Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

What do we do when...

...we have an accomplished athlete from the pre-internet era who meets a criterion at WP:NSPORT, but we have no access to sources that would have covered said athlete, thus making us unable to add SIGCOV? Say "oh well" and get rid of it? That's effectively what we've done a few times, e.g. Olympic medalist Karl Schwegler. I'm not sure that makes sense however; as then what would be the purpose of this whole notability page in the first place if meeting it has absolutely no meaning? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

NSPORT was basically deprecated because of these exact situations. We're no longer willing to presume there's coverage because too often there was no coverage when we looked closely. A quick search of a German newspaper archive brought up nothing, if that helps? SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer, thank you for your reply. If NSPORT is basically deprecated, then it should have {{Superseded}} or similar at the top. I don't think the guidelines are deprecated because they're still actively used in deletion discussions, and there is no proven consensus to make such a change. --Habst (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Habst: I should have been clearer - the criteria at WP:NSPORT that the original poster refers to were deprecated. WP:NSPORT is still fine, it just suggests that significant coverage is likely to exist now while now requiring evidence of SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 10:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer, thank you for clarifying. I still think that "are presumed notable" versus "significant coverage is likely to exist" is, frankly, a distinction without a difference. Both statements have policy implications about keeping the articles, which is a subjective process anyways so the word "likely" is redundant in nearly any notability policy. --Habst (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There's actually a huge difference, even if the change feels minor. "Presumed notable" means you can create the article without significant coverage. "Likely to exist" means it's probable someone who has achieved a specific accomplishment will be notable but does not give anyone permission to create an article without some demonstration of SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 14:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer, thanks for explaining the difference. I agree with your explanation of "presumed notable", but not your explanation of "likely to exist". Understanding that the word "likely" is redundant because all notability policies deal in generalities, establishing that "significant coverage exists" is functionally equivalent to a presumption of notability, because on Wikipedia notability is determined by presence of coverage whether or not that coverage is specifically linked in the article (for example, recently a deletion discussion was closed as keep due in part to a hall of fame plaque about the subject being mentioned as existing, even though the specific plaque was never photographed – the mere assumption of the plaque likely existing is evidence of notability). --Habst (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Habst: WP:NSPORT was specifically re-written to require the SIGCOV be linked in the article, though. The two work together now. SportingFlyer T·C 14:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer, thank you for providing that perspective. I think that the WP:SPORTCRIT bullet point #5 on this page you're referring to is contradictory to other Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:BASIC, which (for example) allows for combining sources while SPORTCRIT does not. Also, WP:BASIC requires sources to exist, but not necessarily to be referenced in the article – this page is a supplemental guideline to that, so BASIC would apply anyways. --Habst (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Habst: I do not see this as being inconsistent with WP:BASIC, since we could still theoretically have a sportsperson where BASIC gets tied together. And if we knew SIGCOV exists, but it's not in the article, that would still be kept at AfD I think. In any case it was a negotiated change in order to prevent disruption, and some topic areas can be a bit stricter with the rules - NCORP is probably the strictest for instance. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer Thank you for your civil conversation, I think it has been helpful. If "SIGCOV being known to (likely) exist" means "article would be kept at AfD", then I think that it only takes one logical step to say, "if NSPORT says significant coverage exists, then the article is notable" so we end up at the distinction without a difference from the old guidelines. I don't think that NSPORTS2022 has really ended the "stalemate" on these guidelines as much as people think it did. --Habst (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The key change was the removal of participation-based criteria, which precludes participants in a deletion discussion from just saying "per sport X's notability criteria" without further explanation, for cases that relied on the removed criteria. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl, thank you. That's all fine, but the original question is about a person who won a silver medal at the Olympics representing Ruderclub Reuss Luzern in a 12-team final, well beyond just participation. So I don't think that the NSPORTS2022 decision really affects this case, as in relation to this case it only changed the wording from "presumed notable" to "significant coverage is likely to exist" which I think are effectively two ways of saying the same thing. --Habst (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was responding specifically to your general comment that "I don't think that NSPORTS2022 has really ended the 'stalemate' on these guidelines as much as people think it did." isaacl (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you would like to have an achievement-based standard for having an article, rather than a coverage-based standard? For better or worse, there hasn't been a consensus for this amongst the subset of editors who like to discuss these matters. Part of the reason for this is that many editors think that biographies should have some information about the subject's life as a whole, and absent significant coverage, it's hard to do this. (I've discussed your last question in previous discussions, so I won't go over it again here.) isaacl (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• The Karl Schweger outcome of "redirect" appears sound. Under WP:SPORTBASIC prong 5 requires at least one item of SIGCOV, which was not found despite diligent efforts. An exception has been made in rare cases under WP:BASIC where multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and write a reasonably rounded biography. In Schweger's case, neither of these options was satisfied. Given these circumstances, there was not a single "keep" vote. Even so, a decision was made to "redirect" as a WP:ATD, thus preseving the history and text so that nothing is lost if better sourcing is located down the road. This strikes me like a reasonable outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say those were "diligent efforts" - I've never recognized the 2,000 edit nominator who doesn't seem to be a sports editor, Geschichte just said we should redirect "at the very least" (no comment about searching), Let'srun appears to be just a revenge/hounding !vote (I can provide evidence if needed) and then there's Joelle (not sure the depth of her searches as she just said "no sigcov has been unearthed"). It does not appear that anyone looked in relevant (i.e. Swiss newspaper) sources; if such standards (no need to look at relevant sources for NSPORT passes) are more widely applied I am certain that a great many Olympic medalists (i.e. greatest athletes of all time) will be deleted. That's not something preferable, in my opinion. Then what is the point of these sub-criteria? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    Because, for one, winning an Olympic medal is not synonymous with "greatest athlete of all time." There are all manner of Olympic sports which scarcely move the needle, and there's vastly more coverage to bronze medalist marathoners, figure skaters or 100 meter sprinters than for gold medalist rhythmic gymnasts or 10 meter pistol shooters.

    For a second, c'mon, BeanieFan11; this isn't your first rodeo. You have to know that there are vastly more articles thrown up with poor or no sourcing than AfDs with little or no attempt to find that sourcing. In any event it's a longstanding rule of thumb that the onus on finding such sourcing rests with the editor(s) seeking to retain material. My own strong belief that it is incumbent on every article creator to put that sourcing in as a precondition of posting the article in the first place. If they can't be assed to do that, I'm not troubled by those articles falling into the dustbin. Ravenswing 03:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

    I see more expansive criteria at AFD arguments. Recent "keep" arguments have included merely merely being selected to compete in a future Olympics, or being the first person from their country to win a bronze medal in their sport in a junior regional competition. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

    I checked three of the newspaper archives from WikiLibrary, as I do for a lot of AfDs. If we can't find the one IRS SIGCOV source then I don't see how we can presume GNG coverage exists from meeting a criterion that was never tested for predictive capacity in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

...we have no access to sources that would have covered said athlete... It's also conceivable that sources just don't exist. The community could WP:IAR, saying that most Olympic medalists are notable, and allow WP:PERMASTUBs for a few of them in order to have a complete collection. Of course, you'd need to get community consensus that such an exemption improves Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course this whole area is fuzzy, but for stuff that is before the internet explosion, and before electronic "sports coverage as entertainment rather than just coverage", the ratio of actual notability to coverage tends to be higher, I tend to enter that into the equation during NPP reviews. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE applies. Whilst I know participation-based 'automatic' notability has been abolished, common sense says that somebody who made 1 professional sport appearance in 1905 is likely to have less coverage than somebody who had 5 appearances, or 10 etc. GiantSnowman 19:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Every since these guidelines were gutted, they are completely useless.. Probably better to just delete it outright at this point since it provides no guidance whatsoever anymore. Spanneraol (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they might have served a purpose in the early Wikipedia years, but I haven't noticed an onslaught of obvious AfD nom errors, at least in the Big 3 U.S. sports. I don't know if its had an impact on any non-domain expert new page patrollers. The amount of discussion this page still generates might outweigh any utility value this guideline might still actually provide. —Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)