability. Silverseren^C 19:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  So NSPORTS has no operative effect in practice ? Jack4576 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  In theory editors can use NSPORT to see whether an article is likely to meet GNG, even though it currently doesn't. If it passes NSPORT then they may well leave the article, especially if it's relatively new. However when an article is challenged by taking it to AfD then NSPORT serves little or no purpose. Having said that, following the deletion of all "participation"-based criteria in 2022, NSPORT has been left in a strange state with a hodge-podge of criteria making little sense. Attempts here to rationalise things have made no progress and in reality NSPORT has become something of a lame-duck, waiting to be put out of its misery. Nigej (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• No as written. (Summoned by bot) As written, the reference to equivalent races is vague. A list of events that are considered equivalent, including the African Road Championship, will be unambiguous, and I would support that. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (Summoned by bot): IAR can always be proposed under the auspices of improving Wikipedia. It becomes confusing when asserting it can be used to circumvent policies and guidelines all the while attempting to change any such policies and\or guidelines. Attempting to add a criterion that IAR can be used for notability in one project cannot water down, circumvent, or otherwise run afoul of the more broad community consensus through local consensus. IAR can ultimately only be invoked when no objections have been raised. Local consensus cannot usurp any established broad community consensus and works with the general notability guideline. Proof of this is reflected in the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" of WP:NSPORT. This page in a nutshell: An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page. Any suggested "likely notability" can exist when not challenged. When a subject's notability is challenged the criteria of Wikipedia:notability, which includes verifiability must be satisfied. Maintaining that there surely is the possibility of sources existing, somewhere in the universe is admirable: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. The last paragraph of WP:SNG states: Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field. Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Articles for deletion). The inclusion of "discussions at AFD" support that WP:SIGCOV is important, when presented with evidence and ultimately consensus is the determining factor as an "assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article". Also, presenting an addition to an SNG, that would lend support to ongoing AFD discussions, could be seen as an "end run" to support arguments of "keep". It should be remembered that Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I take all your points but re: your last sentence, verifiability has nothing to do with depth of coverage. Sparse facts can be established through reliable, independent sources and make a person notable in the colloquial sense; even if they don't pass SIGCOV and therefore notability in the Wikipedia sense

Secondly, imposing rules upon the usage of IAR kind of undermines the premise and point of IAR Jack4576 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Expanding any notability criteria that does not consider from where we are getting the source text for articles in question. --Jayron32 17:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose vague as proposed. As Nigej said: All criteria in NSPORT need to be precise. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we soften the phrase "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."?

The word 'must' is quite strong and it raises problems with consistency. A point has been made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Di Pizio by User:Jack4576 that WP:GNG is only a presumption of notability and a sports biography is not required to pass WP:GNG. Fair enough as GNG does not seem to say that it is required or that even one decent source is required as such. WP:SPORTBASIC says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. the word 'must' seems too strong here and out of sync with the type of language used at GNG. If GNG is preferred but not required then should we change the wording of SPORTBASIC#5 to something like

It would be preferable if sports biographies include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.

This would be more in line with the 'softer' wording present in GNG. Alternatively, should we alter GNG to make it an actual requirement that sports biographies so that we don't see sports biography AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miguel Di Pizio become an endless debate between people arguing to delete because "he fails GNG" and people arguing to keep because "he played a few games for Australia as a youth and is on a professional contract and because GNG is not actually required so yeah". In short, should we not go all the way and say that significant coverage is required on all sports biographies or should we back off and say that it's a preference and not a requirement but make that consistent across both SPORTBASIC and GNG? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this Spiderone. I think your first proposal is a good one.

Re: your second proposal; I don't think there is any realistic prospect of an alteration to GNG (especially not as an outcome of this discussion) but I am open to the conversation. Jack4576 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We should go all the way and require multiple sources providing significant coverage of the subjects. Alvaldi (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we expect an athlete's article to meet the GNG (significant coverage from multiple sources), though the criteria in NSPORT is designed to say when we can presume that condition eventually will be met as to allow the article to be created. Thus, it is a must to show at least one significant coverage source for the article. Masem (t) 12:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The standard is quite clear as written. NSPORTS mentions several times that articles must meet GNG, and the additional requirement to include at least one source in the article helps ensure that folks are actually assessing notability before creating articles instead of shifting that burden to others. It's unclear where the confusion is coming from here. –dlthewave ☎ 13:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am the person who proposed SPORTBASIC #5 at the 2021 RfC, and I oppose both of the proposals above for the following reasons:

NSPORTBASIC #5 was intended to put a firm stop to the practice of creating sports biographies that were substubs based solely on comprehensive sports databases and lacking in any SIGCOV. It serves an important purpose in doing that. Eliminating the "must" language would defenestrate SPORTBASIC #5 and return us to the Wild West in which substubs sourced to databases can continue to exist. For that reason, I oppose changing "must" to "should".

I also oppose the proposed change in GNG. A limited safety valve already exists under NBASIC which provides: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Under NBASIC, a biography is still not permitted based on mere database entries, but it can be kept if multiple, reliable, independent sources can be combined to create a well-rounded and encyclopedic entry. Such circumstances are very rare, and I've only come across one circumstance in the past two years (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Vehmeier) where I concluded that it was appropriately applied.

In short, the system is not iron-clad, but that's fine. SPORTBASIC #5 creates a very strong prohibition on sports bios sourced only to databases. However, in limited circumstances where a well-rounded biography can be created using multiple non-database sources, NBASIC provides a very limited saftey valve. Cbl62 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

A limited safety valve already exists under NBASIC Since when is this "limited"? NBASIC is invoked in practically every single athlete AfD where no single SIGCOV source has been found, effectively nullifying SPORTBASIC #5. Editors are also claiming that NBASIC can be met by compiling one-sentence mentions in SIRS until they reach their definition of SIGCOV (which is often, like, three sentences...) or, at best, they reach their definition of "comprehensive" (which can be achieved through a series of transactional pieces). SB #5 hasn't been tenable for a while now. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the others. It shouldn't be loosened. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Like the above, I also oppose changing any of the language. We want to discourage people from creating articles for which there is not enough source text to support a standalone article. If the source text doesn't exist, we shouldn't create the article in the first place. --Jayron32 13:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• I'd like to see something like "Sports biographies normally must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. However, if there are enough less in-depth sources to write a decent-sized biography, then the article may be kept." I think if a decent sports bio can be written on a somewhat notable topic (for example, National Football League players - I could probably write a decent article on pretty much every NFL player ever, but unfortunately it seems that doesn't mean anything when the subjects "fail" GNG) then we should be able to keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• I also oppose gutting #5. It's a bottom-of-the-barrel threshold that all article subjects should be meeting anyway and that article creators should be using to write the article in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• From its inception, the sports-specific notability guidelines have deferred to the general notability guideline for determining if the standards of having an article were met, while also providing guidance on how to interpret it in the context of sports. This has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years. So while it is true that the general notability guideline is, in turn, just a guideline for the standards of having an article, once you go outside of it, you're also going outside of the sports-specific notability guidelines. Thus this guideline page doesn't need to accommodate this scenario. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• I'd be against any softening of WP:SPORTBASIC. We shouldn't be writing articles for people who fail this. Nigej (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• I too Oppose any softening of the standard. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose We have far too many poorly referenced biography stubs. We should be strengthening our standards instead of loosening them. Cullen328 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's long been consensus that sportsperson biographies must satisfy the GNG (even when the SNG existed in 2017, we concluded that the GNG needed to be met as the SNG was simply a presumption; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawyer Gaffney). In my view, SPORTCRIT #5 provides leniency in only requiring a single source of SIGCOV, where the GNG explicitly requires sources (i.e., more than one). Jogurney (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, SPORTCRIT #5 is only providing leniency from a documentation standpoint. In other words, the article only needs to reflect a single source of SIGCOV, but when notability is challenged SPORTCRIT #5 doesn't override the requirement of sources in the GNG (see discussion above, as I was getting confused about this recently). Jogurney (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see a conclusion in the discussion above that SPORTCRIT#5 overrides or not the GNG. Also, GNG doesn't explicitly require sources. Black and white terms like 'require' are not used. Instead, we have things like "generally", "should" and that GNG is a "standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I'm concerned you are using a black and white lens, where it is not appropriate. Nfitz (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Opposeper Cullen328 Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The one good reliable source requirement is the minimum requirement to present notability of any sports article. And, if challenged on notability, then all articles are required to meet the GNG in full. This is the rule that the community as a whole, not the specific SPORTS editors, have agreed upon for all sports subject articles. The GNG is the required measure to be reached for all articles Wiki-wide, after all, if notability is challenged. That's why it is the General Notability Guideline. The only technical exception are topics such as academic biographies or book authors, where reliable source coverage of their works counts toward their own notability, since that is what sources would focus on, not the authors themselves. But that just means their works in total need to meet the GNG for the authors, so it still comes down to that requirement regardless. Silverseren^C 19:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

USC in football? and normal football?

In WP:NSEASONS, What is USC? On a side note, can we not include top European football leagues in the prose? Govvy (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

USC would be the University of Southern California. Alvaldi (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The football leagues are covered by the first sentence Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. I assume USC is another American university (who play gridiron) given the US-centricism of the rest of the section. Spike 'em (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe USC needs a link for people to know what it is. Govvy (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Links added. Cbl62 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as college football is concerned, I wonder if those examples are even useful, since every school in the Power Five conferences and many lower-level schools have enough significant coverage for articles on individual seasons. USC in particular is a little confusing, since the University of South Carolina also calls itself USC, and while their football program is hardly elite - no national championships and an all-time record barely over .500 - it still easily gets enough coverage for articles on individual seasons. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I'd say that giving examples for NSPORT criteria is always a bad idea. What we need is something that is very clear and giving a few examples is not that. Nigej (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

NSEASONS is outdated but maybe better than nothing. In modern American college football, every top tier (Division I FBS) program receives sufficient SIGCOV, but it's next to impossible in today's wiki-environment to obtain consensus for a new sports-related guideline. Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Update to the Tennis notability guidelines

Currently one of the guidelines to check if a tennis player is notable or not states the following:

"Have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments, or any of the WTA 125 tournaments. (Until 2007 it was $25,000 tournament based on the lowest payout for a men's challenger tournament in the same year)"

In my opinion this guideline needs to be updated, because there has not been any $50,000 tournaments on the ITF Women's Circuit since 2016. As of 2023 the current categories on the 2023 ITF Women's World Tennis Tour are $100,000 / $80,000 / $60,000 / $40,000 / $25,000 / $10,000.

Currently the guideline for the male tennis players at that level states "Have won at least one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments." As of 2023 the lowest category on the ATP Challenger Tour is "Challenger 50" which offers a prize money of $40,000.

So in conclusion, I reckon this part of the guidelines needs to be updated to "Have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000 tournaments, or any of the WTA 125 tournaments." for the requirements to be the same for both male and female tennis players. Kr1s71an (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggested something similar at the Tennis Wikiproject but never got around to bringing it over to here, I hope a small change to fix the inconsistency won't be seen as controversial as tennis actually does have parity between the sexes (unlike most sports) and the number of players affected will be small. Iffy★Chat -- 11:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Support: any result that would lower the threshold for notability here; including Kr1s71an's proposal

Jack4576 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the lack of opposition here after more than a week, I've made this change. Iffy★Chat -- 16:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed this, but no issues to me except the wording needs a date parameter. We can't use it in 2008. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Secretive discussion

A bunch of editors are having a secretive discussion about a massive deletion/draftification process, that should be discussed centrally, not on a user page. Please see this; User:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification BilledMammal is quizzing people as to how they found it, which is very worrying. Spike 'em (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You comply misunderstood this. They’re not having a secretive discussion. This a draft for a formal RFC to be launched in the near future.Tvx1 21:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Porsche Supercup is not listed

Even if it is OK, does participation make a driver notable? Max von Braunmühl Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I have checked a number of biographies of Porsche drivers. They have biographic data, lsits of races.Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xx236 Notabilty for sport subjects is not participation based, it is coverage based. While participation in certain events may increase the likelihood for a subject to gain significant coverage, sport subjects still need to been shown to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. If Max von Braunmühl doesn't have multiple sources of significant coverage then his article should be deleted regardless of what races he has participated in. Alvaldi (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this accurate? Seems a bit weird to have a detailed list of sports SNG notability criteria, but then tell people "those don't matter, ignore all that and evaluate for GNG instead". –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the same thing! BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae The FAQ at top of WP:NSPORTS explains this SNG pretty well, I would give it a read. Alvaldi (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

To answer OP's question, in general, if a subject doesn't meet an SNG (in this case WP:NMOTORSPORT), then they do need to meet WP:GNG to be notable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, at least half of all SNGs are merely predictors of GNG (or functional equivalents) and their criteria do not confer notability directly. The SNG in this case is NSPORT (not the sport-specific subguideline (SSG)), and it has always required its subjects to meet GNG (see the first and second sentences of NSPORT, the second sentence of the applicable policies and guidelines, SPORTCRIT, and the FAQs), however the presumption of GNG afforded by meeting a sport-specific criterion used to be enough to create an article without worrying it would be speedied, and often at AfD the expectation was that delete !voters went above a standard BEFORE in demonstrating GNG was not met (see this AfD where showing a total lack of coverage in 27 different news outlets in three different languages and two different scripts met resistance because "meets NFOOTY"). Because the SSGs were all pretty terrible at actually predicting GNG, that presumption was eliminated at NSPORTS2022 (which you made 4 comments in) alongside all "mere participation" subcriteria. And in addition to the subject being required to meet GNG (whether or not this was evidenced in the article), the RfC further found strong consensus that the article must also include at least one citation to a GNG-contributing source. Several sports editors vehemently opposed this conclusion[1], and consensus-flouting behavior during/after its implementation was at least partially a factor in the blocks/bans of several longterm editors (such as Lugnuts, No Great Shaker (himself a likely sock of BlackJack), and a few others).

To familiarize yourself with the guideline, I'd recommend reading the 2021 discussion that resulted in non-medallist Olympians being removed from NOLY; a follow-up concurrent with NSPORTS2022 that clarified even Olympic medalists in competitions with <4 competitors were not presumed to meet GNG, and another that removed Olympics participation from the NFOOTY guideline; the post-NSPORTS2022 sport-by-sport RfCs; the numerous affirmations that SSG subcriteria need to strongly predict GNG (equestrians, association football[1][2], track, baseball, badminton, boxing); and support for enforcing and clarifying the guideline re: SPORTSBASIC #5, "", sports org non-independence, and several of the currently-active discussions above.

Suggested AfD precedents describing consensus for meeting GNG from pre-RfC re: MMA[1], gridiron[1]2, cricket[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], football[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], gymnastics[1]; and post-RfC: Olympians[1], football[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] (not to mention the hundreds uncontroversially deleted), lawn bowling1[2], archery, cricket[1], gridiron[1]. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Is coverage of a family as a whole direct coverage of each individual in a family?

There has been a contention that these sources about two sets of brothers are direct (and in the case of the first, significant) biographical coverage of one of the individuals. Is this something that would fall under our normal considerations of "team vs individual" coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Individual season pages for single athletes

We do not have guidance on season pages for non-team sports. However, the tennis project seems to have been very active in creating articles on each season for top-ranked players from a merit-based criterion. How should this be approached? JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It's more of an editorial issue than one of whether or not Wikipedia's standards for having an article have been met. There is ample coverage and analysis of the competition years of these athletes, so the best way to organize it (including having spin-out articles to manage article length) and the desired level of detail is up to editorial consensus to determine. A general discussion is probably better held at the sports WikiProject discussion page. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the information in an individual season page is a valid WP:SPINOFF and seen through that lens or if the season page must meet notability on its own. I generally think that these pages are spinoffs that would overwhelm the main article. - Enos733 (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think in some cases it is reasonable to split an athletes career into spin-out articles as the information on them would overwhelm the main article if it was all included there. Novak Djokovic's article is an example of a good splin-outs in my opinion. Alvaldi (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify that this is for spinoffs created without regard for whether the topic has actually received SIGCOV itself. Editors are asserting that all high-ranked players "deserve" articles on their seasons regardless of any sources existing that discuss the season as a whole. JoelleJay (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Deserve" isn't an argument rooted in consensus guidance, in my view. However the standards of the general notability guideline are not that hard to meet with respect to finding sources that discuss a player's season (at least for the type of elite player for which people are creating spinout articles). Additionally, the structuring of content into spinouts is really more of an editorial decision; it retains its notability from the parent article, but is spun out to make the content for the overall subject easier to read or maintain. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The info at WP:SPLIT says the spun out article must still meet notability requirements by itself. JoelleJay (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure; the point is that there are many ways to spinout content from a parent article that meets English Wikipedia's standards of having an article, and thus working out all of the relevant considerations is an editorial decision. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Interaction between SPORTSCRIT #5 and other SNG's

Prompted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aage Leidersdorff (2nd nomination), I want to ask how WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 interacts with other SNG's, particularly WP:ANYBIO #1, and particularly in relation to awards related to sports?

For example, does winning an Olympic medal, or being awarded a "Sportsperson of the Year" award by a tabloid, remove the requirement for WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 to be met?

My initial impression would be that it does not; consensus clearly holds that even winning an Olympic medal doesn't result in presumed notability, and to loophole around that consensus through ANYBIO #1 is not permitted. However, I am interested in hearing other editors thoughts on this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The sports-specific notability guidelines, by consensus agreement, aren't a higher bar for having an article, and thus do not supersede other guidelines. However, if one of the criteria within this page is being used to presume the existence of suitable coverage meeting the general notability guideline, such as the guidance for Olympians, then the requirement to document a suitable reliable source applies. isaacl (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think NSPORT certainly does override any presumptions of notability from sporting activities afforded by other SNGs. Winning a significant sports award doesn't exempt an athlete from meeting SPORTSCRIT #5 and GNG. Nor can NBASIC be used as a loophole around it, since we had global consensus on the citation to SIGCOV requirement. JoelleJay (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The situations where this is an issue is forare related to sports that are not listed with criteria under this guideline page. The tricky aspect is if it's not listed, it's debatable whether or not this guideline applies. Historically, the guideline has not taken a position on what is a sport. It provides basic guidance on how to interpret the general notability guideline, but doesn't define a scope. Deletion discussions are missing the point, though, if they're arguing over whether or not award X by publication Y is enough to presume the existence of appropriate sources to meet the general notability guideline. The time is better spent searching for sufficient source material. isaacl (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

NSPORT has global consensus, but so does ANYBIO, so ANYBIO is not a loophole. It is probably going to be a rare occurrence for an athlete to genuinely meet ANYBIO while not meeting SPORTSCRIT #5, so I don't think it should be a problem to address these rare circumstances in AfD on a case by case basis. Rlendog (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

As I recall, one major thread emerging from the big NSPORT RfCs and related discussions was that achievement-based criteria were potentially valid while participation-based criteria were not. Under that logic, I don't see any conflict between the way NSPORT works and the way ANYBIO works that would lead to the conclusion that "ANYBIO criteria don't apply to athletes". Any athlete with an entry in their country's standard biographical dictionary should receive the same presumption of Notability as anyone else featured in that dictionary.

Also, my view - as expressed consistently over a number of years - is that WP:NBIO enjoys a higher WP:CONLEVEL than NSPORT does, since the latter is essentially a child guideline of the former (as is also NPROF, for example). So an attempt to institute a carve-out that would exclude athletes from ANYBIO - or from the sourcing requirements that make NBASIC more restrictive than GNG - would in my view require a well-publicized community process, and cannot simply be proclaimed if a small number of like-minded editors think it is a good idea.

That said, I also don't think that being proclaimed "Sportsperson of the Year" by a tabloid counts as a well-known and significant award or honor, which is what ANYBIO 1 requires. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It is a well-known and significant award and one of the major awards awarded at the annual sports gala held by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation[2][3][4]. Alvaldi (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• As the author/proposer of SPORTCRIT #5, I offer the following by way of intent/purpose. It was proposed and adopted in order to put an end to the problem of mass creation of sport sub-stubs sourced only to a database. It should be enforced strictly in those situations. However, it was never intended or discussed as a rule that would override NBIO or GNG. For those contending otherwise, I refer to them to the comments and votes supporting the adoption of SPORTCRIT #5 -- such an interpretation was never offered, implied, or in any way received any consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Squash

Hi, I'm curious to know why there is no specific criterion for Squash? Persona2two (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there any reason to have one? They just have to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, same as everyone else. Alvaldi (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Then why do we have specific criteria for other sports, huh? Persona2two (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

There are many sports that don't have specific criteria, e.g., football, baseball, American football, etc. Cbl62 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Persona2two: Hamza Khan includes solid examples of the WP:SIGCOV that's needed. Nice work on that. BTW, the real answer to your original question is that nobody has ever proposed a squash criterion. if you think there should be one, you are free to propose it, but the trend over the past two years or so has been to reject additional criteria and to remove others that had existed for many years. Based on those discussions, any proposed squash criterion would need to be supported by clear data showing that those falling within its scope are overwhelmingly likely (i.e., 90% or more) to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your encouragement and a detailed reply. I thought the squash criterion was just missed in the guidlines. Persona2two (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I found help in another Wikiproject talkpage, in the meantime. Everything went fine. Thank you!

Another path to cleaning up substubs

I've thought a lot about our collective efforts to clean up sports sub-stubs. I've supported User:BilledMammal's mass draftification of Lugnuts' Olympics and cricket stubs, but I have serious doubts about extending that system to top-level sports leagues (e.g., NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA) where there is a very high likelihood that the substubs can be expanded to include SIGCOV. The first wave of mass draftification of Olympic athletes has shown that the "stick" system has very limited impact in incentivizing editors to do the hard work needed to improve the articles and elevate them out of draft space. A better path IMO is to use a "carrot" rather than a "stick". With that in mind, I have created the "Gridiron football biography cleanup campaign". The campaign involves a list of approximately 1,000 articles (both American and Canadian football stubs) that are the most vulnerable combined with notices to the relevant projects and users that help is needed to improve these non-compliant stubs. The list also identifies the editor who created each stub, hoping that the creator will be motivated to strike any listed stubs that they created. I've also left talk page messages for active users who created multiples of the listed stubs (e.g., here). If anyone has additional thoughts on how to incentivize editors to improve these stubs, suggestions are welcome. Maybe barnstars or some other reward system for editors who expand a certain number of stubs? Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

BTW, we've also set up a talk page here to discuss difficult cases. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• I agree this approach is much better than mass draftifications. Looking at the two lists (football vs. olympians), I see in one week with the gridiron improvement campaign we've already expanded more than 17 times as many articles as Olympians have been improved and returned to mainspace since draftification! BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  As I recall, you suggested starting an initiative to improve articles on Olympic athletes. Perhaps you could proceed? isaacl (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  I did, though it didn't seem to receive much support. I've got the ideas in my head, but I'm not exactly sure how I'd make the actual campaign page and all that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  You could model it after the football biography cleanup page, or Hockey Mountain/Baseball Mountain (or make something else up). As was suggested in the current cricketers discussion, perhaps subdividing the list into groups that are associated with area that have active editors can help. At a minimum, it will make it easier to reach out to an active WikiProject who may take an interest. isaacl (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  I kind of like Cbl62's model; the thing is, though, I'm not really good at making charts like that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not good at making charts either, but when I took over Hockey Mountain, I just copied the existing one and tinkered some with it. Ravenswing 16:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  If you mean collecting the details, then I suggest starting with whatever you have, and other interested parties may build on it with more info. You can start with the table in the discussion to which you linked (and I'm sure BilledMammal or others would be glad to help with quarry queries to help gather more info). If you mean wikitable syntax, if you don't already use Visual Editor, you could try using it just for specific table edits, where the WYSIWYG approach can be helpful. Alternatively, you can use your spreadsheet of choice and paste the matrix of cells into the Visual Editor. (Further updates are probably better done by editing onwiki to try to avoid extraneous differences. However you could paste an updated version into a sandbox page and use that to figure out what to change in the wikitext source.) Good luck! isaacl (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry to be slow to the party, but could someone direct me to the link for the Olympic draftifications? Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • The discussion? WP:LUGSTUBS. The list? Its on my talk page here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• I suggest asking the editors involved in the WikiProjects that you notified. They're either the most likely editors to get involved or know the frequent contributors mostly likely to help out, so they can provide feedback on what might encourage them. Personally I think creating a list to work through is a great way to highlight ongoing progress, which can be inspiring, so thanks for starting the initiative. isaacl (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about the practical application of NSPORTS at AfD

I've noticed a trend over the past several months of several editors arguing at AfD that a sportsperson (typically a footballer) biography should be kept because "good" or "sufficient" sources have been found or identified to support or write a decent article (or show "notability"). These editors don't argue that the biography meets WP:ANYBIO as they don't reference an award or honor. They don't argue that it meets WP:NSPORTS as they don't mention whether the sportsperson has "been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I'm trying to WP:AGF, but I wonder if these editors are not addressing NSPORTS directly because they disagree with the outcome of WP:NSPORTS2022.

I would expect that AfD closers would ignore these !votes as they are not grounded in policy, yet fairly often it appears that a critical mass of these !votes yield no consensus or keep outcomes based on a counting of total votes. Rather than going through a series of time-consuming DRVs each time this appears to occur, is there something that can be done within NSPORTS itself to make clear that these kinds of arguments are not based in policy and won't be considered in evaluating AfD consensus? Jogurney (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• WP:NBASIC states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; is that what the users are arguing? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but not explicitly. Instead, the editors I'm noticing are typically making no distinction about whether a source is independent (and often any independent coverage being considered is entirely trivial). Jogurney (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  This rule in NBASIC was used in this AfD last month to successfully argue that "[showing] up in loads of match reports" was enough to meet GNG, and that "trivial mentions" only refers to mentions in sources like birth certificates and databases. Of the 11 sources brought up, 8 were match reports, 2 were from non-independent sites, and 1 was a video. This was closed as a keep. This rule was meant to give editors the chance to combine sources that, while might not individually be enough to satisfy GNG, still have enough relevant info to pull information from. How many hundreds of thousands (millions, right?) of athletes around the world have been mentioned in a couple of match reports just in the past century? JTtheOG (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Accomplishments should be considered too, in my view. I have no opinion on that specific discussion, but I would think that we should be less strict on the NBASIC requirements for someone who was a world medalist, compared to your average high school athlete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Accomplishments can only factor in at the PAGEDECIDE level, they do not factor whatsoever into whether a source contains SIGCOV or not. JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  My point is, if we have enough to write a decent article on both a high school athlete and a highly-accomplished international sportsperson, we should be less strict in the NBASIC requirements for the latter. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would never expect discussants at AFD to always be well versed in policy. Along the same lines, there are often disagreements in our community about what constitutes "non-trivial" or (less frequently) "independent." GNG is frequently not black and white and reasonable minds may disagree about the state of the sourcing. --Enos733 (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't expect participants at AfD to be well versed in policy nearly twenty years ago, and my opinion hasn't changed all that much in the years since. I do expect closers to be well versed in policy, and the degree to which that works is the frequency with which discussions are relisted so as to obtain a consensus ... which suggests that it all comes down to head count after all. Ravenswing 12:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  We have some admins who regularly weigh the usual 2–3 trash !votes (you know the type I'm talking about) at almost every AfD as if they're worth anything, we have other admins who have explicitly stated that they give very little weight to those specific !vote/rs, and then we have the random admins who haven't read NSPORT or NOT this decade who charge in with a close that surprises everyone. Unfortunately DRV also seems to have a lot of editors from the third group... JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Last month I tried to add (bolded) This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases, and routine transfer and match coverage with the hope that this would at least provide something to point to when someone inevitably links a 5-sentences transfer announcement as evidence of SIGCOV. While obviously all routine coverage is excluded from notability calculus, some editors are unaware/refuse to respect that transactional/match coverage is ever routine, and I think wording that shows it does exist would help in many discussions.

Contributing issues include editors arguing a) "rOuTiNe only applies to EvEnTs" (obviously NOTNEWS applies to all subjects, and guidelines are allowed to employ the underlying reasoning behind other PAGs in their own criteria); b) that "more than a trivial mention" is the only threshold an IRS source must meet to be SIGCOV; and c) that a couple sentences from a couple IRS sources meets either GNG itself or at least NBASIC, especially when accompanied by a source that has 4+ sentences, and regardless of whether any of the sources contains encyclopedic coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Joelle -- As I noted at that time, what would really help is to develop actual guidance on what constitutes "routine" coverage in the sports context. Examples that I think all (or at least most) would agree on the following: passing mentions in match coverage; inclusion in statistical listings or box scores; entries in comprehensive statistical databases; brief announcements of trades, releases, signings, commitments, injuries, etc.; paid death notices; coverage in student newspapers for the school that the athlete/team represents; and yearbooks, game programs, and other materials published by the player's employer or league. Cbl62 (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Some closers follow Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus, which doesn't allow for discounting arguments counter to guidelines. This is in the spirit of guidance being generated from the grassroots rather than in a prescriptive manner. For better or worse, this means those who support the long-supported consensus on this talk page that routine coverage isn't an appropriate source for meeting Wikipedia's standard for having an article have to show up to each deletion discussion to make this argument. isaacl (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

ROUGHCONSENSUS does say Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area, which suggests that arguments counter to a guideline should only be accepted in a local consensus under exceptional and well-supported circumstances. JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

For years I argued that closers need to follow the full guidance for the sports-specific notability guidelines. Closers have kept on citing the guidance on rough consensus and the principle that guidelines describe practice to base their determinations on the arguments made within each deletion discussion. I understand why historically this is done: when everyone is in rough alignment with what articles they think should exist in Wikipedia, it's helpful to have flexible ways to update guidelines based on outcomes of deletion discussions. But of course remaining in rough alignment is nigh impossible as a group grows in size. As far as I can tell, a consensus of those who like to discuss Wikipedia's processes still seem to like the ground-up approach. isaacl (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Olympians notability

Hi everyone. If somebody participates at the Summer Olympic games, but did not win a medal, does he/she notable since he or she was an Olympian? Ma.Sa.54 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately there is no guarantee of notability for Olympians who did not medal. Only if there's coverage to meet the general notability guideline can the Olympian have an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixing WP:NATH inconsistency

This is the current text of the section "Athletics/track & field and long-distance running":

"Athletics/track & field and long-distance running" text ;Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes who compete in the field of athletics if they meet any of the criteria below:

1. Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g., European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons).
2. Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)
3. Have won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, or Youth World Championships.
4. Have won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those that have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year
5. Have won the elite division of multiple notable* road races (including the same race multiple times), or have established a history of highly competitive, non-winning performances in many notable races (at least 10 top-threes)
6. Have at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests, and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the relevant official body
7. Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics, or an equivalent performance over a closely matching imperial distance
8. Have a non-relay mark listed on the IAAF senior all-time list or equivalent list
9. Have been inducted into the National Track and Field Hall of Fame or the Road Runners Club of America Hall of Fame.

In athletics, the Olympics and world championships are uncontroversially the most prestigious competitions in the sport, and other competitions would rank below them.

Understanding that, this text is illogical, because it says if you finish in the top 8 at a lesser competition per (1.), you are presumed notable, but at the Olympics and Worlds, you must finish top-3 per (2.) to be notable. The logic should be reversed -- at the highest level, more athletes should be presumed notable, and at lower levels, less athletes should be presumed notable, but currently these guidelines state the opposite.

Under these rules, the article for the Olympic fourth-placer in the 100m dash (George Patching) and an actual Olympic bronze medalist (Alexandre Fayollat) were both nominated for speedy deletion, and the Patching article remains only as a redirect.

I am fixing the rules by adding guidelines that follow this logic. I understand and agree that nobody should be presumed notable based on participation alone, so I emphasized that athletes must qualify for and compete in these championships by achieving a standard, and that "unqualfiied" athletes i.e. those that don't make it out of the first round of the 100m will not be presumed notable via this policy, even if they are "technically" Olympians / Worlds qualifiers.

--Habst (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is the proposed change to fix the above inconsistency: [5]

Very open to feedback, and when consensus is reached I can make the edit. --Habst (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

As much as I might like the change, the community had several discussions that narrowed the scope of who might be notable based on performance - and that only under limited circumstances there should be the presumption that significant sources exist. It is more likely that the community would resolve the inconsistency between Olympics and World Championships the other direction - that a presumption of notability exists only for medalists at the World Championships. - Enos733 (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with this. JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As with many previous discussions here, no evidence has been produced that the athletes passing the new criteria are likely to be notable. Clearly there is an inconsistency here caused by the earlier decision to remove all "participation" criteria but the proposal seems overly complex. How does the "relevant time / mark entry standard, world ranking position, or via wildcard entry" aspect apply to early Olympic games (eg 1908/1912 for the two athletes noted) ? Did they have such criteria then? Seems to me that a simple way of removing the inconsistency is to change the first criteria to include the Olympics and World Championships, but whether there would be any consensus for that I'm not sure. Also note that the "rules" here do not define notability, they only indicate which athletes are likely to be notable. Consensus here is that athletes still have to pass WP:GNG even if the satisfy NATH Nigej (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Nigej, thanks for the feedback. For early Olympics where such time / mark entry standards didn't exist, we should consider everyone as an "unqualified entrant", i.e. follow the rules that only athletes advancing past the first round or placing in the top 12 in single-round competitions should be presumed notable. In the final edit, I'll put the previous sentence in the footnote to make it clear.

  Simply adding the Olympics and Worlds to the first bullet point would not be a good solution to fix the inconsistency, because it would be treating events that significantly differ in importance all the same way. The solution needs to emphasize that the Olympics and Worlds achieve significantly more coverage than all other meets -- "World Athletics Championships" and "IAAF World Championships" (its former name) rack up 188,200 hits on Google News while "European Athletics Championships" have only 42,000 Google News hits, and they shouldn't be treated the same way.

  I fully agree with your last sentence, sometimes I say "presumed notable" for brevity but what I mean is "presumed likely to have significant coverage that meets WP:GNG" or similar. --Habst (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  As noted by others, the "consistency" argument works both ways. Perhaps the "Finished top 8" is too loose and should be top 3 (for instance). The problem is that until we have some evidence as to how many athletes are in each category and what proportion are notable, there's no basis for making an informed decision. Recent consensus here (again based on few facts) has been that many of the existing NSPORT criteria are too loose, so a proposal in that direction is more likely to succeed IMO. Nigej (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: The notability criteria of Olympians were restricted after a long and involved RfC that is not now likely to be overturned, and Enos733 is right in saying that any resolution of inconsistencies would go the other way. With that, nothing prevents anyone from creating articles on track and field athletes who meet the GNG. Ravenswing 08:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing, thank you for the response. I have no particular desire to overturn precedent -- my main issue is that WP:NATH rules as written right now are contradictory, and I don't want Wikipedia rules to be inconsistent. So, I wrote a solution that fixes the inconsistency while also not presuming anyone as notable simply for participation -- so it would also not contradict with the RfC. Do you have any other idea to fix this inconsistency? --Habst (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why, yes: to bring NATH into conformity with the Olympics' guidelines: to wit, a top three finish at highest-level competitions, and to eliminate criteria #2, 3, 5, 7 and 8. Ravenswing 23:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per this RfC which removed participation in Athletics at the Olympics as an indicator of notability, which followed This RfC which removed participation in the Olympics generally as an indicator of notability. There is an inconsistency, but it should be addressed by working on the criteria that is too lax. BilledMammal (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @BilledMammal, thank you for the response. My understanding is that my proposal does not contradict with the RfCs, because it does not presume anyone as notable by simple participation in the Olympics or Worlds. All I was trying to do is fix the inconsistency in a way that broadly aligns with current practices. I am curious about the criteria that is too lax that you mention, can you propose an edit that you would support? --Habst (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. A clear improvement on the current inconsistency. As you say, you do seem to have skirted around the current participation-only restriction. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The inconsistency should be fixed by tightening the non-Olympics/Worlds criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR. Olympian notability is mentioned there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

More eyes welcome on this AfD

Especially as regards non-trivial local coverage of the subject in his capacity as a police chief. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

These new guidelines are a mess

I know i've been away from this page for a bit.. but these new guidelines are a mess... no baseball players are notable but basketball players are notable just for being drafted or winning an award in the fricken G League? Hockey players are notable for being second team conference all-stars in college? There is no consistency here at all or anything that makes sense. Why are second team Big 10 All-Stars in hockey more notable than MLB All-Stars? I guarantee there is more coverage of the second group. Spanneraol (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Clearly I've been away from this page too. Last I remember, this guideline had been gutted and everything was supposed to be about actual coverage, not guesses about it. Where did these new things come from? Second team hockey All-Americans? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Largely because there was a consensus to remove all participation based criteria, and given historic abuse of any criteria added to this guideline editors are reluctant to replace them with anything. I suggest the best option would be to get rid of criteria like Hockey players are notable for being second team conference all-stars in college. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• You are correct, Spanneaol. Leaving everything to GNG provides no guidance to editors as to which athletes are truly notable. Under the old WP:NBASE, there was a presumption that MLB players (the apex of the baseball world) were notable and articles on minor league players were discouraged. Under the new system, minor and major league players are on the same footing, and it just depends on how diligent someone is in searching for coverage. The reality is that merit-based criteria (e.g., apex players more notable that minor-league players) are helpful to both sides, but the deletionist group will never admit they were wrong, and the result is that more baseball players (especially minor-league players) pass muster than before. Cbl62 (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Baseball players are notable if they have the significant coverage to pass GNG, just like anyone else. The participation based guidelines where an extremely poor indicator of notability so there was a consensus to remove them as they were constantly used to keep articles of non-notable players whose only claim to fame was that the played in a match where everybody got paid. What I found worse was that it was also used by certain editors in attempts to delete articles of athletes that didn't pass those particular sport guidelines despite them passing GNG with flying colors (for instance minor league and amateur players).

For the record, what is left of NSPORTS should probably be scrapped as it is an inconsistent, useless mess. Alvaldi (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

While many participation guidelines were poor indicators of notability, NBASE was actually an excellent indicator insofar as it applied to 20th/21st century players in MLB. I'm not aware of any successful AfDs targeted at this category of players. Cbl62 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I notice, Cbl62, that you specify a timeframe specifically to exclude baseball players Lewis and Jones, which were the catalysts for the overturning of NSPORT in the first place, because they were Featured articles without any actual content to them except extraneous fluff not about the people in question. They utterly failed notability in every possible manner. Silverseren^C 01:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. SIGCOV can be more challenging when it comes to 19th century players, especially the handful of players for whom we don't even have a given name. For 20th/21st century players, I don't think we've ever seen an MLB player deleted. While we could have used some discretion in limiting participation criteria to circumstances where it was a true and precise indicator of notability (20th/21st century MLB), the mentality at the time of the RfC was to simply nuke everything rather than calibrate more precisely. Cbl62 (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be entirely comfortable with NSPORTS being replaced altogether by the GNG, but that aside, some observations:

First off, the whole reason criteria was devolved to the individual Wikiprojects/sports was that one size does NOT fit all. Historically, minor leagues in American football/basketball have been weak or non-existent; minor leagues in hockey, baseball and soccer have been strong, with century-plus histories. American college play has been highly notable in some cases (football and basketball, especially) and not in most others, while Canadian collegiate play isn't, across the board. There are sports where being an Olympic gold medalist is no guarantee of being able to meet the GNG, and ones where, in fact, being a second team All-American pretty much is. (Do any of you really think there's an American football All-American from Walter Camp's first picks on forward for whom SIGCOV can't be found?)

Secondly, some of the projects themselves have built in prejudices. The baseball project, for instance, has historically been hostile to the notion of minor league notability, however much numerous minor league teams have played for as much as a century in large metropolitan areas and major media markets.

Thirdly, my answer to the "merit-based" argument is that for the most part those standards are both completely subjective and pretty much untested.

And finally ... editors descended on NSPORTS and made changes like eliminating participation standards because sports-oriented editors were digging in their heels at every remove and resisting correcting abuses. It is frigging farcical that at one point, one biographical article in seven was of a soccer player. Between bits like that and the rampages of the Lugnutses and Dolovises, we should be less surprised that non-sports editors stepped in to start the reforms we weren't accomplishing, as that it took them so long to do it. Ravenswing 12:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Update on the soccer biography situation. When I looked 3 years ago we had 153,000 living "Association football players" out of 970,000 living people (15.8%). Just looked and we now have 174,000 living soccer players out of 1,070,000 living people (16.3%). So it won't be too long before we have 1/6 of our biographies of living people that are notable because they kick a round ball around some grass. (for all living sport competitors we're up slightly from 46.4% to 46.7%) Nigej (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

(shakes his head) Simply absurd. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if non-sports editors descended en masse and imposed notability guidance more restrictive than the GNG. The 2022 RfCs were warning shots that NSPORTS regulars continue to ignore at our peril. Ravenswing 14:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we have other mass creators in the soccer area? I had thought we had got rid of Lugnuts and any others who mass created stubs without significant coverage. (I, for one, have made sure always to follow notability in my creations since 2022 and haven't done a stub article in nearly two years) BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I suspect not. Just look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football articles by quality log to see the massive activity in this area (this is just the talkpage assessments in the project). Looking at the latest daily "Assessed" section I find Aaron James (footballer, born 2005), Benê (footballer, born 1971), Cosmin Bucuroiu etc. 25 of these every day adds up over the years. Nigej (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I've always thought this has become a load of garbage since it was demolished in March 2022. I actually used to use it to try to improve / keep articles, now those who do so are chastised *unless they use it to delete content* – the criteria are just in shambles and make no sense (NBA minor league all-star > NBA all-star???) – what makes even less sense is that meeting the criteria is completely irrelevant – they will still be deleted if no significant coverage is found – and sadly this page is still used about 21 times a day by different users (I pity those who are confused as heck by the complete disorder of notability guidelines for sports). At this point, as I remember one user say, we've over-pruned the tree so that there's just one twig left, let's put the remaining twig out of its misery. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, we got rid of all the criteria that made since under the guise of "all participation criteria must be removed now because none are accurate notability indicators!!!" but I still see some standing: e.g., National Football League (American football) players are not given presumed (or should I say, siginificant-coverage-is-likely-to-exist-treatment) notability, but those in the Irish NFL are? See also Cricket: Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation; Cue sports decides their own notability?; Curling: Have won a World Curling Tour event or participated in a Grand Slam of Curling event.; Golf: They have competed in the Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup, Solheim Cup, or similar international competition; and Tennis: Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest-level professional tournaments. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the 2022 RFC only addressed the participation-based criteria without thinking through what remains of the SNG (and I think why some editors want to scrap the entirety of the SNG).

Nothing is preventing the community from rewriting and reorganizing the SNG to make it work. - Enos733 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

And I have started a complete rewrite of NSPORTS here. Suggestions welcome. For the record, I did start with incorporating some of the logic of NCORP. - Enos733 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The community is what prevents the SNG from being re-written to work - nobody on a certain side of the debate (which has a large amount of members) will accept any re-writing of the guidelines unless that re-writing is demolishing NSPORT - for example, if you look at every proposal for any additions to this guideline since it was gutted in 2022 you will see all of the ones without total GNG compliance are rejected, and all the ones with total GNG compliance are rejected - there is no way to win and no way this can work anymore - I even got immediately reverted when I did what seemed like a simple improvement of the wording. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding curling: in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49 § Curling, I believe only a couple of people who do not regularly edit curling articles participated, one who commented generally on participation criteria without, as far as I can tell, examining the specific circumstances of how the curling tournament hierarchy works. Most of the discussion was between a prolific curling editor and me, the other participant who doesn't edit curling articles regularly. Unless more editors are willing to participate, and to examine particulars for the sport in question, establishing consensus can't happen. isaacl (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh there is massive hypocrisy and discrepancy here - some popular sports (soccer primarily) have had their guidelines completely removed, yet other sports retain participation-based criteria. It's a nonsense. GiantSnowman 21:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We should probably just remove all of the sections on the individual sports just leaving the broad overview sections. Spanneraol (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I was involved heavily in the discussions that overhauled NSPORTS and those that came after it, but cannot recall why some survived. GiantSnowman 21:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Others survived because they were not based on mere participation for one match. Cbl62 (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Golf and Motorsports still have the participation criteria in their sections... and why do Basketball minor league all-stars get listed? And the non-participation criteria for baseball and football were scrapped as well. Spanneraol (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the A-bomb approach. There are still useful criteria for some sports. I, too, am frustrated with the nuking of WP:NBASE and WP:NGRIDIRON, but we shouldn't let our frustration lead us to nuke the rest of the sports world as well. Cbl62 (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, Cbl62, I initially really liked the idea of NSPORT - and I was a big supporter of it - however, since its nuking in 2022 it pretty much worthless - nuking "the rest of the sports world as well" wouldn't be much of a difference, really - we still delete articles on Olympic medalists and we still delete articles on those who pass the remaining criteria - getting rid of the whole thing would probably be beneficial at this point as the only thing it does nowadays is confuse / frustrate newcomers and those unfamiliar with sports when their NSPORT-passing articles are deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not worthless. It is a tree that has been trimmed severely, but the roots are still there, and the time will come when the climate will be more conducive to regrowing old branches. Keep the roots intact. Cbl62 (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I remember that RFC that led to everything being nuked.. every time a suggestion was voted down the people pushing it kept adding new options until the whole thing was so unwieldly and impossible to follow that those opposed to the changes got confused and stopped participating.. it was a clusterfuck.. i don't know how it ever got consensus. Spanneraol (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The original proposal was to nuke NSPORT altogether. That proposal failed. The follow-on proposal to eliminate participation guidelines did pass. Cbl62 (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The RFC was mostly to get rid of the "did it for a living for one day" criteria which most would agree was too loose. And nobody has substantially tackled the immensely complex job of coming up with an SNG standard that is one level tougher than that. Which leaves GNG. Just briefly mentioning an abstract discussion, because the ratio of coverage to the notability of the wp:notability ecosystem is so high in sports (because the coverage is itself a form of entertainment) the potential to flood wikipedia with non-notable sports figures. But IMO neither of the extremes is happening for new articles. (NPP observations including of myself) Instead maybe an evolving defacto standard seems to include a work-based consideration. If there is a new article where the editor has included a couple sources that are just a step above database type sources, and includes a few paragraphs of prose then IMO it gets in without needing to strictly and fully meet GNG.

IMO the other high quantity type that I think is still in the question zone is one where it is one of the infinite possible multi-criteria combinations. E.G a stats-only article "the 2012 season of the portion of XYZ team's games in the abc region" I sure wish that the SNG folks would create criteria for these. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

SNG as far as I'm concerned is out of question for this discussion for this topic if we're talking about reforming N:SPORTS in my honest opinion, because chances are it will get rejected. Ivan Milenin (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Winter Sports athletes

Are there special notability guidelines for Winter Sports athletes? BurningKestrel (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Only for figure skating, ice hockey, and curling. Cbl62 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Would it make sense to have guidelines for the FIS-disciplines too? The are organized very similar to each other, so you could make a general guideline, like "all athletes that scored points in the world cup are notable" or something like this. BurningKestrel (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Do those athletes generally pass WP:GNG? Alvaldi (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I dont know. Its just how they do it in German Wikipedia and I have no other idea. It would mean that they were in the Top-30 of a race in the highest "league" BurningKestrel (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  FIS = International Ski and Snowboard Federation. If they've won an Olympic medal, then WP:NOLYMPICS would apply. Cbl62 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for new notability guidline

WP:VPP#Proposal for new notability guidline may be of interest to anyone watching this page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Suggested change to N:TRACK #1

WP:NTRACK #1 says "Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g., European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons)." This was written back when Olympic participation gave a presumption of notability. So now, a top 8 finish in the Commonwealth games gives a presumption of notability, but a top 8 finish in the Olympics does not. I would suggest a change to "Finished top 8 in a competition at the Olympic Games, world championships, or the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g., European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons)." RonSigPi (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Given the consensus about the Olympics (i.e. medalists being presumed notable) I'd have thought it would make sense to combine #1 and #2 of WP:NTRACK, restricting both to the top 3. Nigej (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is a correct basis. Athletics is a marquee event of the Olympics, so i don't think the consensus on the Olympics is relevant to group Athletics with Modern pentathlon and Tug of war. To me, the way it stands makes sense - top 8 (size of sprint finals) for major competitions, podium for regional and small elite field events, and gold for youth/junior. However, the major competitions expressly exclude the highest events, presumably because they were previously addressed. So I am just trying to fix what appears to be an inadvertent inconsistency/something not updated when the previous change occurred. If you want to downgrade the World Marathon Majors and European Championships, then have at it; but I am looking to correct what I think is a clear error on its face and not open up a whole can of worms here. RonSigPi (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The trouble is that by expanding the Olympics up to 8 you're the one opening up a can of worms. If athletics why not swimming? I wouldn't necessarily be against increasing it to 8 (or some other number) if evidence was produced that those up to 8th are highly likely to be notable. As ever with the Olympics it's the early ones that are likely to be the most problematic in this area. Nigej (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

For a similar recent discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 55#Fixing WP:NATH inconsistency. It seems to be acknowledged that there is a "bug" in the way these guidelines are written, but not a lot of agreement about how to fix it.

For the record, nearly every Olympian has already been deemed notable in practice, even those that don't make it out of the first round (excluding those that DNS) -- I chose a random event to check and you can observe how every 200m sprinter without exception has an article from 2020, 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, 1948, 1936, 1932, and 1928.

You have to go all the way back to 1924 to find a single athlete without an article. Shouldn't the guidelines reflect current Wikipedia practice then, and just say that every athletics Olympian who registers a mark since 1928 can be presumed notable? To still comply with the Olympian RFC, we can say that simply participating isn't enough -- an athlete has to qualify by posting a mark, i.e. the "free wildcard" entries that some countries use in the 100m can be excluded from these guidelines. --Habst (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we've had that argument before too. The counter argument is that if they all meet WP:GNG anyway (and future athletes likely will too), why do we need anything in NTRACK for these athletes. Nigej (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And back to my comment above, questioning if they all meet GNG anyways then why have SNGs, that is a much bigger discussion that what I raised. I don't even raise increasing to "all Olympic/World Championship participants," just top 8 like the lesser competitions like the Commonwealth Games. Considering the following examples if this were in other sports:

• In cycling, winning a 1.1 race presumes notability, but a World Tour event does not.
• In golf, winning an PGA Tour Champions event presumes notability, but a PGA Tour event does not.
• In tennis, winning an ATP Challenger event presumes notability, but an ATP 250 event does not.

This point is not that other sports influence here, but that in all those it would not make sense to have the lesser without the greater. Well, that is what we have here. I suggest we fix to top-8 since it appears it was an inadvertent loss from removal of all Olympian/World Championship participants.RonSigPi (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nigej, one reason to have a point in NTRACK for Olympians is because we do see comments like these in deletion discussions, this one is just from today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Sands

In this case, the athlete is acknowledged to meet WP:GNG, but because he doesn't meet WP:NTRACK specifically (because NTRACK doesn't have criteria for Olympians), he was voted to be deleted. That isn't even a wrong vote to make -- it is the policy's fault, not the user's. --Habst (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Interesting that at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 53#Proposed amendment to basketball guideline, the point was made by some (as I recollect) that if every NBA player meets GNG (and is likely to in the future), why do we need to say so here at NSPORT? If people are voting to delete articles that pass GNG, then that's another good reason to delete NSPORT in its entirety, since it only seems to be causing chaos and confusion. Nigej (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The better course would have been to pass the proposed amendment to the basketball guidline, which met our standard of likely to pass GNG by as clear a margin as imaginable (100%). The whole idea of the SNG is to provide guidance so that nominators can see the guidance and thus avoid wasting everyone's time with unnecessary AfDs. Maybe one day the tide will turn and the community will realize the wisdom of having such guidance -- not in the same flawed form as before but in a form that actually and reliably tells us which groups of athletes will virtually always pass GNG (e.g., modern era players from the NBA, Premier League, MLB, NHL, NFL). Cbl62 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)