Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 34

This Guideline and the GNG

There is a possibly contentious Deletion Review in progress for Mariam Anwar, a Pakistani female cricketer. The issue in the AFD is that she does not satisfy the general notability guideline, which requires multiple sources, although she does satisfy the cricket notability guideline. The issue that is presented is actually the exact relationship between the general notability guideline and the specific guideline within the sports notability guideline. The underlying issue in the AFD was, and the issue in the DRV is, whether failure to meet the GNG can defeat the presumption of notability in the sports notability guideline. My argument is that in some cases strict application of the GNG, so as to defeat the presumption of notability in the sports guidelines, may perpetuate systemic bias in Wikipedia| when the bias is due to systemic bias in the reliable sources. Such a perpetuation of bias is especially likely with women in under-represented countries. So I have a two-part question. First, is the current relationship between the two notability guidelines, in which the sports notability guideline is dependent on the GNG (while some guidelines are independent of the GNG) intended, or is this a flaw in the wording? Second, should the wording of the introduction of the sports notability guideline be revised, either to reflect an initial unintended effect, or deliberately to reduce systemic bias? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think the wording is accidental. I think this SNG is meant to be a shortcut to establishing notability so we dont have to endless prove someone is notable under GNG rather than a replacement like in the case of NPROF which is explicit about that. I think this pretty strongly. As for possibly changing it, I would have to give more consideration about what the actual impact of that would be - would it help the kinds of people Robert's talking about or would it more help the already dominant groups. As I've recently noted elsewhere I'm biased towards being cautious about granting permanent notability to BLPs for whom their sporting careers might only be a small part of their overall life. Through OTRS I have seen people for whom Wikipedia's coverage is not something that is always desired or positive for them even if they are notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ, specifically Q1 & Q2. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate what I've said several times: NSPORTS creates a rebuttable presumption of notability, in that if you meet NSPORTS, we presume you likely will be able to show more sourcing to ultimately meet and surpass the GNG and get articles past stub-states. NSPORTS does not prevent deletion of an article that is only shown to meet NSPORTS and where no other sourcing exists. That said, to properly challenge that presumption one must do an appropriate WP:BEFORE search of the literature, and in a case like this, that would need to be of local Pakistan sources (this accounts for the bias issue). That was not done (though the nom's argument about the potential falsification of the sources must be considered - NSPORTS must be factually shown true with some type of RS). Because there's no sign a BEFORE was done, then the AFD should have closed keep or no consensus at worst. --Masem (t) 02:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Masem - The AFD was closed as No Consensus, after approximately equal numbers of Keeps and Deletes. Perhaps you saw that. My own opinion is that the DRV appeal is a case where the appellant thinks that policy is so obvious that they think that any contrary arguments were not policy-based, so that they are re-arguing the AFD, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• As I've discussed in a recent AfD, I think there's really two subjective parts to consider in the exceptionally grey notability cases here (defining grey as the creamy middle, with black being clearly notable and white being clearly not notable): first, has the person made a significant sporting achievement per WP:NSPORT? Second, can we write a neutrally sourced article about that person? There are times where we may not be able to satisfy WP:GNG to the letter of the law (for instance, the only sources in English are routine, and the culture does not tend to write long feature stories about people) but the sporting achievement is one that would typically be written about in print directories or encyclopaedias, and there are times where WP:GNG is clearly met but the sporting achievement or coverage is exceptionally limited (American minor leaguers - we have more gridiron articles per capita than any other sport). If you pass a SNG guideline but fail GNG, you should be deleted - but if you pass a SNG and GNG is sort of met, the reasons why it's "sort of met" become relevant in a notability discussion, which is what I think Robert McClenon is asking about. SportingFlyer T·C 04:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, how are you defining we have more gridiron articles per capita than any other sport? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: Levivich pulled some stats mostly on football (soccer) articles recently where they listed a bunch of different sports including gridiron and the number of articles involved. I don't remember if there were some calculations there or if I did some calculations myself to figure it out, and it's possible I'm wrong (it was awhile back) but I'm confident in the conclusion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, do you mean this table which says it's ice hockey? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: Yes - how are you drawing the conclusion it's ice hockey? While soccer is highest soccer is also the most followed worldwide - adjusting for fans, I get 3.66 articles per 100,000 fans for ice hockey, 3.67 for rugby, 4.43 for gridiron, 4.03 for soccer, 0.6 for cricket, 1.7 for basketball, 2.5 for baseball. SportingFlyer T·C 04:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, your math is correct. I was tired when I posted that statement. Thanks for indulging me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

As cited in the Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ, the relationship between the sports-specific notability guidelines and the general notability guideline was established at the onset, and is not accidental. Systemic bias has been discussed on this talk page in the past and no consensus has been reached to deviate from relying on the general notability guideline as the underpinning standard for having an article in Wikipedia. The introduction of the sports-specific notability guideline page has been discussed many times; for better or worse, the current state is what has been agreed upon. Of course new proposals can be made and it can be discussed further. It might be more fruitful, though, to propose changes to the general notability guideline itself regarding systemic bias. This would have a broader effect on all subjects, and not just sports. isaacl (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

One way to do that would be to relax the "independent" source requirements for historically-underrepresented groups, such that if a prominent "women's group" gives a woman a "Woman of the Year" award and write a biography of the woman in connection with that, we accept the biography as a GNG source, even though it may not be as independent as a newspaper report about the award. This would be in recognition that, for example, MSM doesn't cover "women's awards" as much as "men's awards". In the context of NFOOTY, it might mean accepting women's league sources as GNG sources, in recognition of the fact that women's leagues are underrepresented in the media. – Levivich 20:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, how would that differe from this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, well, I don't really understand what that RfC was proposing to do, but it seems that RfC proposed relaxing any part of GNG for marginalized non-living people (including the "multiple" requirement, as well as SNG requirements like "widely recognized"). That's broader than just relaxing the independence requirement of GNG. Now, if the question is, will the community at large support any relaxing of requirements to fight systemic bias? I think the answer is fo nucking way. – Levivich 20:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Presumption of Notability

Thank you to the editors including User:Barkeep49 and User:SportingFlyer]] who have commented on the presumption of notability. It is my understanding that you are saying that the sports guideline creates a rebuttable presumption. Am I correct then that the effect of the rebuttable presumption on burden of proof is similar to a rebuttable presumption in common law, which is that the burden of proof is shifted to the person seeking to rebut the presumption? If so, does that mean that in an AFD, when sports notability is met, it is up to the nominator to show that GNG is not met? I would rather have the sports notability guideline, and special notability guidelines in general, establish notability separate from the GNG, but I am more or less satisfied if the rebuttable presumption shifts the burden of proof. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You are correct for all purposes. Remember that the ultimate goal is to get quality articles and just having sourcing to show that NSPORT is met is not sufficient - even just meeting the GNG may not be. But we want to give editors the time to improve and find sources before we judge that and hence the whole reason behind BEFORE. There can be cases where BEFORE doesn't have to be (it is not a requirement for good reasons) but for the most part if NSPORT is met but not GNG, the burder is on the nom to provide that no further sourcing likely exists. --Masem (t) 22:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) While it is not a formal requirement that a nom for someone who passes a NSPORT SNG makes an affirmative case I have never seen a successful case without an affirmative case. Of course in most instances this will simply be that a BEFORE did not produce GNG compliant sourcing - proving a negative is difficult after all. In some cases it can be that the existing sourcing is not GNG compliant. Or both. In reality some of the conversations proceed as in the DRV which brought you here - the keep voters falling back completely on the SNG and not making their own, affirmative, efforts to demonstrate GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment on GNG

I personally do not like the general notability guideline because I think it is too amorphous, and that it results in more contentious AFDs than we would like, and would prefer that special notability guidelines supplant it as much as possible, but that is only my opinion. I realize that a lot of editors like the GNG because it is vague, and for other reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

SNGs cannot override the GNG. The point of an SNG is to outline criteria of merit that will likely assure that the GNG can be met when editors are given time to find more sources. That's why its a rebuttable presumtion of notability - we favor allowing the article with minimal but verified information to get editors to expand, than not have an article at all. --Masem (t) 22:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NSPORT was written, approved, and refined on the basis that it did not supplant WP:GNG. As Masem notes, the sporting SNGs simply identify groups that experience tells us are almost certain (i.e. > 90% likelihood) to pass GNG. This remains an effective system. Cbl62 (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Motorsport figures

Can the Motorsport figures in WP:NMOTORSPORT be an organization? Would Draft:Racing Team Nederland be considered notable per WP:NMOTORSPORT #1? ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say that the guideline's definitely not written to consider organizations. You should rely on the GNG for that draft subject, and if it doesn't meet the GNG, it's not notable enough for an article anyway. Ravenswing 02:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
• No. WP:NTEAM explains that unless the specific sports section has specific criteria for a team or club that the SNG as a whole does not weigh in on that notability. WP:CYCLING gives an example of a team criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ravenswing and Barkeep49. WP:NORG it is. Further discussion at Draft talk:Racing Team Nederland in case anyone is interested. ~Kvng (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Gridiron question

NGRIDIRON states "appeared in at least one regular season or post season game". Does this mean he actually got onto the field or just that he was on the team. Acceptance or rejection of Draft:Harry Hartley Benson depends on the interpretation. His stats show he wasn't a starter in any of the six NFL games he is credited with. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

On the field. Being listed in a team roster doesn't grant notability. Iffy★Chat -- 09:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is no requirement that a player has to be listed as a starter in order to meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Simply making an appearance on the field in a regular season (or playoff) game is all that's required. In the case of Benson, he definitely meets NGRIDIRON (see here). Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above interpretations. The player doesn't have to be a starter–a substitution is enough–but they must actually take the field for a play to count as "appeared"–sitting on the bench, or just being on the team, is not enough. Benson has 6 substitutions according to NFL stats, so that would count as 6 appearances. – Levivich 16:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: Where are you getting the substitutions? Is that implied in the stats I linked to or does it come from a different source? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, it's implied in the stats. "GS" is "games started", and "G" is "games", so where this player has G: 6 and GS: 0, that suggests he played in six games but started zero, i.e., he was played as a substitute 6 times. A word of caution, though, that this is an inference, although I think a permissible one. In other sports/statistics, substitutions can be listed explicitly. However, GS/games started isn't universally tracked... in some sports, especially for older statistics, everybody has "GS" of 0, simply because they didn't track "games started" as a separate category. And I think gridiron is one of those sports (it may be all sports for all I know). So, given that Benson played in 1935, the fact that he is G: 6/GS: 0, might actually mean that he started 6 games and "games started" wasn't tracked back in 1935, or it might mean that he was substituted in 6 games–we can't be sure based on the stats. But either way, the stats say he appeared in 6 games, whether as a starter or substitute. – Levivich 20:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich is correct. In years of research, I have found that the NFL's "games started" stats are often incomplete and inaccurate for players in the early days of the league, especially the 1920s. Cbl62 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "games started" isn't a stat that was tracked accurately by the NFL during the era in which Benson played. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Benson gets in. Thanks all. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

For a more modern look, "games started" is a bit misleading. A number of "starters" don't start because in modern football there are more formations and specialties. A top tier running back may not start and a no. 4 wide receiver may start if the first formation used is a no running back formation. Other examples are sporadic use of fullbacks, 0/1/2 tight end formations, and nickel & dime cornerbacks. Not to mention special team punt returners, kick returners, kickers, punters, and long snappers. RonSigPi (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability of Roller Hockey International players

I am involved in several AfD discussions regarding minor league ice hockey players who played in the RHI (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Clark (ice hockey) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Clarke (ice hockey)). There are no notability criteria for inline roller hockey players, but the claim is that all RHI players are notable because it was the highest level of play. That is based on a claim, unsubstantiated as far as I can tell, that it was the world's first pro inline hockey league. I said that the IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship would represent the highest level of play and that if those players played in that competition, then I would say they met the WP:NSPORT equivalent level of notability and I would vote to keep their articles. Given that their RHI playing careers were one sentence mentions in their WP articles, they fail to meet WP:NHOCKEY (which was their real profession), and the lack of any notable coverage given in the article I have trouble accepting the premise that all RHI players are automatically notable. I brought this to this forum because it seemed like the best place to get a variety of opinions on this topic. Making a few thousand dollars over the summer in a now defunct league doesn't seem to me to make a strong case for WP notability. If I'm out of line on this, I would like to know. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

there was an espn game of the week, and some national coverage, but certainly not for the duration of the league. I think that the notion of anyone who played in that league becoming notable is hard to substantiate. It was a brief time of notability for the sport, not necessarily the players.18abruce (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that there's enough coverage to show the league is notable, but that's not same as saying everybody who played in the league is notable. Notability is not inherited. I found several world inline hockey championships, but I think the IIHF one has the best pedigree. I don't think the fact that you earned some money in a short-term niche sport is enough to guarantee notability. I do think that documented evidence in playing in the world championships makes a case for notability. However, in the case of a sport like this I believe that the GNG should be the deciding factor. That hurdle is not cleared by any of the Afd nominations mentioned (or the new one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Concannon). Sandals1 (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

For my part, the notion that anyone playing in the "highest level" or the "world championships" of obscure sports are presumptively notable is both absurd and unsupported by any notability criterion. Most RHI players were minor-leaguers in ice hockey, not many who met notability standards, and I'd reject establishing stand-alone standards for roller hockey. Ravenswing 01:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• There's absolutely no evidence playing in a roller hockey league leads to enough coverage per WP:GNG. I think there may be players who played in the league who might be notable, maybe the MVP candidates, but you have to make a WP:GNG showing in order to keep an article - Clark (no e) needs to be revisited & deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 02:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I would echo this 100%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

If articles are to be deleted based on this consensus it will not be by me as I am ceasing AfDs for the time being. I have created enough bother with AfDs as of late, George Galbraith, Trevor Erhardt, Joel Scherban and now this. Best to walk away from it and let someone else take over. I also created a couple of RHI players before moving back to my “forte” of European players, mainly out of guilt over my ignorance for roller hockey when submitting the AfDs, but if they are deemed non-notable then I suggest PRODing them for deletion because they definitely fail NHOCKEY. I don't quite know what to make of this to be honest, I mean I do support the arguement because while looking for RHI players to create they were a number that I thought simply cannot be automatically notable, like J. Secum who only played one game for Minnesota Blue Ox and has no other information, but to be told and advised one thing and it turns out to be the complete opposite is pretty frustrating. Tay87 (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There's just likely no set of standards which will achieve complete unanimity among editors, and even the most widely supported standards have detractors and outright saboteurs. You've seen it yourself with your numerous (and welcome) AfDs of Dolovis' barrage, the result of an editor seeking Game High Score for article creation who openly defied any consensus he didn't like. I can only imagine the advice he might have given a few years back; say by way of assuring someone else that "preeminent honors" = "academic rookie of the week." (I am not making this example up. Unfortunately.) Ravenswing 10:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Yes, the goal initially was to go through his creations and see which ones weren't notable. I felt it was a long, overdue process and felt if somebody had to do it it might as well be me. But now I see why it's a long overdue process that nobody has been brave or tough enough to go through. But as mentioned before, AfDs are a thing of the past now for me, in fact when I initially started making out a task force of what I wanted to do for WikiProject Ice Hockey AfDs were not even listed, so it's not like I'm stuck grasping at straws figuring out what I'm left to do now. Tay87 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tay87: It's just too high a mountain for any one person to climb. I think I'm responsible for over a hundred myself (and a lot of them while he was still here to contest them), but Dolovis created thousands of suspect articles, among his other well-documented shenanigans. Ravenswing 02:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

AfDs on borderline notable subjects can be draining over time. Take a break. Let's see what the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Clarke (ice hockey) will be.—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: He's gone. Now Rob Concannon's proving to be a bit of a headache as well. Just makes me all the most glad I'm ceasing AfDs. Tay87 (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have recreated an AfD for Jason Clark at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Clark (ice hockey) (2nd nomination) since the consensus here is clearly that merely playing in the RHI does not grant automatic WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Notability of Figure skating skaters

I want to start discussion about Notability of Figure skating : WP:NSKATE so started this discussion. Current guideline of WP:NSKATE does not include ‘Qualifying Junior Grand Prix Final’ but it includes Junior World Championships. Because of this situation there are many skaters article remain on wikipedia but sometimes it is flagged by users who does not have knowledge about figure skating and the article got deleted. What’s your opinion on this situation? Yoniiieei (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q6 ("I want to create a new sports-specific notability guideline or revise an existing one. What approach should I take?")—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

International Skating Union’s definition of ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating is “The ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating (known as ISU Champions Series from 1995 to 1997) is a series of senior international figure skating competitions organized by the International Skating Union and The junior-level equivalent is the ISU Junior Grand Prix. Note that events such as the Olympic Winter Games and the ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating are not ISU Championships however, they do count towards Personal Best scores and World Ranking.(ref:ISU World Standings and Season's World Ranking)” So qualifing Junior Grand prix final can be regarded as WP:NSKATE #2.(Skater’s articles created on these bases as : Kamila Valieva, Viktoria Vasilieva ,Andrei Mozalev ,Daniil Samsonov,Devid Naryzhnyy) Also does meet #7 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. Skaters who qualify to the Junior Grand Prix Final can be presumed to have the ability to compete in the free skate at the World Junior Championships (criteria #2 at WP:NSKATE; only 6 teams can qualify to JGPF whereas 20 ice dance teams would compete in the free dance. Articles have been created for skaters at similar points in their skating career (i.e. qualified to JGPF, but have not yet competed at World Junior Championships) without being flagged for deletion; for example, Avonley Nguyen / Vadym Kolesnik and Anna Shcherbakova— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoniiieei (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Result on discussion about whether keep or delete the articles about JGP Final qualifiers was to keep. I will put the link here for further reference.[1], [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoniiieei (talk • contribs)

Thanks Yoniiieei for posting the outcomes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Updates to figure skating notability

I would like to make some updates to WP:NSKATE, and I'm adding a summary here to seek consensus:

• Trophee Eric Bompard changed to Internationaux de France to reflect the current name
• Cup of Russia changed to Rostelecom Cup to reflect the current name
• added Grand Prix of Helsinki under the list of Grand Prix events; another no longer existing event, Bofrost Cup on Ice, is still listed
• reworded criteria #5 as such: "Medaled at a non-Grand Prix international senior-level event (commonly referred to as "senior B" competitions, as opposed to "A" competitions, which are the Grand Prix events and ISU Championships. See figure skating competition for more information and list of figure skating competitions for a list of events. Notable examples of senior Bs are ISU Challenger Series events.)" Two of the previous examples, Nebelhorn Trophy and Golden Spin of Zagreb, are currently Challenger Series events, and the remaining example, Karl Schäfer Memorial, has not been held in over a decade.
• reworded "(e.g. Pam Gregory, and David Wilson)" to "(e.g. Pam Gregory or David Wilson)"

Sunnyou31 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sunnyou31: Most of those changes seem fine to me. I think the problem may have come from your edit summaries were too simple like "updated information". Confusion probably could have been avoided with "updating Grand Prix events to current names" or "updating to the current sanctioned competitions", etc. With the sponsor changes and non-concrete event series, this may be one of those SNGs where having less events listed is more clear and less likely to become dated since the Grand Prix itself is linked (and probably kept up to date). Yosemiter (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: Yes, I should have been more specific in my descriptions. I just wanted to list out a clear summary to make it clear that I have not fundamentally changed any of the criteria. Sunnyou31 (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The only quibble I have is in removing defunct events once conferring presumptive notability altogether. You might want to create a list somewhere of such events, and tweak the criteria to reference that. Ravenswing 23:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Both ISU Grand Prix of Figure Skating and list of figure skating competitions are already linked in the criteria, and any defunct events are still listed on those pages. Sunnyou31 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I was mostly just watching since I did not have time to look into the changes, so I let other review your edits. Pinging @CASSIOPEIA, GiantSnowman, and Ravenswing: for their thoughts on your explanation here. 02:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Scrap the "one appearance" rule in favor of two mundane appearances or one unusual/remarkable appearance.

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

---

Much electronic ink has been spilled over the question of whether a particular outing by a particular player constitutes an appearance in a game, with the end result being that we have many articles on players in various sports who are known only by the fact that some record somewhere exists of them having appeared on the field (or court, or diamond) a single time in professional play, with no other information to be found. I propose that we tighten this up somewhat, by adoption of something along the lines of the following rule across all sports currently requiring a single appearance in team play:

1. Players of team sports must generally have appeared in at least two professional-level games in their sport, unless an appearance in a single match was unusual or remarkable for one of the following reasons:
   1. The player's performance in their single match was noted by a reliable source to have been unusually good.
   2. The player is noted by a reliable source to have suffered a significant injury during play.
   3. The player is noted by a reliable source to have engaged in a significant altercation or similar incident during play, or resulting from their participation in the game.
   4. The player's performance in the single game constitutes a record in the sport, whether good or bad.
   5. The game itself had unusual characteristics, such as being a playoff game, or a game deciding the team's advance to the playoffs.

I'm sure a few more odd situations can be thought up, but basically I am proposing that notability premised on a single appearance should be the exception rather than the rule. bd2412 T 04:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose it's far too overcomplicated - someone appearing at the top level of their sport will almost certainly have been written about (therefore becoming "encyclopaedic"). We currently have the remedy of deleting if the article still fails to meet WP:GNG, but I still don't see any problem with shifting the presumption of notability to inclusion if the player has appeared in the top flight, and there's really no substantive difference between one game or two. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose It would be difficult to qualify what is significant injury/altercation among editors. It tighten up is needed then we could propose "Players of team sports must generally have appeared in at least three professional-level games in their sport, in regardless of play time involved in the games." To note, it is a little difficult to find independent reliable sources talk about the subject directly for many of the team sport players, such as netball, ice hockey players, volleyball players, handball players" especially when they just made pro or signed by professionally teams in in their respective fields. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to me that changing 1 to 2 achieves nothing. The main issue is whether the criteria should be based on appearances at all, rather than performance. At some level (eg international) appearance probably is some measure of notability but playing in, for instance, the fourth division of the English football league probably isn't. Nigej (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Plus the qualifiers seem far too vague and open to debate. The current system is clear with no room for misinterpretation. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Fix the the individual sport(s) where one game is too low of a bar, don't make a blanket rule on sports where it's not a problem.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. This proposal shows a striking ignorance of various sports. GiantSnowman 08:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  GiantSnowman, every time I see you insulting someone with whom you disagree, I will ask you to stop it. – Levivich 15:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: whomst have I insulted? I've commented on the content, not the contributor. GiantSnowman 16:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, when you say someone's proposal "shows a striking ignorance" of something, you are commenting on the contributor, not on the content. Specifically, you are commenting on the state of another editor's knowledge ("striking ignorance"). – Levivich 16:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I respectfully disagree and ask you to look at the overwhelming response to the proposal... GiantSnowman 16:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, your assessment of my "ignorance" is incorrect. What is incorrect is the proposition that any team sport exists for which a single unremarkable appearance in a single unremarkable game should confer encyclopedic notability. The sport for which an individual appearance would be proportionally most significant based on the number of games per season would likely be American football, but even in that sport unremarkable play in a single unremarkable game does not compare to the achievements needed to demonstrate notability in other fields. bd2412 T 16:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per C of E. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems rather muddle-headed that someone could be deemed notable for not playing a game, rather than playing in it. Johnlp (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: essentially all this does is change the criteria from one match to two matches. All the "reasons" given would be covered by the GNG, which overrules this SNG anyway. Harrias ^talk 10:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I’d be much more inclined to support proposals that raise the bar for WHICH leagues this applies to rather than adding additional criteria to what “one game” means. For the very top level sports “one game” is absolutely true and any exceptions (like players whose careers were before good record keeping existed) can be deleted anyway per GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that as proposed, this is far too complicated a rule, but I do suggest that as there is more awareness of how much the current "one game" criteria allows in, in terms of athletes from low-level leagues or the like, that some type of additional filtering on the "one game" rule should be thought up. For example, perhaps having a list of the top-tier leagues where this would apply to. --Masem (t) 16:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  I think we were moving towards something useful along these lines with FOOTY but the discussion died out because gathering data that a change will improve on status quo is hard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I'll oppose this as those following rules just seem too complicated for the system that we want in place. If we are trying to tighten the system than CASSIOPEIA idea actually gives a better option. But as of right now, this proposal seems a bit complicated as of right now for the average Wikipedian to follow. HawkAussie (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Change to WP:NBOX

Long story short, the WP:NBOX women's title are outdated. I brought this up to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing and it had some support with no one disagreeing. Women's boxing has grown a lot in the last few years. Specifically, Claressa Shields and Katie Taylor have become household names in the fight world. Well, the classic men's sanctioning bodies have taken notice and are now awarding titles. Shields nor Taylor have ever fought for one of the titles listed in WP:NBOX. Nor has Nicola Adams. Nor has Amanda Serrano. Nor has Heather Hardy. Basically, the 5 current biggest fighters in women's boxing have never fought for the NBOX titles listed and have fought for titles of the classic men's sanctioning bodies.

I think we should make a cutoff of 2017 - 5 years after boxing became part of the Olympics and after 2 Olympic cycles as well as the year Shields and Taylor fought for titles.

It should be noted this is not as much adding as it is correcting. It represents the men's organizations superseding the old women's - so just as important is adding is putting a stop to the old ones.

So the update to WP:NBOX part 1 would read:

1. Have fought for a world title (e.g. super, regular/full, interim) for one of the following current or historical major sanctioning bodies:

   • Men: International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Association (WBA) (and its predecessor the NBA), World Boxing Council (WBC), World Boxing Organization (WBO), or NYSAC
   • Women (fights pre-2017): International Female Boxers Association, International Women's Boxing Federation, Women's International Boxing Association, or Women's International Boxing Federation
   • Women (fights 2017-present): IBF, WBA, WBC, and WBO.

Thoughts? RonSigPi (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

For men: the IBU (early 20th century) world titles should be included. Anyone who has fought for the EBU European title, British Empire/Commonwealth title, or British title should also be included, as should national champions from other significant boxing nations - e.g. France, Germany. Any boxers satisfying any of these will have easily received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG if that is anyone's overriding concern, but for older boxers it may sometimes be hard to find from a Google search. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability for golfers in second tier tournaments

Need your input on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf#Notability_for_golfers_in_second_tier_tournaments Thanks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Major League Rugby

There have been a fair few rugby stubs created at NPP recently for Major League Rugby players. I noticed one and nominated it for deletion - it was just kept here mostly on the basis WP:NRU was satisfied. Mr. Gordon plays in Major League Rugby, and WP:NRU states that rugby players who have played in a fully professional league are notable. Major League Rugby (MLR) was added to the list at some point in 2018 and I cannot find any discussion of this on any talk page.

I don't think the league is actually "fully professional." There are a number of citations saying the league is fully professional but it's difficult to determine what this means. This article shows the New York team isn't fully professional, this says Dallas will have 10 to 12 full time players, and and this article shows salaries are paid on a "gameday" basis. The salary cap is also on average US$10,000 a player, which is below poverty level. The league needs to be removed from the fully professional leagues list.

Furthermore, in spite of the AfD, Mr. Gordon clearly fails WP:GNG. I'm not here to litigate the AfD again, but the coverage of him is all blogs, primary websites, or in one case, some sort of an advertising firm. Even if the league is found to be fully professional the coverage of players isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. There have been a number of stubs created on this league all with a similar level of coverage, and even if the league is found to be fully pro, I'd like a consensus before I go ahead and start purging these. Obviously, if a player meets WP:GNG, they are free to have an article on this site. SportingFlyer T·C 05:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I have never been a fan of using "fully professional league" as a substitute for GNG, however I do understand why it is used for NFOOTY (language search limitations and the most popular sport in the world). For rugby league and union, it probably should have been vetted. I too could find no results for player pay, but the league seems to be operating at that level based on international player recruitment (older notable players) and apparently operating well into the red (Houston stated a $12M operating loss). That being said, it is rugby in the US. If a player is not covered in independent media, they do not meet GNG when NRU is not a substitute for GNG. This news search on the player in question, all of 7 hits, is not exactly promising. And the AfD !voting based on an an unvetted league added to a list is troubling in my opinion. Yosemiter (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It works for football because as you said football sort of needs that catch-all because of the cultural differences in coverage amongst different leagues. Other sports choose leagues based on whether press coverage from simply playing in the league will be enough to pass WP:GNG. That's not the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 05:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure talking about "fully professional leagues" is helpful when it comes to rugby union - it is a much less-followed sport than football and even professional players playing for top-level clubs will often have little coverage, and as such I don't think playing for a "fully professional" club creates an assumption of notability in the same way it does for football. In terms of the other articles you mention, I find it sad that someone would spend their free time "purging" wikipedia, but if there are articles which you don't think meet the GNG then you should probably just go ahead and nominate them without trying to pre-empt the result beforehand. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Elahrairah: The problem I'm running into is that even though these articles fail WP:GNG, they're being kept at AfD because users are citing the WP:NRU guideline. It's only an issue because many of them are new articles and I've been running into them at NPP. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I see. Well if your problem is specifically with NRU, then the rugby union wikiproject would be the best place to resolve it. The people contributing there are likely to have the best understanding of the topic. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it was good that it was removed for now. However, it may perhaps be helpful to have a statement at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria stating "...of known fully professional leagues via consensus of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union" or something to that extent in order to prevent un-vetted additions (similar to ice hockey's "the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject" statement). It should at least lead to having discussions for the cusp nations top leagues for presumed notability instead of erroneously creating an SNG that folks will simply state "passes SNG" (WP:VAGUEWAVES in that direction seemed to be at play in that Kellen Gordon AfD for at least 3 of the 6 Keep !votes and another with an unexpanded WP:NEXIST !vote).

SportingFlyer, since you removed them from the list, perhaps it would be a good idea to begin a discussion at the wikiproject talk page? It may not be that active, but at least it can be shown that we need to assess all additions there. Yosemiter (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This should not have been removed from the list without discussion. The Russian professional league has similar pay and degree of professionalism and has been kept on the list. I have reinstated until that discussion takes place and agrees. Rpsmith1988 19:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rpsmith1988: Please take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Major League Rugby to discuss the merits of your changes. Please note, your changes are effectively creating a Notability Guideline without consensus or discussion. Having a "similar pay and degree of professionalism" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. It should be based on general coverage to the subject at large in independent reliable media, not how much a subject gets paid. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

My changes are not creating anything. They were removed without discussion having been included for several years. The defeatist should therefore be that they remain until there is consensus that they don’t meet the standard. The level of media coverage of the US leagues is significantly higher than the Russian league. Possibly due to a language bias but as this is the English Wikipedia I’m not sure that matters. This is a single user seeking to remove MLR from this list and until there is consensus from other members of the project it should remain. Rpsmith1988 07:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I demonstrated in the initial post of the thread, the league was added to the list in 2018 without any discussion or source. The football version of the list requires every single league in the list to be sourced. As I've demonstrated above, this league is not in fact fully professional, and as I've twice demonstrated at AfD, the league does not receive enough media coverage to otherwise be eligible for a notability guideline which presumes its players are notable. This league has not been properly vetted for notability guidelines, so by removing the league from the list I'm ultimately removing unsourced information from wikipedia, which I am within my rights to do. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - (reposted from this discussion at the Rugby Union project) looks to be a fully professional league. Teams have professional managerial structure, the league has a U.S. TV deal (CBS), and a salary cap structure (see this article). In addition, ESPN lists them as a professional major league team, along with the other teams on the NRU list. Articles such as this, this, this article which shows that the teams are building stadiums, this, and this also indicate it is a professional league. I think that the discussion should be on the project page, however, but any discussion to resolve this is a good thing. I do agree with Rpsmith1988 that the league should not have been unilaterally removed after having existed without any protest for a year and a half. I know it was added without discussion, but since, no one at the project has objected to it being there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I've noted above, unlike the football leagues list, the rugby league list is completely unsourced. We mandate the WP:NFOOTY league list be completely sourced - I was reverted just last week for adding a missing league to the not fully professional list (went back and sourced it quickly.) See WP:USI. And, as I've clearly demonstrated above, the league is not fully professional. We have defined fully professional on Wikipedia to mean everyone on the team makes their living from the game, as opposed to semi-professional, where players have to work other jobs. This should be enforced consistently across sport. Some teams have full time professionals, but average salary for the U.S. Rugby League is below the poverty line. Per the sources, the league does not show up at all for me at espn.com/rugby (I'm not in the U.S., though). Lastwordonrugby.com is a blog and not necessarily a RS, the Patriot Ledger does not indicate what kind of stadium is being built, for instance if it's temporary - and furthermore, we have many teams in leagues that aren't considered fully professional that have built their own stadiums. Finally, the fully professional league article averaged less than a view per day from the time the league was added to September of this year, and I was the next edit - it's not as if other editors have made intermediate edits to my removal. As to whether it's a "major professional league" attendance is worse than the lowest minor league baseball leagues, and your Guardian article notes the salary cap is "dramatically low in comparison to wage bills in Super Rugby, the Gallagher Premiership and the Top 14."
• Finally, players in this league frequently do not pass WP:GNG. Stubs of sportspeople who fail WP:GNG frustrates a number of users on the project and is the reason why the standards are so high over at WikiProject Football. Why are standards lower in other sports? Simply because of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

New SNGs needed for Rugby union and league

Full disclosure, I do not follow any rugby thoroughly enough to decide this myself, but I am going to make the suggestion anyways that Wikiproject do so.

Both SNGs for rugby union and league have the use of the term "fully professional" in a criterion. The only other team-based SNG to use this is NFOOTY, which is at a least reasonable assumption as the most media covered sport in the world and they vet the leagues with sources as SportingFlyer explained. Every other SNG has depreciated this phrase as outdated and has instead made list of league that meet the intention of NSPORTS: Applicable policies and guidelines: All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles. It would appear the governing Wikiproject for the guideline did not get WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (or even discussed internally) for additions, which may not meet GNG as required.

This is even more true when in reference to the over saturated sports markets in North America, where the top league in a certain sports might be the 20th most media covered league. As an example, PRO Rugby (which is one of the "fully professional" league that had been unilaterally added to the Notability Guideline) got very little media coverage during the season, and it failed. So how could we possible assume that any player in that league received WP:SIGCOV when the teams themselves barely did? Using WP:VAGUEWAVES in an AfD towards a guideline is frowned upon, but it is even worse if it is done when the guideline was never vetted (not a single source was discussed in this AfD).

I propose that the projects take a good look at the leagues like all the other projects have done to determine not what the player is paid, but the that the player has received significant depth of coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Team participation question

I think it's well established here that being listed on a team roster isn't enough to pass an applicable SNG, but playing for the team does (many, but not all sports here have SNGs like this). But what if a player is on the team, and is scheduled to play a match that would lead to them passing the SNG, but because the other team withdraws, the team in question is given the victory by the organiser as if they had played and won. Would this player pass the SNG? Iffy★Chat -- 09:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Statistically, I doubt if said player would be credited with appearing in a game. All players that meet SNG are expected to meet GNG anyways (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q2). Personally, I'd just find like 3 sources of significant coverage and cite them in a stub, at a minimum, instead of relying on a technicality.—Bagumba (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

In short: No. The individual would need to have actually played to pass the SNG. Lets say it's a league match of some description. Team X withdrew from their final match against Team Y. The governing body would/should award the points to Team Y, but no player is actually credited with appearing in the match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This in turn makes me wonder whether the Scotland players who turned up to play Estonia in 1996 received caps for the game? Number 57 16:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm no football expert, but I assume they did as the match at least started, albeit "abandoned after three seconds". Yesterday's T20I cricket match between India and Sri Lanka had the coin toss, before it started raining. All 22 players get a cap, as the toss took place in this instance. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Change to baseball notability guideline

This edit made today modified a paragraph in the baseball notability guideline from:

Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.

References

to:

Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability under NBASE. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.

References

I have marked the changed passages using underlines. I disagree with adding "or sourceable" to the footnote; onus remains on the article creator to ensure that adequate sources are present.

I also suggest combining the first two sentences to improve concision as follows: Notability for players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above must be established by the general notability guideline or another subject-specific notability guideline.

Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have notified the baseball WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The old language had the conjunctive use of "[1] intellectually independent, and [2] independent of the subject." The former injected a wholly vague and subjective criteria not based in policy. The revised language is an improvement in this regard. 02:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• One comment, regarding "team sites". If we are talking about MLB.com, it is important to know that they are editorially independent of the MLB franchises themselves. MLB.comm is a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Since there have been no changes related to this aspect, perhaps we could defer discussion on it for now? isaacl (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • The team sites are interesting, as they employ beat writers who I believe have independent editorial rights, but they're thrown in with videos and other media that might not be completely independent. But every MLB team also (at least until recently, not sure if that's still the case given the newspaper industry) is covered by a local, entirely independent beat writer. MILB sites are much more of an issue, though. SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I have started a discussion at the baseball WikiProject talk page about MLB.com as a reliable source. isaacl (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• I've reverted the change the IP editor made back to the original text above. I disagree with the vague and subjective criteria - the "intellectually independent" just seems to be a synonym for "secondary." Perhaps it can be removed. SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • How about my proposed sentence? isaacl (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't mind it in theory, but I disagree about adding "another sport SNG" as SNGs are subservient to GNG anyways. I just don't see why there needs to be a change at all but if we have to make a change, I like yours best. SportingFlyer T·C 05:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      • You may have a person who qualifies under another subject-specific notability guideline such as the politician guideline or the academics guideline. I didn't make the original change, but personally I think it's more direct to just say that other guidelines may apply, if the baseball one doesn't, rather than try to partially restate the notability policy. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Geoff Duncan would be a good example of that. He fails WP:NBASE but easily passes WP:NPOL. Also, kind of extreme examples, but Michael Jordan and Tim Tebow also fail WP:NBASE but are notable due to their careers in other sports. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      • A point: SNGs are not any weaker than the GNG in terms of evaluating notability - a topic can meet the GNG or an SNG to have presumed notability for a standalone article. SNGs cannot be created that are less strict than the GNG, and in time, we expected that presumed notability to be shown true if coming from an SNG. Hence it makes sense to remind an editor that is evaluating a baseball athlete that they should look at the GNG as well in case the SNG's criteria fails for that person. --Masem (t) 06:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • SNGs cannot be created that are less strict than the GNG Oh in a perfect world yes, though there are probably a few hundred thousand permastubs that would disagree with you, and if you try to take that seven-word article on the guy who won the 1936 under water thumb wrestling gold medal to AfD you're gonna cause a riot. GMG^talk 14:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • SNGs cannot be created that are less strict than the GNG: Not sure if it's less strict or not, but WP:NPROF specifically says that it doesn't matter if GNG is not met if subject meets NPROF.—Bagumba (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
          • I really think this should be a footnote in NPROF, because I feel like I say this so often it could be a standard template, but the exception to GNG in NPROF was simply added one day in 2015 with no discussion at all, much less an RfC on whether an SNG should or even can override the most long standing of our core content policies. That it was added by a user who claims to be a a professor themselves only makes that a touch worse. GMG^talk 18:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Can you tell me where it says that "SNGs are subservient to GNG anyways". WP:N is the surely the top of the tree, GNG and SNG sit underneath that. Nigej (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Can we defer discussion on this general point? It's been discussed to death here, on the notability talk page, and at the village pump. Suffice it to say that there are many different viewpoints regarding the subject-specific guidelines in general. (The deference of the sports-specific guidelines, on the other hand, has been explicitly stated from the start.) isaacl (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
          • It wasn't me that brought up the GNG issue. I also don't understand the "The deference of the sports-specific guidelines, on the other hand, has been explicitly stated from the start" when it says at the start that it can meet either. Nigej (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
            • By from the start, I mean when the guideline was created, the consensus was that the sports-specific guideline did not supersede the general notability guideline. (You may recall this being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 30#NOLY; you might also recall Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 26#Second sentence where we discussed the second sentence.) I know you didn't bring up the general notability guideline; I would greatly appreciate your co-operation nonetheless to help keep focus on the changes that were made. isaacl (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• The whole paragraph seems redundant to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines about relying on GNG. GNG covers independent sources, and WP:BLOGS is just a part of verifiability. Seems like this can just be deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think at a minimum the information on team sites and stats sites is important to note in the context of baseball. A lot of newcomers try to use these uncritically as appropriate sources to determine if the standards of having an article have been met. isaacl (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Some thoughts below. Generally I'm fine with the changes I made as IP, as revised by Isaac, and think it is all an improvement and clearer and more in line with the rest of the page.

1. "or sourceable" - doesn't that make sense to include, given that wp:before requires a search by the nom for what is sourceable, even if it is not sourced in the article yet? Anyway - why do we even need that sentence? If it made sense to include, it could be included in all individual sports. But we don't need it, because the deletion criteria are covered elsewhere. I guess I would include the phrase if we include the sentence, or better yet just cut out the sentence completely.

2. I agree with Isaac that the reliable source conversation is not impacted by the above changes, so while it is a good conversation to have it should not distract us from this conversation and getting back to (generally) the version as revised by Isaac.

3. Some athletes actually play multiple sports, and may be notable under one guideline before another. What EJGreen said. Separately, I agree with Masem. 2604:2000:E010:1100:1D06:C657:E7B:7CFE (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think the proposed new language is better than the existing language. I think combining the first two sentences, as isaacl proposes above at the top of this thread, is even better still. – Levivich 17:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  I like the proposed changes. "Intellectually independent" sounds rather pretentious. I think we might want to consider broadening the criteria slightly, as there are several minor league players who might not meet the letter of the SNG but still meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure any minor league players should be notable and strongly oppose broadening any criteria. Baseball probably does the best job (behind possibly Aussie Rules, which has a very clear played majors notable/didn't play majors not notable as a footy player guideline) of having articles on players who are actually notable because they're baseball players, in part because we have Minnesota Twins minor league players. Obviously there will be some exceptions, either players who are front page of Sports Illustrated-level nationally known or are notable for other reasons, but baseball seems to be mostly working at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  There are many minor league players who are notable under GNG, as has been reflected in many AfDs. But such ballplayers need not be covered by the SNG, as they are covered by GNG - and that is sufficient. 2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  WP:GNG is simply our proxy for determining whether someone is notable enough to be included in the encyclopaedia. However, many minor leaguers will receive coverage local to their team or hometown just because they are minor league ballplayers, but that does not mean they are notable baseball players. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about a local guy who receives a puff piece from his hometown player. I'm talking about a AA or AAA prospect who gets covered in major papers or who had a notable college career. It seems that the current idea is to redirect to "NY Mets minor league player" or whatnot, but some of these guys merit spinoff articles. Not all though. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with SportingFlyer and have written my longer explanation for why here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I support "Notability for players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above must be established by the general notability guideline or another subject-specific notability guideline." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• I support Barkeep49's wording above. No need to restate what the GNG says, just refer to it. CThomas³ (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarification regarding NSEASONS

NSEASONS says "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.".

I see lots of seasons articles that have no prose or perhaps just a single sentence, followed by multiple large statistics tables, often with one or two references to stats sources. Should these be redirected to the team article? This was my previous understanding of this guideline, but some recent encounters with other editors has me questioning it.

It is this wording "can be created" that I am struggling with. This seems to imply a second interpretation: that I should somehow expect future prose to be created, assess sources and somehow figure out if sources exist that could result in sourced prose, even if none currently exists, and then leave a seasons article alone even if it blatantly fails WP:NOTSTATS. At some recent articles, people have reverted saying "fill in prose then". That's not my job, and I was previously interpreting the guideline as (I believe) it was intended; to redirect articles that fail WP:NOTSTATS.

If this second interpretation is valid, then the guideline seems to not be fit for purpose, as it allows Wikipedia to simply become directory of sports seasons articles that are merely statistics tables, with the justification that prose could be created, even though it rarely actually is and these articles are merely abandoned. It also shifts an unfair burden of proof onto the reviewer, as we not only have to assess notability and sources, but also be experts in knowing how much prose could be created from those sources, and balance this against the stats tables and the wording "mainly" in the guideline, then somehow be able to argue this against others. This seems untenable. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• This has been a frequent topic of discussion at WT:CFB (probably elsewhere as well). When fully developed, a season article will look something like this: 1980 Michigan Wolverines football team. This particular article took 12 years of work from 2008 to 2020 to get to this point. It is appropriate to allow time for these articles to be adopted and developed. My view is that we should encourage editors to meet certain basic minimums for starting season articles. These minimums would appropriately include a narrative description of the season which (where available) should include (i) the team's overall performance, including win-loss record, position of finish, and ranking, (ii) identities and roles of key participants, including coaches and key players, (iii) team leaders in key categories, and (iv) notable awards such as all-conference, All-America, etc. In the case of a football season, there is also broad consensus that a "Schedule" table is a key component. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Cbl62, To get some clarity; are you saying that your opinion is that no team season articles should ever be converted to a redirect to the team article, even if they are in a state that flagrantly violates WP:NOTSTATS? If so, what is the point of the above quoted wording from the guideline? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying a redirect is never appropriate, but I would oppose an effort to redirect articles en masse to team pages. Such a move would short-circuit the incremental improvement process. That said, there are instances where a season article is so devoid of meaningful content (e.g., 1900 Centre football team) that, after the article has been appropriately tagged with no efforts to improve, a redirect might be appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, There is merit to that argument, but we have to do something, I see way too many of these articles that are being submitted in a bare minimum state and abandoned. Perhaps a new maintenance tag, as I've suggested below? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As noted below, I think your proposed tag is a good idea. Cbl62 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's very easy - does the topic pass WP:GNG? We've decided these If I come across a season article at AfC that is under-prosed but still has enough non-directory sources to pass GNG/make clear the season was covered significantly, I'll pass it. See this AfD where I was the nominator for an article that was sourced only to a single statistics directory. (I would still require more sourcing to pass that from AfC even though articles like those might technically be "likely to be kept" at AfD.) And if you're reviewing and you're not sure about the article, there's no reason why you can't just leave it for someone else. SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, So basically you are saying that WP:NOTSTATS doesn't matter? If this is the case, the above wording in the guideline should not remain how it is. If so, it is merely a trap for reviewers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The article cited by SportingFlyer, 1979–80 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team, is actually a great example of the incremental development process we see with season articles. When nom'd by SportingFlyer, it was very light on prose, but has since been improved greatly. Cbl62 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I still think that original article should not have been accepted at AfC, but I'm glad the article was improved as much as it was as a result of the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's not a trap for reviewers, and WP:NOTSTATS very much applies to these articles. However, if the topic is notable and can be sourced to prose, it won't violate WP:NOTSTATS. If a season article clearly violates WP:NOTSTATS on its face but can be sourced, I'd probably move it to draft space. If it violates WP:NOTSTATS on its face and is in draft space, I won't accept it. If it's in mainspace and can't be sourced or would receive hyper-local coverage (read: not independent) I'd redirect or delete it. Whether it can or can't really depends on the team and sport and level being covered more than anything else, we've even had Division III US schools seasons kept for some reason and very few people care about that league. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, I don't see draft space being a solution. If someone re-creates or moves it back you don't have AfD as a follow up if it's just going to be accepted there. I know people don't like tags, but perhaps we should have a generic tag for "This article relies too heavily on tables or statistics. Well sourced prose summarizing its content should be added." Or something like that. Perhaps such a tag already exists? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Further to Sporting Flyer's point, I wouldn't object to using AfC to educate editors and to encourage them to add substantive propose before drafts are moved to main space. Current examples of pending drafts lacking meaningful prose include: Draft:2013–14 Brisbane Heat season, Draft:1991–92 Marquette Warriors men's basketball team, Draft:1973–74 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team, Draft:2018–19 UT Martin Skyhawks women's basketball team, Draft:2000 Western Carolina Catamounts football team. Cbl62 (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, The problem is, that if a reviewer moves a new page to draft space, and then that move is undone (either via a move back or a recreation), the reviewer has no course of action available. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I also think Icp's proposed tag is a good idea. Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I also think that redirects and moves to draft space en masse is a bad idea. Most season articles probably pass GNG though not all. Having a tag might be the best solution here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We already have a prose needed tag, though I believe it's worded specifically for lists. I also don't think anyone is suggesting doing anything en masse - this is specifically about season articles at NPP, I think? SportingFlyer T·C 01:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Is this actually what people agree with? Ignoring WP:NOTSTATS for team pages in favor of letting them sit for an indeterminate time in the hope that someone actually does expand the prose? If the majority actually agree with this (I don't), can we please remove the line about converting to redirect so that it isn't merely a trap for reviewers and others who follow its advice only to have their head bitten off? @SportingFlyer:, @Editorofthewiki:, @Cbl62: — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  I would encourage at least having a discussion before unilaterally redirecting to the main article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  Remember notability is not the property of an article but rather of a topic. If a sports season can be reliably sourced, it's notable. If an otherwise notable topic fails WP:NOTSTATS on its face, it shouldn't be deleted for failing WP:NOTSTATS if it can pass WP:GNG. I disagree about removing the line regarding the redirect, as plenty of new season articles aren't notable and should be redirected, possibly to the league page. I've already explained the workflow above for reviewing these types of articles. It's not a "trap" for reviewers at all and never has been - as I've noted, I recommend draftifying and leaving a message on the talk page as to why, and given there are tons of articles at NPP/AfC that need reviewing, there's absolutely no problem if you just ignore these types of articles as someone else will eventually get to them. SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, perhaps a clarification then:

  Change "It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created."

  to: "It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if sufficient sources are not able to be found to support a prose section that meets the general notablility guideline." — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 04:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The proposed revision suggests that the "prose section" must meet GNG, which is incorrect. It is the subject of the article that must meet GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the test in practice for reviewing season articles (emphasis to show I'm not talking deletion) really looks something like: 1. is this a top professional team (or, for soccer, does the team play in our fully professional leagues list)? 2. If not, is it a notable U.S collegiate season? 3. If not, does it pass WP:GNG on its face? If you pass at 1 or 2 and the article fails WP:NOTSTATS/is undersourced, I would draftify and notify the creator to add prose/more sources, or if it's marginal I would probably tag it with the prose needed tag. If you get to 3 and it passes WP:GNG but fails WP:NOTSTATS, I would probably tag it with a prose tag and notify the creator that prose is required. If you fail at 3, then I'd redirect it or nominate it for AfD, probably first to the league page for that season (if it exists) and then to the team's article. We shouldn't be deleting bad but notable articles. I think I look at most of these at AfC and not NPP, but that's how I'd approach these (AfC is a bit easier since you can decline the draft.) I'm not against proposing a change to the wording at RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 08:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The part about well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players is style advice, and does not really belong in a notability guideline. WP:ATD policy says If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page., and the WP:PERFECTION policy reads Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. This is the rough basis for essays like Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. I would recommend dealing with any user that continually creates season articles or drafts that don't provide sourcing to demonstrate GNG. Discuss with them first; WP:TBANs are a last-ditch option.—Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Swimming

Any notability guidelines for swimmers? Surely that's been established, but I thought I'd find it on this page. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOLYMPICS covers Olympic participants. Otherwise, it's based off of WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to propose some guidelines, Sulfurboy! I added orienteering after some constructive discussion. Have also a look at handball and naturally at the FAQ at the top. Per W (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to, but unfortunately I don't have the knowledge of the sport required to know which international tournaments would be considered important. Just seems a little crazy it doesn't have its own section considering how popular of a sport it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulfurboy (talk • contribs) 05:52, February 11, 2020 (UTC)

Predictably, I'd say NOLYMPICS is the SNG for swimmers. If they're Olympians, they're presumed notable; otherwise, they're not presumed notable. On the other hand, we have SNGs for horses and bulls, so why not swimmers. The guideline could be vague if we don't have specifics, e.g., "highest level of international or national competition" or something like that. Levivich 06:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If GNG has been working (presumably), we don't need more rules just because some other sport has them (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY).—Bagumba (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think set rules would provide a standard that would make the job of AfC review or New Page Patrol easier and more consistent. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

And the editors can spend more time on writing than searching for many sources (some sources are always needed) to prove that some athlete has got considerable coverage, when he or she is among the best in the world. --Per W (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I raised this some years back, but it was shot down by certain people who ran the swimming project. However, under WP:SPORTCRIT it states "...that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level..." so people competing at the World Aquatics Championships, for example, would meet this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

See I think that is what would be useful for the lay person...what are the tournaments that are considered "amateur or professional competetion". Olympics is the only obvious one a lay person would know. I wouldn't have known World Aquatics is considered one of the highest tournaments. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Mm, but there are two problems with that approach. The first is that what "major international" or "highest level" means goes lowest common denominator and self-justifying very fast: partisans are very happy to declare X obscure tournament a "major international" competition as long as it insulates their hobby horses from deletion. The second is that it's simply not true, and points up why SPORTSCRIT is a terrible guideline -- no matter how obscure the sport or how small the nation-state, people put "highest level"+paycheck together and come out with "presumptive GNG pass," without anyone having done the work to find out if it's actually so. Ravenswing 15:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I do agree. Please have a look at orienteering, where we figured out some clear criteria. (Thanks, Nigej!) Per W (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Rugby union phrasing and removing a redundant essay page

Per my previous proposal found at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 34#Major League Rugby, I feel WP:NRU needs a rewrite. In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Merge redundant RU notability pages, SMcCandlish wants to merge the NRU#2 supplemental essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria into the wikiproject advice page Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability. I think this needs more eyes because it is becoming circular. The advice page is supposed to be identical to NRU and the essay is currently used as an SNG. As linked in in the first line, there have been issues with vetting leagues as "fully professional" on the essay and there are not enough eyes on the essay for it to be properly questioned and vetted. We then get AfDs where 4 of the 6 Keep !votes cite that list or "fully professional". In order to better maintain the NRU guideline, I propose the list gets merged into NRU directly as follows (changes in red):

A rugby union person is presumed notable if they have played for, coached, or administered:

1. A "High Performance Union" at any time^{(see Note 1)} or :another test nation during an appearance at the men's Rugby World Cup^{(see Note 2)} or,
2. A team in a fullyhigh-level professional rugby union competition^{(see Note 3)} since 1995 or,
3. A team in the Rugby World Cup Sevens, World Rugby Sevens Series, Commonwealth Games, Olympics, or
4. A women's national team in at least the semi-finals of the Women's Rugby World Cup.^{(see Note 34)}

Note 1: "High Performance Unions" for men are: Argentina, Australia, British and Irish Lions, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States, and Wales. Women do not have this criterion.

Note 2: Non-High Performance Unions nations that have appeared at the World Cup are: Georgia (2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015), Ivory Coast (1995), Namibia (1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015), Portugal (2007), Spain (1999), Russia (2011), Uruguay (1999, 2003 and 2015), and Zimbabwe (1987 and 1991)

Note 3: High-level professional competitions shown where participation likely meets WP:GNG are: Anglo-Welsh Cup, Australian Rugby Championship, Currie Cup, English Premiership (rugby union), European Rugby Challenge Cup, European Rugby Champions Cup, Mitre 10 Cup, National Rugby Championship, Pro14, Pro D2, Professional Rugby League, RFU Championship, Super Rugby, Top 14, and Top League

Note 34: Nations that have played at the Women's World Cup at the semi-final level are: Australia (2010), Canada (1998, 2002, 2006, 2014), England (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014), France (1991, 1994, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014), Ireland (2014), New Zealand (1991, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010), United States (1991, 1994, 1998), and Wales (1994).

The above parameters apply to all rugby union persons regardless of professional or amateur status. A player who signs for a team in a fullyhigh-level professional rugby competition but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable under these criteria. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

I'm not married to the "high-level" phrasing here, but I feel neither "top-tier" or "fully pro" are justified either (top-tier implies second tier well covered leagues should not be there and not all fully pro leagues have been shown to be well covered). What I have added in this proposal currently changes nothing in how the SNG is currently utilized, it just moves the list that is linked into the text of the SNG itself. However, many of the leagues on that list may not have been properly vetted, but starting with what is there is better than using an un-maintained essay in an SNG where even more errors can occur. More eyes are on NSPORTS, and that can only be a good thing when it comes to vetting new leagues (as shown in the on-going XFL discussion above). Yosemiter (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, my main were concerns about there being two WP:PROJPAGE essays plus one actual guideline about this, saying different things, and different people selectively "citing" all three of them in AFD and other discussions to get what they want. The material that reflects actual consensus on the matter should merge into the NPSORT section (WP:P&G pages exist to codify existing consensus, not to try to force it to be something different). Then, either the old essay pages should redirect to it, or they should merge into one page that offers some additional suggestions, without just repeating what NSPORT says (that's a WP:POLICYFORK waiting to happen again), without contradicting it, and making it very clear that this additional material is a wikiproject advice essay not a guideline.

On the substance of the matter: It's important to remember that the purpose of WP:SNG material (as stand-alone or as sections here) is not to invent notability rules, but to explain how existing and general notability rules' application to a topic are likely to affect someone's potential article idea. That is, SNGs exist to predict not change AfD outcomes. Exactly what this should say – "high-level", "top-tier", "fully pro" – may not be as important as it seems, as long as the end result is clear and desirable: Do write articles on notable subjects, don't write them on no-notable ones, though consider adding encyclopedically relevant content to other articles if a stand-alone one isn't practical).

I would thus lean toward "high-level" being fine, if the examples and/or follow-on explanations include second-tier notable subjects and don't include nominally top-tier ones (e.g. in very small countries) that seem to fail GNG at present. "Fully professional" could be used to wiki-lawyer against notable pro-am subjects. There being no deadline and no need for a list of examples to be exhaustive anyway, it's perfectly fine for questionable things to not appear as examples or otherwise be accounted for in the NSPORT section (which is about presumptive notability only; it cannot preclude notability if GNG is actually satisfied, or force notability if not source coverage can actually be found). Just make any examples very illustrative of what we're getting at.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)