User talk:SageGreenRider/Archives/2015/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Notability of sportspeople
I think you are right we have a problem there, but then I think we have notability problems throughout the project. For an "easy" target, check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability: even members of the sports wikiproject have relented that referees don't have auto-notability. Now we can review and delete most of those articles, unless said referees are notable for other reasons (such as being players before). It will take me years to go through all those entries myself - perhaps you'd be interested in helping? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'd be happy to help in framing a new policy, but tagging a bunch of referee stubs doesn't sound like much fun, sorry. It does seem to me that WP:ATHLETE makes an unwarranted presumption of substantial coverage. We don't make such a presumption for other people e.g. WP:AUTHORs. I can point to a bunch of book author AfDs that were lost because the burden of proof is on the inclusionist to prove In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Jurek Wajdowicz is heading the same way because WP:ARTIST also has a high bar. I don't see why athletic articles should get a free pass. It's not like it's hard to find them, nor that they are inaccessible in the Age of the Interweb. Here are some examples. Cheers! SageGreenRider (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- BTW do you have access to Wikipedia:HighBeam? Or know anyone on wiki that does? It would be interesting to go through some of these newspaper stories and see a) how many of the 22 players in each match get mentioned? How many of those receive substantial coverage? I would hazard a guess that only three or four players out of the 22 get anything close to substantial coverage. The presumption in WP:ATHLETE that merely playing implies coverage seems shaky to me at best. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
As I've said before, thank you for remaining rational throughout the AfD debate. I just realized that I hadn't !voted myself and have gone and done so and added a little comment at the end which I hope makes sense. Bobo. 07:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you! SageGreenRider (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)