Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 6

An observation

I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while, and I just wanted to note a double standard I've noticed time and time again. The problem I've seen is we seem to allow barely notable athletes without any problem (such as George Gerald Brown,Gerry Brown (ice hockey), but when I make an articles on a notable academic it is immediately scrutinized and questioned. For instance, I made an article on an important theoretical physicist and string theorist, and it immediately received a notability tag. I see people arguing about notability of academics and dabbling about references all the time. Some of these "questionably notable" academics have published hundreds of papers in their fields. Furthore, if you hit "random article" you will come across tons of random football players with one-line blurbs and stats. I've always felt that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a baseball card collection. No one is going to care about these run-of-the-mill athletes in twenty years, let alone a hundred. Now, I don't really have a problem with such articles (they are just fluff), but I don't see any point in making them. Meanwhile, many important academics who are making important lasting contributions to their fields (if not by their new discoveries, at least by writing books and papers) are missing from the encyclopedia all together. Anyways, that's my rant. I don't see any easy way to curb this disparity but I wanted to mention it. Danski14^(talk) 05:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a very simple way to do it, namely bringing NSPORTS closer into line to the GNG. I conceed that for most sports it was a huge improvement on the old version of ATHLETE, but as you say, there is still some way to go. For instance, I'm involved in an AfD with a player who played one league match for a team that went on to finish 21st in the Football League Third Division South before going on to play the rest of his career at an even lower level of football than I have, falling off the radar to such an extent that no reliable source has heard anything about him in the 55 years since. He is well on course to be kept. --WFC-- 10:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly something that is often forgotten, is that it is likely that people actually are going to care about the athletes in 20+ years, and are not going to care about the scientist. That is how society in general feels about athletes and scientists. Wikipedia isn't revolutionary in that regard, it actually reflects the real world. Notability isn't necessarily about what you have accomplished but more about who you are. Athletes are written about more than scientists, thats an undeniable fact. Even if it is one some people don't like. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point and probably true. I guess the interest in retired players (other than the really famous ones) is something I've never been able to understand personally. I don't have much to say against the criterion specifically, it was just a general rant. I just wonder if there is enough scrutiny when it is applied in practice... (seems to be too little scrutiny on athletes and too much on academics) Danski14^(talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If the AfD I have mentioned is indicative, then I tend to agree that there is not enough scrutiny. On the whole DJ has a point, but has someone who once made a third tier appearance before disappearing more likely to be remembered than a run-of-the-mill tenured professor? --WFC-- 15:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just speaking in generalities. I don't know enough about that sport to speak to it. The ice hockey example above for example is a player who has played at the top level of play that any ice hockey player can achieve, the fact someone created the page is proof that years and years later someone was interested enough in them to go through that trouble. But yeah, there may still be a way to go for some sports. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my interest was first brought here by the same kinds of concerns that Danski14 has. And in my opinion, the current NSPORT is indeed a big improvement over the old ATH, as WFC said. There's a part of me that wants to argue with DJS about the athlete/scientist thing, but that part of me comes out of my real life opinions, not my judgment as an editor, and I realize that my real life opinions do not and should not decide these things. For now, I think we just have to keep an eye on this guideline, and make sure that entropy doesn't gradually lower its standards. And that's probably good enough, full stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that with academics there is no simple standard, as there is here. (I have proposed one, full professor in a research university, but it has not been accepted). Evaluating the fundamental intrinsic importance of someone's academic work is not something we are normally qualified to do, and the surrogate we use, evaluating the importance of papers, is sometimes a little tricky,because of the different standards in different fields and the lack of a clear touchstone. But another problem is that there is an unfortunate skepticism here about the importance of academic teachers and researchers, especially in some subjects such as Education.

Nonetheless, there are many unquestionably notable academics whose bios have not yet been written, including many of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, --and that's just the US. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Soccer competitions

I'd like to recommend a slight tweak of the wording for notability for soccer players; currently, the guideline reads "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable." I'd like to add "or domestic cup competition" after "fully-professional league". It has long been accepted that players who play in games between fully professional teams in, for example, the FA Cup or the Football League Cup in England, or the DFB-Pokal in Germany, or the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup in the United States, would meet the notability requirements. Adding these couple of words would eliminate any ambiguity that may arise. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A question, coming from a position of complete ignorance on my part: are there any domestic cups in nations that have a much smaller involvement in soccer, such that it would make sense to somehow narrow the definition of the term, to apply only to important domestic cups? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, most countries in the world have one (occasionally two) domestic cup competition(s) that run concurrently with its regular league season, but not all leagues are fully professional (as per the list linked in the soccer paragraph). I would say that, for any country where the league is fully professional, that country's main domestic cup competition would be fully professional too, and therefore cup games between clubs from the pro league would meet the notability guidelines. For countries where the league is not fully professional, it would be impossible for the cup competition to contain games between fully professional clubs, and they would fail the guideline. Does that make sense? It's a little convoluted, I know... --JonBroxton (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that adding that language would be helpful. When the guideline was first being developed I asked a similar question, but it never made it into the final version (probably due to lack of discussion). Jogurney (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Understood, thanks. How about making it "fully-professional league or fully-professional domestic cup competition"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be absolutely fine with that. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say go for it! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great as long as it makes explicit the fact that, for example, a Conference team playing a league team in an FA Cup match does not give any of the players involved notability.--EchetusXe 20:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although I'd be worried about making the rule too complicated. Saying something like "players who play in games in fully professional cup competitions are notable, except when one of the two teams is an amateur team, in which case any players who play in that game could not use the game to assert their notability" might be overkill. I don't foresee *that* many instances of this eventuality happening, and we can just address them on a case-by-case basis if they do. In England, for example, no amateur teams can qualify for the League Cup, and only 32 amateur teams qualify for the First Round Proper of the FA Cup; taking into account the fact that non-league teams sometimes get drawn against each other, and only a handful of non-league teams make it through to the second round, you're looking at maybe 25 out of a possible 214 FA and League Cup games where you have a pro team playing a competitive match against an amateur team in any given season. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following wording: "Players who have appeared in a national competition fixture between two fully pro teams will generally be regarded as notable." It allows for pro fixtures in cup competitions to be included without getting bogged down in excluding amateur teams. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that "fully-professional" means that both teams need to be professional. Am I wrong about that? I suppose we could add "(both teams)" after "fully-professional". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, Tryptofish. I'd be happy with that clarification. So long as the clarification doesn't make the caveat any more complicated than it needs to be, go for it. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Under this wording if the person plays in a cup competition for a fully-pro side against an amatuer or semi-pro side they would not be notable. Surely they would be just as notable as someone playing for fully pro against fully pro. It would be the players from the non fully-pro which would not be notable. Wouldn't it?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But it is not a fully pro fixture if only one team is fully pro. However, anomolies remain: this would give notability to members of two fully pro Conference sides if they are drawn together in the FA Cup, but not if the two teams play each other the preceding week in the league, and yet the league is a higher priority for such sides. Kevin McE (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion here I suggested "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league or in a national level domestic cup competition (where both teams are from a fully-professional league - as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable."--EchetusXe 16:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this inclusion. Until it is actually shown with some evidence that people who only play a single game are generally notable (i.e. meet the GNG) we should not be extending this woeful and often misapplied guideline. Quantpole (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And can I add that you should wait more than an hour or two to enable other people to contribute to a discussion before making changes to the guideline. Quantpole (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this wasn't a new addition, this was simply a clarification to ensure that the guideline reflected what the members of WP:FOOTY actually enforce already. For example, under the wording of the guideline before I changed it, if a player made his professional debut in, say, the FA Cup final or the UEFA Champions League final (unlikely, I know, but not impossible), that player would not be considered notable, which is clearly ridiculous. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Below, you have stated that 95% of players that pass ATHLETE also pass the GNG. I don't necessarily agree with that statistic. But regardless, 100% of players in that position would pass the GNG, which would make this page kinda moot. —WFC— 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but my intention was simply to clarify the position and make sure all the bases were covered so that there was no confusion or ambiguity. Having the information in two places to make sure nothing slips through the cracks is hardly overkill. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I might otherwise have disagreed but said fair enough. But you are simultaneously arguing that it is wrong that we remind football editors that articles should be able to show that they meet the GNG. —WFC— 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I think that football articles *do* need to pass both ATH and/or GNG. What I disagree with is your assertation that football editors are wilfully ignoring GNG and creating articles willy-nilly on players who don't deserve them, because in my experience the WP:FOOTY project has been very diligent in enforcing article standards. I also have a problem with the generally aggressive and argumentative (and occasionally offensive) tone you have taken to push your argument over the last couple of days, but that's another matter entirely. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I take your last sentence on board, I personally believe that using a few expletives to draw attention to a point is far less offensive than aiming an insult at a named individual. I'm not the one that has done the latter, although admittedly I've come closer to it than I should have. Each to their own on what is and isn't acceptible IMO. Back to the main point though, I disagree that WP:FOOTY is particularly good at maintaining standards in articles. There are individual editors that are fantastic at it, indeed certain groups of editors keep certain categories of articles maintained to a high standard. But on a project wide basis? I'd say that at best we struggle. Certain editors are creating articles with little regard to the GNG, and certain others are explicitly stating that footballers don't need to pass the GNG, including people with the ability to keep/delete articles, and including yourself. [1] [2] And it invariably takes someone who either dares to step out of line at WP:FOOTY, or someone who has nothing to do with football, to actually remind football editors that they are expected to adhere to the GNG. [3] —WFC— 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your linking to my comment on the Adam Thompson AfD just highlights what I said before: that (IMHO) 95% of the players who pass ATH also pass GNG, and when they don't pass ATH, you can use GNG to "save" them if necessary. I personally think that Adam Thompson passes ATH and that the GNG on that article is sufficient, and that was the point that I was making on that discussion (I might not have worded it correctly, but I wasn't trying to imply that you can simply ignore GNG if ATH is met, because I have never thought that) - but that's beside the point to this discussion. All I was trying to do was simply add a caveat to the guideline to ensure that players who play in cup games between fully professional teams are considered equally alongside those who play in league games between fully professional teams, so that - in conjunction with the GNG standards - the guideline can be used to help inform editors as to whether an article should be created. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Cup competitions are often used to field weaker sides, and so if a player only plays in a cup competition it is likely that they are less notable than if they had played in the league. The current guidelines are already lax enough and this extends it further. If they are notable then they would surely play in the league anyway, so all you'd have to do is wait for that to happen. Alternatively, a well sourced article could be written to show that they meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me make a suggestion—with the understanding that I am completely unencumbered by any comprehension of the subject matter! How about allowing cup players only when they are members of a professional team that won the final, championship match of the cup? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think most clubs take the last few rounds of a national cup competition seriously (there are obviously exceptions), so if we were to set a threshold, I would suggest setting it at the quarter-finals, rather than only the cup winning side. Jogurney (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to ask: why bother? If someone only plays a cup game and then never again, the chances are that they aren't notable. If they go on to play league games then they are covered by the guideline. The only thing this means is that people don't start an article on someone if they make their debut in a cup competition. Of course, if there is sufficient coverage to show they meet the GNG it doesn't matter either way. Quantpole (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So now we are the judge or just how serious each club is taking the cup competitions? Additionally can anyone explain why playing 30 seconds in a League game for, for example Barnet, would make someone that much more notable than someone who plays a whole game for Chelsea because it was assumed that they were not taking the cup seriously!!?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost sorry I brought this whole thing up now. I just thought it would be a simple, non-controversial clarification to ensure the guideline said what we all already knew. If I'd have known it was going to turn into the World Pedantry Championship I would have kept my mouth shut. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a minefield and a source of much heated debate, swearing and pointy comments and has been chewing on for as long as I have been on Wiki. Hopefully it might get resolved with some clear AND unambiguous guidelines but I won't be holding my breath!--Egghead06 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

JonB, you have my sympathy! At this point, taking into account the controversies about cup playing, I think the correct thing for NSPORT to do is to leave mention of cups out. That puts it back to GNG, where it should be, instead of opening up what appears to be a dubious shortcut here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It would also leave many dozens of articles standed as they have been created for footballers who have played only one cup game. Limited coverage, youth/reserve team players, would fail GNG. As examples I would point out:- Chris Lewington, Thomas Ince and, of course Adam Thompson. I am aware of the danger of comparisons but there any many other articles that are remarkably similar.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely why this shouldn't be included as there is no evidence that those players meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

little leaguers

We seem to have come across a loop-hole here in that the amateur section doesn't take into account pre-high school athletes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Durley. Spanneraol (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! You are absolutely correct, in my opinion. Who would have thought: seems like Wikilawering to say that high school is one thing, but pre-high school is somehow something higher. I'm going to boldly change it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Football recommendation

I'd like to request that the edit I have made to NFOOTBALL stick- i.e. that footballers be required to make some sort of claim to notability. This page's owners both seem determined to explicitly refuse that any article be subject to this hideous requirement. —WFC— 08:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't passing the standards set out for professional footballers set out in the guideline imply notability? Why over-egg the pudding? --JonBroxton (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No not always, as the lead to the page says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline" it is quite possible, for example, for a player to play for Manchester United and not meet the WP:GNG, if for example they play only one match as a sub and never play again, it is by no means curtain that they would meet WP:GNG so the addition that WFCforLife added is a good reminder as a large number of visitors to the page may come in directly at the WP:NFOOTBALL short cut. Codf1977 (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have no opinion about the page content deleted in [4], other than that it was discussed in talk and seemed to have consensus. And I'm not particularly bothered about the redundancy of [5], if it helps avoid misunderstandings. But the tone of both these edit summaries seems to me to reflect a WP:BATTLEFIELD mindset that is extremely unhelpful here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't need to adopt that sort of approach, if posters here recognised that a limited group of editors cannot decide that the GNG means fuck all. Which is indisputedly happening with regards to association football. —WFC— 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing you might need to realize, is that if no one else outside that group chooses to comment, it often means no one outside that group either a> cares or b> thinks there needs to be a change. Of course not seeing the discussion might be an issue, but being that the discussion is on the nsports page itself and not on the football project page, that really isn't a problem because people concerned with such things tend to watch the policy/guideline pages. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WFC, I really think you're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. 95% of players who pass whatever WP:ATH is now called also pass WP:GNG, as it's highly unlikely that a player would become a fully-professional athlete without attracting non-trivial mainstream coverage. Those who don't pass WP:ATH (usually for not being a full professional) can sometimes also pass WP:GNG for other reasons which are determined on a case-by-case basis. Those who don't pass WP:ATH or WP:GNG go to AfD - for example, the one I did recently on Estevao Franco. For those few players who pass WP:ATH but for whom the WP:GNG sources are sketchy, then we also discuss those on a case-by-case basis and come to a consensus as to whether or not to keep the article. And that's it. Why are you making it so difficult? --JonBroxton (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, I'm trying to ensure that what you have just said actually happens. As can be seen from recent AfDs that I have participated in, in the "5%" (not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing) where people pass ATHLETE and appear to fail the GNG, football editors use ATHLETE as an excuse for ignoring the GNG. When specifically questioned on this, they specifically state that the GNG does not apply to footballers, provided that they pass ATHLETE. —WFC— 16:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your view, but I think many AfD comments skip over the GNG because it can be challenging to know whether the coverage included in the article is trivial/routine (and even more whether the coverage available but not cited in the article is trivial/routine) rather than because they believe the GNG to be inapplicable. A bright-line test like NSPORTS simply saves time and effort. My concern is that the bright-line is probably too low (but no one will ever agree to a bright-line that is higher that 1 moment of fully-pro competition). Jogurney (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Skipping over the GNG where no-one has commented (and it can therefore be assumed that either no-one cares or no-one saw fit to mention it) is one thing. Actively saying "well he passes ATHLETE so he doesn't need to meet the GNG, he's notable" is quite another. As you say, the bright-line level is too low, but that's a relatively trivial issue compared to the fact that it is treated as a hard-and-fast rule, rather than the indicator that it's supposed to be. —WFC— 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)4

• Could set the bar higher, say:

Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in the top division of a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable.

Any player below that would have to satisfy GNG. Jon

Or leave the bar pretty much where it is but say, 'played for a fully-pro team in a fully-pro competition=notability'. No grey areas, no conjecture, no battlefield.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not likely to happen, the whole point of NSPORTS was to move away from people thinking that anything fully pro was notable. Not sure why football didn't change its requirements when all the other sports did. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This page vis-a-vis the GNG, numero deux

Following on from the previously titled discussion above, I just want to get this clear. If someone agrees that an article fails the GNG, but states that NSPORTS means that an article is notable, is that a valid argument?

If the answer is yes: The wider view is that the bar is lower for athletes because (while some don't like it) they tend to meet the GNG more easily, warranting articles, and that this guideline is useful as a rough gauge of when you'll probably find sources. The wider view is not that people who technically meet NSPORTS are definitely notable.

If the answer is no: could we possibly make that clearer? Even today I am coming across people who are arguing exactly along the above lines. I've been chastised in the past for trying to make this explicit in the lead, being told there is no need. I (grudgingly) accepted it at the time. But when contributors whom I respect are going along the above lines, then I'm sorry, but there is a need to re-address it. --WFC-- 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is simple as per WP:CONLIMITED :

“ Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. ”

The WP:GNG is the community wide consensus on notability and there for overrides anything else. All any WikiProject can do is draw up guidelines that help to highlight what should make a subject is notable but can't escape the need to have "ignificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Codf1977 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason you get people arguing along those lines is that NSPORTS is meant to protect articles from over zealous delete attempts. Most of the time the people who are saying that an article which meet NSPORTS but which they say doesn't meet GNG haven't actually done a thorough search of sources that would actually have the references required and instead have only done a google search. By introducing the kind of sentencing you want at the top of the page, you weaken the point of this page. Simply point people making the argument you don't like to this page, which does already clearly indicate that GNG superseeds it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

NSPORT actually has both types.

• Most of the guideline (pro sports, for example) are the type where notability is presumed as long as the NSPORT criteria is met even if the GNG is not; this is based on the presumption that athletes that meet that criteria either have sources that are difficult to get on immediate notice, or have a high likelihood of having sources in time (near-term, 1-3 years-ish). That is, with proper sourcing, they would meet the GNG. As Djsasso suggests it is to prevent overzealous deletion of likely-notable topics.
• Some of the guideline (under amateur sports) is the opposite: not only must the GNG be met, but also must meet the more limiting criteria. This is to prevent what topics that may be covered routinely in local sources (like high school athletes) from being notable.

Aslo to Codf1977's comment: NSPORT was passed through global consensus before it was asserted to be a guideline (I still disagree with the laxness of it, but admit that the RFC for it received consensus). It should be considered on par in terms of community consensus as the GNG, not indifferent from it. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

NSPORT was passed with approximately 56% support, while several supporters expressed that they were primarily doing so because ATHLETE was inadequate. I don't disagree that there was consensus to promote, given that several opposers also agreed that it was an improvement on ATHLETE. DJ is right, something on athletes is necessary, if only to put the burden on deleters to do a good faith check of notability. But it's completely wrong to suggest that this is anywhere near being on a par with the GNG.

I'm confident that the above is correct. But let's suppose I'm wrong. In that instance, it would be fair to say that the community was misled by those who insisted that this should be seen as a suppliment to the GNG rather than a replacement. If now that the dust has settled it is to be considered a replacement, that would call into question the validity of this being a guideline. --WFC-- 15:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It was still passed by the global community. Sure, you can argue that the bare majority (in WP's !voting system) shows it had barely enough consensus to pass, but I wouldn't argue that "GNG is more important to be met than NSPORT because NSPORT didn't have strong/global consensus". (Heck, I could argue the GNG probably is not supported by a large fraction of the editor population based on long-standing problems with it, but that is neither here or there). It is appropriate, however, to note that NSPORT is a "sub-notability" guideline, meaning that the GNG should still be the ultimate goal for any article that otherwise passes NSPORT. I understood throughout the NSPORT creation process, it was meant to outline criteria that would be used to prevent the deletion of articles that otherwise immediately failed the GNG. In other words it followed the pattern of the other sub-notability guidelines like WP:NFILMS and WP:NM (for music). --MASEM (t) 16:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the second half of what you have posted above. But I think that a significant proportion of sports editors are taking this guideline far more literally and as far more concrete than it was initially intended to be. Don't get me wrong with the way I quoted 56%. I conceed that there were opposers who saw the positives in this, albeit complimented by supporters with a few reservations. It's testament to the work done here that it got a majority. And given that most people elabourated on their positions, the numerical count was probably a better evaluation of consensus than a poll usually is.

That said, the fact that this narrowly passsed is relevant if this guideline's standing in relation to the GNG is different to where people were led to believe. Would you mind if I dropped a note on User:SoWhy's talk page about this discussion? It might provide a useful insight. --WFC-- 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say But I think that a significant proportion of sports editors are taking this guideline far more literally and as far more concrete than it was initially intended to be.", can you provide examples? (I'm guessing AFD discussions, for one). It may be better to address what the perceived problem is instead of guessing around it. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that guidelines and policies on wikipedia are meant to be descriptive not prescriptive. In other words they are meant to resemble what actually happens (as opposed to tell you what to do), if a majority of people are using it as a keep reason, then technically it has the support of the global community as a guideline which means if its met then you keep it. This is something that is often forgotten when it comes to wikipedia policies/guidelines. Note this isn't a comment on if I think this should be the case or not, but if you are seeing it widely used as a keep reason, that is often proof it has consensus to be so. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only widely used by editors active in that particular field. --WFC-- 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that at all, I see it used all the time as a reason to both keep and delete by people who have nothing to do with sports articles normally. Either way it already clearly indicates what you want at the top of this page, so I am not sure what you want. It will take time for this to sink it, it is a new guideline afterall. I wouldn't expect many people habbits change until its atleast a year old. WP:ATHLETE was around a loooong time. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Masem: I'm trying to go for discussions that are not active, and article subjects that would no longer be affected by this discussion. I can justify the age of a couple of these on the grounds that as far as football is concerned, the criteria did not really change with the birth of NSPORTS. This is one that I came across during a recent RfA, and this de-PROD, while admittedly two and a half years old and now irrelevant as he has subsequently played quite a bit more, has been cited as recently as July 2010 as reflective of the opinion that one game between two lower league teams confers notability. A more recent example is Gavin Massey. He was deleted at AfD and then recreated by someone on the grounds of passing WP:ATHLETE. That was later speedied. But judging by the response to it being speedied and keep arguments at a more recent discussion that I cannot quote just yet, it would appear that Gavin Massey's article only ended up being deleted because WP:FOOTBALL regulars were not made aware of the discussion. --WFC-- 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see the types of cases you seem to be talking about where technically based on the language they pass ATH/NSPORT (I think the cases you list would still meet NSPORT) but, through common sense, clearly shouldn't. This was one of the issues I had with NSPORT in development in that these aren't considering the actual contributions of the player, but simply being part of a professional team was making them notable. (Personally, my opinion is that much of what's in NSPORT is not needed, since pro players will get coverage if they are notable players within their sport).

The way to remedy this, I think, is to consider that the criteria here are considered a temporary respite from meeting the GNG in the long run. The criteria that have been selected should be providing reasonably assurance that sources do or will exist in the near future, but if it's clear after some time (particularly for past athletes) that there are no sources being added, it's not showing notability in the long run. So NSPORT needs to work not as alternative to the GNG, but as a implicit acknowledgment of working towards the GNG. But I wouldn't argue that at any immediate time, an article that meets NSPORT must also meet the GNG. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll rehash a bit of my argument from earlier. By blindly sticking to an ambiguous standard "significant coverage" of GNG, WP is artificially limiting the knowledge it can host. Just how much is "significant"? Two sources, three, ten? If you get the wrong AfD people in an argument, they could see blood and start circling. Yes, I have equated those types of personalities as sharks. Sticking to GNG assumes that all the knowledge of the world is already available on-line and essentially turns references into a locator service for said sources. That might work, kind of, for contemporary subjects, but as you go back though time, on-line sources are (I'll say) exponentially fewer in number. This would hold true for most subjects, but certainly for athletes. However we have also determined through guidelines that if one is notable for historical events, that notability does not disappear. The sources might not be available or could literally disappear (libraries and museums have fires or disasters etc) and cause this to happen. Should we penalize the subject of the article because the internet is not perfect. I think not. If we can find a source that establishes the notability of the subject, that alone should be sufficient to let that article survive. As I have found, when a legitimate article exists, it naturally gets improved over time. Trackinfo (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem that ATH and NSPORT still has is that it presumes playing in the game makes one notable. It's becoming clear that that is not the case, at least when put up against every other bio-related notability approach - participation is not the same as notability, no matter how much that player actually participates; it is what makes them exceptional (positively or negatively) that notability is based on. Consider that you've already advised that local players should not be included due to routine coverage; this needs to extend to pro players as well, otherwise you're treating pro players on a higher level than any other person for Wikipedia. That said, I'm well aware of the sourcing issue - that anyone from pre-Internet age is going to be more difficult to source than those today, but it is not that sources don't exist, just difficult to get. What NSPORT needs to be doing is outlining cases where one is assuredly going to find non-routine coverage of sports figures in reliable sources for that sport. I can easily accept that every first-string pro NFL quarterback and head coach is likely going to be notable since they are the backbone of the success or failure of the team and their decisions overall will be commented on; anyone other position, I question.

If it is an issue with editors ready like vultures to delete older sports figures should ATH/NSPORT disappear, that's a problem not with notability but with those editors understanding about the lack of WP's deadline and all that. I know I proposed a grandfathering clause to help carry over the gap to give a year or so to help improve such articles.

Of course, NSPORT has passed, and there's no point to try to revert that. But that means we have to understand why it was opposed, in part to its laxness. Thus, the case listed above of an athlete with 4 whole minutes of playtime to his name should not be mechanically kept just because it meets this. All these cases should be taken as rules of thumbs, with allowances both above and below the line when they make sense. A player that only plays 4 unremarkable minutes in a pro game and has nothing else may be able the line to be kept, but clearly isn't notable; at the same time, a draft rookie player that was promoted to be the season-changing player that suffers a pre-season injury that ends his career prematurely, never having played a pro game, will likely be notable and be kept. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing that is often forgotten, and maybe its that people don't agree. Is that in order to make it to the professional leagues even if its only for 4 minutes means that you were probably a notable amateur player. Maybe they aren't a notable pro soccer player at 4 minutes playing time, but chances are they are notable for amateur soccer or they wouldn't have been boosted to pro. Notability doesn't begin at some high 1st string level, notability often begins years before a player has even turned pro which is why we use the pro line as a clear red line of when they are likely to meet notability guidelines. -DJSasso (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability (in a wikipedia sense) begins and ends with the GNG. It is easy to show that someone is notable by putting sources in the article. If what you say is true it should be very easy to do so. I don't think I've seen an article yet on a footballer who has made a single appearance which demonstrates the GNG. Yet they go through AfD and are kept time after time by the same group of vested contributors with no improvement made to the article. The situation is grossly at odds with the rest of community norms regarding notability of BLPs. Quantpole (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to soccer because I don't follow it. I know for any of the four major sports in north america, a single appearance in any pro game at any level and you can guarantee to have many many articles written about you. I agree articles need sources, I definitely don't disagree with that in the slightest. That being said, the soccer standards seem to be out of line with the rest of the major sports. All the other major sports require you to play at the #1 league in the world or a significant amount of time in a secondary one. Perhaps the football project could work on their section to bring it into line with the other sports. This might allay some of the concerns. -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But again, this is still putting athletics above most other professions when you put this next to WP:BIO. We don't have articles on every entertainer, for example, but only those that clearly meet the GNG or otherwise meet the few allowances in WP:ENT, all which are based on exceptional contributions to the field. Of course, for a person to become a major motion picture star, they've likely had to take on a number of mediocre roles that would be non-notable for purposes of Wikipedia, just has athletes would need to show their abilities at college or amateur levels before they become pros, and for that, most will not be notable (when one takes into account WP:ROUTINE). The only aspect that changes most of this for sports is the shear volume of media dedicate to sports coverage over any other profession, but we should be taking that into account as well and make sure we're not mistaking routine coverage as significant. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually thats a poor analogy. Playing at the highest professional level is like being an entertainer in a huge blockbuster movie or an academy award nominated movie. Its not like just being a professional entertainer. Plenty of people watch and are entertained by secondary leagues, but they are not necessarily notable under NSPORT. I agree that soccer needs to be a bit less inclusive, since it seems to include minor leagues in its notability clause, which I disagree with. --MATThematical (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is newspapers and the like write about these athletes at those levels in ways that are not just routine (ie stats sheets and single sentence mentions). They don't tend to do that for every mediocre entertainer or people of other professions. Wikipedia reflects the real world. -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Box scores and game stats are routine coverage; it's expected when one reads about a game or series. You can also bring up WP:NTEMP here; just because a player scored a grand slam in baseball is not sufficient for notability - despite the achievement, if he did nothing else, that was simply a temporary event and should be Wikinews. We should be looking for notability as a result of a season or career, not from a collection of single games. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I was saying that box scores and the like are routine. But articles about the player on the other hand are not, because its not routine to write an article about every player on a team. -DJSasso (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I misunderstood, thanks. I would still be careful on some player coverage, as this is where the local issues come into play and a lot harder to distinguish. "SmallTown News" covering a star high school athlete from that town is hard to use as a notable source. "HugeNational Times" covering that same player certainly is not. The problem comes when "BigCity Gazette" (aka New York Times) covers a local high school player in the same manner they would cover a local professional player and a non-local professional player. We have to use good judgement here as to when that source is really of a scale that would be considered notable for WP. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to go at least a small way towards doing that DJSasso. Admittedly the way I tried to do it could be considered a flawed approach by some, but the very thought of even slightly strengthening it didn't prove popular. The error in promoting this is now manifesting; very little work was done to improve ATHLETE for the biggest sport in the world, and most problematic sport on Wikipedia. Of the identified 25,000 unreferenced BLPs site-wide, nearly 1,600 of them are association footballers. Sure, part of that is down to the nationalities of notable association footballers compared to baseball or American football players, but a lot of it is down to the fact that a lot of them really are not that notable.

I don't deny that NSPORTS was a step forward for some sports. But as far as association football is concerned, it has made things worse. At least with ATHLETE it could be treated as a generality, as a presumption, as a slightly flawed compliment to the GNG. But now that other sports have precise criteria which on the whole are very good, one appearance is very much treated as the rule. It may be that the wider community looks at the situation with association football and decides that it's fine (which would be a shocking but plausible outcome). But it sorely needs looking at. --WFC-- 22:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

South Shields FC The Football League Years by George Thompson page 58. "Some sort of prize ought to go to Chape -his only appearance was at Bradford City in midweek- no North Eastern newspaper printed the line-ups and when reference was made to the Bradford Telegraph and Argus it was found that his name had been obliterated by a blemish in the print" Do professional Footballers really automatically meet GNG? Has anybody here ever read a 50-100 year old sportspaper? Cattivi (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No one automatically meets notability. This is just a guideline of when its likely to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure the current guidelines work well for American sports. But I'm not so sure for other countries. In England and the Netherlands it was not unusual for 2nd or 3rd team players to play a few first team matches, sometimes they just got lucky, being at the right place at the right time. (many English clubs did have a third team ) Their names appear in the books, but you will find virtually nothing about them, even in local newspapers. In the Netherlands you can become a member of a club when you are six years old and continue to play for them until you're old and grey. (well it used to be like this, in the last 30 years most professional clubs were seperated from their amateur section) Remember there is no such thing like drafts in most countries. players join clubs before they have achieved anything. American journalists were also much more focused on the statistical side of sports than journalists in other countries. Holland is actually one of the most difficult countries in Europe when you want to research appearence records of footballplayers. The available records of the Eredivisie are partly based on some educated guesses. (The Dutch FA threw away all their old records) Cattivi (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, subguidelines of notability reflect when it's likely that a given subject will meet notability. However, if a good search for sources is found, and only very thin if any sourcing turns out to be available, it does not allow for notability in the event that the subject actually does not pass the GNG. Nothing is notable "because it's a" (though there are common misconceptions in some areas). Notability is verifiable—we check if reliable sources have, in an in-depth manner, noted the subject.

That being said, subguidelines can be more strict than the GNG, just never less. Passing the GNG is a requirement for a standalone article to exist, but there are other requirements as well. Passing GNG is necessary but not sufficient. It should be clarified here that nothing here loosens the GNG requirements or allows for any article where it is demonstrably failed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When playing 1 match in professional football is only the first step in establishing if a footballer is notable then we agree Cattivi (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My recent experiences at AfDs suggest that if a sports figure has enough reliable press to pass GNG, it does not matter if he/she passes the sports guidelines. Thus, any common US high school quarterback, basketball center, home run hitting hero or hockey sticking defenseman can get a stand alone article. Please see Anthony Davis (basketball) if you have any questions. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My recent experience at AfDs suggest that if a sports figure meets the criteria set out here, the GNG is actively ignored, even when multiple editors explain at length why this is the case without being refuted. The only exceptions are when a nominator attempts to be actively deceptive by not informing the appropriate wikiproject. In these instances, the consensus among a broader group of contributors tends to be that not meeting the GNG equals not being notable. --WFC-- 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's a problem; notability is not just meeting a simple criteria about that topic; it is how well we can actually talk about that person beyond basic details (this for sports figures includes their play stats, etc.) NSPORTS' criteria cannot be taken mechanically , as Seraphimblade points out - if it can never be improved despite meeting a criteria, it is still not notable. Notability is always based on presumption of being notable, not the absolute quality of that. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. But to be picky and clear, NSPORTS' criteria can be and are taken mechanically. They shouldn't be, as doing so is not in line with the wider view on notablity. But they are. This behavior is rarely challenged (at least as far as association football is concerned) and it's even rarer that such a challenge actually results in the GNG being adhered to. --WFC-- 18:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So what I am seeing is a lack of a heading paragraph on "Professional sports persons" or possible within the "Notability guidelines on sportspersons" section to identify that these are not mechanical rules but instead rough metrics and that the GNG is still a target for these articles. That would then be the necessary to counter "But he played one game, therefore he must be notable!" claims you've shown are being made at AFD. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think so. I'm going to keep an eye on whilst trying not to edit this conversation for a few days (I'm gradually winding my editing down generally). But while I think a root and branch review of the association football section is needed, that might be the way forward in the shorter term. --WFC-- 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There already is such a paragraph and I quote. "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources." -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, up in the lead, but if people are trying to argue "keep" based on just meeting a mechanical requirement, the message of that statement is not being made apparent. I can't see how restarting that lower down - particularly right in the section where the criteria are listed, cannot hurt to remind editors that these are not simple pass-fail rules. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If this discussion dies through apathy (as previous ones have), I will be very tempted to bring the entire guideline back to WP:CENT, for discussion on whether it is helping or hindering, and on whether the notability criteria are consistent with other fields. My view is that promoting this was a backwards step even in relation to ATHLETE as far as association football is concerned. ATHLETE was widely accepted as a vague outline of when someone might be notable (albeit it was still taken pretty literally). For football this has solidified everything that was wrong with ATHLETE. It has enshrined into wiki-documentation when someone is notable. And don't tell me that guidelines are guidelines; the way AfD works they are as near-as-makes-no-difference hard-and-fast rules.

I'm utterly convinced that if brought before a truly representative cross-section of the wider community, they will reach similar conclusions. I don't think anyone can argue that someone who has made one or two Football League Two appearances spectacularly fails passes the Pokémon test. How much further that rationale extends is obviously subjective, but as Masem says, these criteria should set the theshold above which someone can be presumed notable, not the threshold below which they can be presumed non-notable.

I think it would be constructive for the NSPORTS community to look at the association football criteria, and decide whether they are in line with other athletes. If so... well... presumably everything's hunky-dory. If not, figure out how we get there, and when WP:FOOTY inevitably tells us to (I can't possibly type this), consider whether or not to put the matter to central discussion. But I've tried enough times to initiate the process, strongly believe that a large majority of non-sports editors and even a significant proportion of sports editors think that the bar is too low for association football, yet nothing has happened. --WFC-- 22:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you. But generally lack of anything happening is often a very huge sign the community is ok with the situation. As for athlete vs nsports for soccer players. Athlete used to let in even more soccer players that it does now, athlete was a guideline just like nsports is, nothing has changed in that respect. Nothing got worse with this change, if anything it got better. Do some of the guidelines need to be tweaked, yeah probably. But that is another matter than reversing all the work that has been done by numerous people and took about 5 years to be implemented. -DJSasso (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, nothing was done about the BLP situation for about 5 years. It took another 3-4 years for us to finally devise a reasonable system, and we are still dealing with the backlog to this day.

This guideline should only contain specific guides for sports where we are satisfied that they are a true reflection of community consensus, and that it is substantially different from what ATHLETE previously gave us. The logical compromise is to identify which sports were improved by this guideline, and which are wholly or partly rehashed versions of what we had before. ATHLETE should then be restored in WP:BIO, with a note that it is superceeded by any sports listed here. That would strengthen the better parts of this (hockey, baseball etc) and at the same time provide acknowledgement and awareness of the fact that other sports remain problematic and remain largely influenced by the widely discredited ATHLETE. --WFC-- 01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this really only numero deux? I would have thought a much higher number! Seriously, though, I've been watching this talk thread even though I haven't said anything until now. WFC, obviously you don't need my permission to do anything, obviously, but my unsolicited advice would be not to make the proposal you just described. It would be a lot more efficient, and a lot less likely to be met with howls of opposition, to work on improving what we have here. For whatever that's worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The most efficient way to improve something on wikipedia is to ask nicely, and if nothing happens, seriously threaten the existence of something that a group of editors have a vested interest to protect. Prove that editors here are capable of improving the poorly developed parts of this so that the page as a whole is deserving of being a wikipedia guideline. Otherwise I will do exactly as I threaten. I'm in no doubt that something will happen, as it is beyond question that the wider wikipedia community will not settle for nothing being done in an area which has such a huge impact on the quality of our BLPs as a whole. As an aside, check out my recent contributions to see the quality of articles that doing (a-word-that-I'm-better-off-not-using) all to improve the guideline will leave us with. Articles that I haven't prodded are articles that pass this guideline, and will fail at AfD because WikiProject Football treat this as canon law, as you well know.

I'll bow out of this conversation until the end of the month. I have absolutely no faith at all in the ability of editors here, or at WP:FOOTY, to do anything at all, but look forward to being proven wrong. Given that the initial decision to promote was narrow, controversial, and subject to continuous improvement taking place, any threat to part or all of this guideline's status will have a very real chance of succeeding. It's up to you lot to decide whether that remains a hypothetical statement. --WFC-- 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep assuming bad faith of editors here. I would suggest you stop doing that. We have no vested interest other than that of any other editor on the wiki. If you want to improve something then suggest a fix. All you have done so far is say this is bad and make threats. That is not how things work on the wiki. In fact the more people make threats on the wiki the less things actually happen. Thats why it took this guideline about 5 years to get promoted. This wasn't some spur of the moment change. Things generally work better if you attempt to work on improving it instead of making threats and assuming bad faith of everything. The community as a whole did settle for nothing being done for many years, to get this far was a great accomplishment. Frankly to go back to what we had before would likely be met with more opposition than you think, people opposed because they wanted it stricter not lest strict which is what you are basically suggesting. So thinking that the wider community will agree with you to revert to WP:ATHLETE is remarkably short sighted and somewhat laughable. Essentially right now you are making a WP:POINT argument. -DJSasso (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also a suggestion might be to you know ask the footy project to see if they can't come up with more specific guidelines. I notice you hadn't put a notice on their talk page at all, and without the help of the "experts" its pretty hard to expect the wider community who don't know about soccer to come up with them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that I have done so on multiple occasions. Each time the discussion fizzled out after a certain period of time.

Is it point-y to suggest that the sun does not shine out of this guideline's arse for every sport? Is it point-y to suggest that the decision to promote was hasty? Even if I (uneasily) accept that it was appropriate to promote at that time, is it point-y to remind editors here that the recommendations set by the admin at the time of promotion have not been met, or that the inertia on this talk page reduces the possibility of them ever being met? This guideline got through because editors of the sports for which it works very well argued, in sufficient numbers, that the guideline in its entirety should be promoted, despite the fact that large parts of it simply strengthened the old WP:ATHLETE. If you want to accuse me of lacking good faith, then feel free. You have tenure, so you'll probably get away with it. But to accept that the old WP:ATHLETE was wildly inappropriate, and then go on to copy it word-for-word for the most covered sport on Wikipedia, and strengthen it by including it in this guideline, was at best a naive oversight, and at worst utterly stupid. Good or bad faith doesn't come into it.

In the interests of letting qualitative discussion come first, I'll hold off on a central RfC until the discussions that I am aware of on the GNG and footballers have run their course. —WFC— 14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean this to sound flippant if it sounds that way, but where have you invited them to come to a central discussion here or at the football project to discuss changing the football aspects of this guideline? Complaining about it in AFDs isn't the same thing. I don't see any discussion at the football project about it nor do I see a section here specifically on the football aspect of things, so I can't see anywhere that this has been brought up amongst the people who would know best. What I suggest you do is create a new section below (ie don't continue this one) and make a recomendation for what you think the guideline should be. And then link from the footy project that the soccer notability guidelines are being rediscussed . Anything less than that isn't truely trying to discuss the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Cricket

It's hard to parse the "cricket" rules about first-class cricket and so on. Does William Battcock meet NSPORTS? J. James (1814 cricketer)? Benjamin Dark? Viger (Surrey cricketer)? And assuming they meet NSPORTS, do they also meet the GNG? Finally, if yes to the first and no the second question, doesn't the cricket section needs some clarification and more strict rules? Fram (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Youth Olympic Games

I'll be short: Please discuss... See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 10 kilometre walk for links to a massive amount of redlinks, this event didn't even reach the news where I lived, how notable can this event really be? Greswik (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't make your local newspaper? Tough luck. But it made the BBC, NYT[6], AP, and plenty of other tertiary RS, not to mention newspapers in many countries which had athletes take part and do well. Just because you didn't know about it doesn't mean it's not notable - your argument isn't based in your claim. StrPby (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Youth Olympic Games probably made these sources, but did the NYT etc. really give info about the Boys' 10 kilometre walk? I seriously doubt it. Having said that, please see WP:CANVASS. Making opiniated posts about active AfD's is strongly discouraged. Posting "An AfD which is relevant for this guideline can be found at X" is the better way of doing this. Fram (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming CANVASS wasn't just directed at me. StrPby (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, my apologies, I was replying to you in the first part of my post, and to Greswik in the second part. You weren't canvassing, Greswik was close to it. Fram (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem with "canvassing" is if you go to people you expect will support you, in a case you have some kind of personal interest. If you notice my attitude towards the youth olympics you may see I fear it is junk, but I am willing to be proven wrong. I don't have any personal interest- I just feel we end up with a lot of articles about NN-kids sourced in insignificant news-reports. But if any people will save it, they will be found here. Just notice how the first person replying here is the person who has made a lot of this articles (even if this not was very clear from the answer.). Canvassing? Why do you bother to imply such a thing? I am honestly looking for a place to get some discussion about it, someone wants to nominate a massive amounts of articles for deletion, there are far to few !votes at the AfD, and this thing is not easy.Greswik (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Just notice how the first person replying here is the person who has made a lot of this articles"? I haven't edited any of them at all. That claim gives me the impression that Greswik is attempting to paint my opinion as somehow of less value or to be ignored. I've made articles on medal winners at the Games, yes. I don't see how that's relevant to the events articles, which I haven't touched. Care to retract that statement? StrPby (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see also on my talk -page you demand a reparation for this. Well, I may have been a bit strong in my choice of words. It was of course wrong of me to say you have contributed to this articles exactly, when you have not. My point, I see this youth-olympics articles as a complex, and I do get the feeling you are personally involved - and you could have mentioned it in your first comment above here. Greswik (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that the AfD for these articles has settled (as a No Consensus, by the way) I strongly suggest it was due to our error of omission (on an event that did not exist when the guideline was written). We specifically add this to the guideline to prevent further frivolous AfDs against this event in the future. We already have accepted winning a gold medal in equivalent, perhaps lesser events in the case of the IAAF World Junior Championships and Youth World Championships as being notable. I would think such specific mention of the events would also make the events (not just those specific participants) and logically, equivalent events also notable. But it seems we need to spell it out for some people to get it. In the face of such (I'm really searching for a decent adjective that still fits into WP:AGF guidelines, I have yet to think of one) opinions, do we have to itemize each notable meet by name or come up with more specific definitions of what a notable event is? I look at a guideline as giving direction without the need for such precise and limiting specifics. The fact that the Youth Olympics went through such a narrow minded, serious challenge suggests we need to get much more verbose, probably throughout this guideline. That might mean we have to name each notable league in every sport by name. Trackinfo (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I seriously disagree with you this AfDs were frivolous. The Youth Olympics are, seriously, not comparable to the winter and summer olympics. They are youth events, and they did not have any near the impact the real olympics had. Really, not. Greswik (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that an AfD ended in no consensus is definitely not a good argument to put the Youth Olympics on the NPORTS page. NSPORTS is for things which are so clearly notable that even if no sources are given in an article and no online sources are immediately available (e.g. because of the age of the event or sporter, or because of the language), we may be reasonably sure that the subject will meet the GNG. These, however, are recent events for which, if they were notable, sufficient coverage should have been easy to find. The fact that this was not clearly the case, and that the AfD ended in no consensus, is a very good reason not to qualify such articles (Youth olympic events and competitors) for automatic inclusion. Fram (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Stadiums

What is the notibility critera for sports stadia? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:GNG is pretty much it. Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) is a failed proposal that it would have fallen under. This guideline doesn't cover buildings. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Conflict between WP:NFOOTBALL and Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Gaelic games?

It seems to me that WP:NFOOTBALL and Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Gaelic games are at odds. Teams in the League of Ireland are not in a Wikipedia:fully professional league so don't pass WP:NFOOTBALL but it is the senior inter county level so it passes Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Gaelic games. Is that a loophole that we want to keep open? I want to make clear that I am from America and completely ignorant when it comes to what most of the world calls football, just looking for clarification. Thanks —J04n(talk page) 00:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There are obviously big differences between Association football, Gaelic football, and American football. Association football is not a Gaelic game. That being said, what is justificaiton behind League of Ireland not being recognized as a fully professional Association football league? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 01:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand now, I did not realize that Gaelic football was different from Association football. As for not being a fully professional league, I got that from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Thanks —J04n(talk page) 01:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Gottcha. I'm going to put an earmark on that one for later and find out why.  ;) Erikeltic ^(Talk) 01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The general guideline for sports notability is competing at a fully professional level makes a participant notable. There are no professional Gaelic sports leagues, so another guideline has to be established for a widely covered sport like that which does not have professionalism. The League of Ireland is one of a number of leagues which is part professional, part semi-professional. Therefore notability is not automatically conferred by simply playing in the league. There needs to be some effort to establish the wider coverage of the player beyond simple statistics or routine coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability for individual minor league season articles

The notability guidelines for individual season articles currently has no section on whether or not such articles for minor league teams are considered notable. This has recently come up in discussion regarding the 1980 Lynn Sailors season article, which is currently up for deletion. Without any guidance, the discussion has fallen back on how many Google hits the subjects have. I'm not sure exactly where to start regarding proposing a change to the guidelines, but I think such articles would only be notable in very specific circumstances, and that the strictures should be greater than those placed on collegiate seasons. Does anyone have any suggestions? -Dewelar (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• To be clear, I brought up how many Google News hits the subject had in 1980. This is the easiest and clearest way I know of to show editors how many relative news articles exist on a particular subject when directly addressing the first rule of notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This notability guideline far outweighs any guideline found in the sports notability guidelines or any proposed rule you may come up with. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken on Google News. I misread that part. However, the general point still stands that these guidelines should have some guidance on how to handle individual minor league season articles. As I said at least once during this discussion, I am sure that there will be instances in which such subjects could be considered notable. However, these should be limited to seasons that are of particular importance. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, after all. The existing articles that have thus far been discussed are pretty sparse, and make no assertion of why they are notable. The article above, for instance, has a grand total of two sentences of prose. -Dewelar (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think a preferable approach would be to have the article on the team include a well-referenced paragraph on each season. That's the approach I took for an article I helped edit on the Springfield (IL) Cardinals. In principle, I don't have a problem with separate articles on each season if they are well written and sourced, but let's please not have mass produced articles that simply copy statistics from stats sites. BRMo (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are asking about baseball minor leagues. In that case, you should also be looking at the section about baseball. Here, there is not an automatic presumption of notability, and WP:GNG is what applies, and has to be met. The coverage, whether news or otherwise, has to be truly independent of the subject (ie, not just a local town puff piece), and more than just listings of statistics. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why it couldn't apply to all team sports. And yes, we need to be careful of relying on routine coverage to establish notability. -Dewelar (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is going to be applied to all sports, the wikiprojects for all sports need to be notified. This could possibly affect the notability of hundreds of existing articles. I know that there are quite a few baseball and hockey minor league season articles. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly all affected projects should be invited to participate. I wanted to establish that there was interest in developing a guideline beyond my own take on the matter first. No official proposal has been made, after all. If the feedback is just "use WP:GNG", then there's no need to make a change. -Dewelar (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, pretty much all minor league seasons can pass WP:GNG because the season will be written about in papers in many cities. The issue is more a situation on if it violates WP:NOTSTATS or not. The hockey project for example thinks anything below the NHL or other top level leagues is pushing the issue of not a stats database (Or atleast it has in previous discussions, consensus could have changed). Since very few season pages ever have the prose they should have, including the top level leagues. This page is really more about whether or not articles meet the GNG. WP:NOTSTATS is a completely different matter which doesn't really belong here. I think it was talked about previously but I am not sure, take a spin through the archives of this page there might be some interesting points in there. -DJSasso (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The deletion discussion of the 2009 Louisville Bats season has shaped my view on this question. I don't believe such a season would pass GNG if the coverage was limited to the media local to the cities with teams in the league, even if such coverage was more than routine, because it's still local coverage of the season itself. -Dewelar (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The hockey project generally just does league season pages for the minor leagues. We generally don't do team specific season pages mostly because we don't figure they will be kept up and that league pages would be more likely expanded than worrying about every team page. There are a few people however that don't agree and still create team pages but there aren't many. -DJSasso (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We're bringing up Google News hits, but has anyone done a search through The Sporting News' digital archives? They had extensive coverage of the minor leagues each week, and I'm sure the Kinston Eagles' 1980 season is included. I can't seem to find it at the minute. I hope they didn't close down my best source for old baseball news.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodello (talk • contribs)

Just adding a date stamp so archiving will work. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

gymnastics notability seems too harsh

I would not require Olympic participation or a gold medal in major international competition. For comparison, every Arena League Football player is inherently notable for playing in a game? We definitely don't want every little girl or high school athlete in there. NO DOUBT. But I would think every US National Team member is notable.

I mean they are FIG certified and in a formal system for tracking (they way top cyclists in the pelaton are). Get drug tested. It is big time sports.

They go to major international meets (the gold medal is irrelevant...that might be a great criteria for prioritizing what articles to write or importance within the project). Also the Olys are every 4 years. National championships and World Championships are a big deal as well and are annual.

For instance, US National Championships and World Championships are covered on national TV (NBC network). Rebecca Bross is a lot more notable than pretty much any Arena League Football Player! Also, the total number of competitive athletes are pretty small (less than 20 men and 20 women on a US National Team). In the US, they get funding to support their training from the national association (most countries are similar). Major powers like Russia or China have notability for their top amateurs as well. And they meet in (US) nationally televised meets and such. Even less powerful countries are not an issue for their athletes as their is an inherent "level" of elite and the numbers of total athletes are small.

I realize this is just a guideline and I guess we can try to screen out AFL scrubs or screen in top gymnasts, but basically the guidelines seem "off" as written. I would make it any Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) elite (this is a formal designation) gymnast. (simple). The articles for the best of them will get written anyhow. I don't think we'll be flooded with people, the way we have been with people starting an article for every little province politician.

TCO (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal:

Elite: Any FIG certified elite. Possible more resrictive versions would be any FIG elite who has competed internationally, or even more restrictive has been a national team member (of their country). Note that MANY of the athletes are NOT amateurs and recieve pay for training from national federations.

NCAA: Would treat it like football or baseball or something. I could look into sports specific criteria if needed. It's at the same "level" as those sports, formally. And while the sports are not as popular, the numbers of athletes are much smaller (9 dressing for a meet, versus 100 in football). Also, at least for the females, several colleges are well revenue producing. Utah draws 20,000+ per meet.

High school: not inherently notable (should fall into elite or NCAA).

Level 10, pre-elite, YMCA leagues, etc.: Not inherently notable

There is essentially no non-US college style gymnastics, so not an issue there.

TCO (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have low enthusiasm for anything that would loosen these guidelines. It was enough of a battle just getting to here. I would think that the athletes who would pass under your proposal could already pass per WP:GNG. That's the intent of this page anyway: to provide guidance as to who passes GNG, not to usurp GNG. If we were to go along the route you propose, I would feel strongly that we need to set limits on placing strongly, such as a podium placement. Otherwise, we will quickly find ourselves back at the old "has competed at the highest level" and came in last. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the sport, to make an objection and have a feel for relative notability? There are a lot of women following skating and gymnastics, so its not the typical football/basketball crowd, but the sport still gets television and has audience and Q share and some of the athletes (e.g. Jana Bieger) go professional for endorsements

Right now, it's not even finishing on the podium. It's a gold medal! And in the all around only? (what about specialists?) We sould scrub Alexandra Raisman or Mackenzie Caquatto? I mean they were on NBC national television, for World Championships and National Championships and discussed quite a bit by the commentators!?

I know it is supposed to be a guideline and that we could go either way with GNG, but it still matters, still has a purpose. So need to get it right.

I'm going to read the whole thing, and give some more fact-based insights, but I really don't think the guidelines make sense as is. Don't match common amounts of notability, really.

TCO (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish. I'm firing off comments without taking time to read the materials. I know you asked for feedback and didn't get much from the gym crowd. That project seems a bit moribund actually. Let me please take the time to read through the other sports, read and think through the GNG, purpose of notabiity guidelines, other sports for comparison, etc. I think I will still request changes, but at least will be reasoned and informed.  :) TCO (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Very quick answers: sure, no problem; I'd say more that I'm familiar with Wikipedia and what I think is or is not encyclopedic; and it wasn't me personally who asked around. Just offering my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

@TCO I think you misread the notability guidelines, a gold medal is not required for notability. Can you specifically mention which parts are too harsh. Clearly, as the guidelines are written, all of the gymnasts you mentioned are notable under bullet 1, and for example Rebecca Bross is notable under bullets 1,3, and 4. Only one needs to be satisfied for notability. Basically any national champ (from a top 12 country) is notable, anyone who competed at an olympics or WC is notable, anyone who medaled at a less prestigious international level event is notable, and everyone who has won minor international senior competitions is notable. What do you find wrong here? --MATThematical (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not as bad as I said. Still some issues:

• Caquetto and Raisman did not pass threshold 1 until just recently. And the way gym works a lot of the notability is during the runup and selection process. And note, that both of their pages were made before the WC had happened.
• World cup is less prestigious than some of the other competitions. Also, many nations (NA and Asian) don't really send gymnasts there...it's a Euro circuit.
• Which brings me to, I would not require a gold at nationals. Would make it medalling same as the others. US or Chinese or even Russian silver national is pretty notable.
• Also, there is still comment about the all around. Gym has changed and event specilaists are more and more happening. ASac has not done AA for 6 years. Let's cut that.
• I'm still a little chapped about the football player notability (and I am a red blooded American male, go Skins). Right now, a single snap qualifies for notability, even in the Arena Football League. Yeah, gym is not the super bowl, but still like I said, NBC carries a fair amount of it. And also, I think wikipedia, which is pretty male skewed, may not realize how many women watch gym or skating. Add onto that, the smaller number of competitors, and I wouldn't be the least surprised that some "bubble girl" in the drive to the Olympics had higher name recognition than a practice squad linebacker, who got called up once.

TCO (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal suggestions: Elite: I do not think all elites are notable, not even all international elites. Certainly, all national champions from countries that have national teams are notable, which is the spirit of clause 4 (perhaps this clause should be reworded). Anyone who is elite that has won any (even minor) international meet is notable via clause 3. Anyone who has been on the podium at a prestigious area meet is notable via clause 2. Anyone who has ever competed in any Olympics or world championships regardless of how well they performed is notable by clause 1. Do you think we need to add a clause to make it more inclusive to people who will always satisfy WP:GNG. I do not think you have provided an example of a notable gymnast that was not covered by the clauses already up there.

NCAA: I would not support anything that grants inherent notability to people for NCAA accomplishments beyond ones covered in the college athlete section. In general only the NCAA national championships gets network media coverage (and I think thats really only the womens side to be honest), and here the team title is the feature, snit bits might be mentioned about the all around and event finals. Of course there are NCAA athletes that become notable but usually it is because they participate in elite competition either before, after or during NCAA competition. People who come to mind include Mohini Bhardwaj. Remember if someone can argue notability by WP:GNG that trumps whether they make it in under the gymnastics bullets. And we already have the College athlete clause anyway so we do not need a college gymnast clause. --MATThematical (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on NCAA. And nice comment on Bhardwaj. The runup comment does touch on my issue that the girls become notable while competing for WC and Olys. Not just for when they compete. Like Zamarippa for instance. Remember NBC does national coverage of Classics and Nationals, and a lot of what those meets are, are trials for WC or Olys. TCO (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Raisman, pre-WC, is an example. And I'm the one who started the page on her (before WC). And she had been on national TV with a large amount of commentary, at Nationals and Classics.

Besides, too many gymnasts is not really even the problem. It's Albanian soccer players (and Arena League Football scrubs). Seriously, it's not like we've noticed a bunch of the bubble girls trying to get pages up. Like I said, I had to do Raisman. Maybe I'll just GNG them all in, using NBC broadcast and what Tim Dagget says as my "source".  :) TCO (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that too many gymnasts is not really the problem, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have strict guidelines for them. As for Alexandra Raisman. Under the current guidelines she would have attained automatic notability in March 2010 with her all around win at a minor international competition (clause 3). She also would have attained notability by her pacific rim performance with her podium finish in the all around and beam and floor exercise would give her notability under clause 2. So she already qualified well before you created the page. Perhaps the American cup is at a higher level than I have it as and it should be moved to clause 2, but I think there really isn't enough good international competitors to warrant that.

I want to move commonwealth games to clause 2, I did not realize how many good countries actually competed in that competition. Your point about Zamarippa is well taken. As an NCAA champion and also a contender for the national team due to her vault abilities she did receive significant coverage from mainstream media. However, this qualifies her as notable under WP:GNG. She may also qualify under the College Athlete section (I don't know about what kind of awards she received). Anyway the point is for this section that we include bright line guidelines that guarantee media coverage. Zamarippa's qualifications are too subjective or case specific to be made into a general guideline that would be useful for many gymnasts. In cases like these its best to use WP:GNG in my opinion. What do you think. --MATThematical (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also just read your post above about lead up. This is true, and I agree that Chinese national 2nd place finisher might be more notable than the German champion. My concern is a top 3 finish in an event finals at those national meets should not guarantee notability, only the all around. But in addition how do you manage the temporal changes? Usually US, Russia, Romania, and China are the powerhouses so those 4 countries might have national non champions be notable, but that may change in the future. For example Russia had a break down a while back ago where they really weren't very good compared to the other 3. Countries' order have the disadvantage of changing too often. At one time China was not a powerhouse, but Japan actually was. If a lot of media coverage is about the lead up then they would either qualify under WP:GNG or by winning or placing well in one of the lead up meets in clauses 2 and 3. If you think more meets need to be added to clause 2 or moved from clause 3 to clause 2, that may very well be true. Lets discuss that, I just quickly tried to provide examples off the top of my head when I wrote it. --MATThematical (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I donno, man. Maybe, move World cup down! In terms of TV coverage, the AC gets more than some random WC and feels mores "special", even if it is US dominated (which is not the worst thing given this is the English language wiki and also given teh country has 300 million people, size of Europe, plus a darnded strong gymnastics field.) Plus AC has and will be in the WC circuit anyhow. On the men's side, it draws good competition and always has and doesn't get all this "scam" whining. Realistically, countries and people are just not crazy about sending schoolage girls trecking across the ocean except for WC and Olys. Whereas Fabian or Jordan, it's no big deal

Which brings me to...I think realistically, women are more notable then men (opposte of basketball for instance). Not saying we have to adress this in the rules, but it's "true".

Plus, realistically the US is way overnotable (in a name recognition sense) given the combination of both pretty darned good gymnastics and number of English speakers. I mean if you look at some of the bloggers, Rick is Canadian and Bridge is Aussie, but they both cover Ami gym in a lot of detail. It's where the action is.

Anyhoo...good discussion. Don't let the figure skaters push us around.  ;)

TCO (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether gym is really amateur either

They're definitely not mostly making a living, but some of them do waive their eligibility to do endorsements. I don't really know what we call sports since the Olympics allow professionals. NCAA is the last bastion of amateur, at least by the rules. TCO (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, gymnastics is a borderline sport in terms of pros and amateurs all competing in the same high level competitions. Perhaps it should be placed in the pro section. I am not too familiar with the money aspect of gymnastics so if you feel pro is a more accurate description than I would recommend you moving it. Great input! MATThematical (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

sports specific publication

I'm also a little concerned about the comment about sports specific sources not being notable. I mean International Gymnast is a paid, deadtree, publication with a decent history to it. As is now, someone could have a long profile in there and it would not be notable, whereas just their name in a box score (once) in the Washington Post would get it done for pro sports. Also, you say, don't worry because of GNG, but I get concerned that now people will not consider IG as a good source (and that's the one that has all the details on actually doing tricks or status of training or any kind of detail other than score or placement at Olys). TCO (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify which comment you are talking about, ie, where is it on the page? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[1] non-trivial[2] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]" I might have misread this. Took independent of the sport, to mean "not sport specific". But maybe the intention is more that it not be league-sponsored?TCO (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, here is my opinion about that, and I hope other editors will respond too. My understanding of "independent of the subject", in the way that it was intended when we were cobbling together the guideline, was that the "subject" was the person who would potentially be the, well, subject of the biographical page, not the sport in which the person participated (although I can see now how that could be considered the subject area, more generally). It seems to me that, whether we are talking about sports or about anything else, one almost has to make use of sources that are associated in some way with the subject matter, generally speaking, of the page being written. The caution here would be that, perhaps, some source created by the sport might be a kind of promotional material that would not, really, be intellectually independent. But if (and I'm taking your word here) International Gymnast is a journalistically independent secondary source, that does not have a stake in pumping up (pun unintended) a particular gymnast, and is not trivial in what it covers, then I would think it could be used as a source to establish notability for a biography of a gymnast. The coverage would have to be non-trivial, so an in-depth article about the person would be good, whereas a brief mention of the person's name in passing would not. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Independent of the subject - that means the source is not written by someone relating to the subject, i.e not an athlete's sponsor, not the athlete's own website etc. From what your saying looks like International Gymnast is a reliable source. You can get other editors views on WP:RSN. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent question, and I think its somewhat vague because there is some disagreement on this. I think independent of the subject means there is no affiliation with the specific subject of the article, for example, school newspapers reporting on NCAA sports matches is not independent of the subject, but a general sports publication like for example runners world, ESPN, International Gymnast etc, are all independent of the subject. However, things become a little bit blurry when we are talking about sources that cover high school athletes. For example does an article from DyeStat count as an independent reliable source, I would argue yes for adding content, but no for establishing notability. I think it is a bit subjective. Anyone else have thoughts on this? MATThematical (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

For that example, I agree with you about yes for adding information, I agree about no for establishing notability, and I also agree that it's subjective! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

While I understand the need for some judgement, I don't think that necessarily can be achieved by exempting sports specific publications or websites. DyeStat (RIP) would have been a good source, if you used further judgement based on perhaps, volume. Yes, a relatively non-notable local star could get written up there, but repeat mentions would certainly be an indication of something more notable. When they were active, you'd find the volume of German Fernandez or Jordan Hasay coverage would be much more voluminous and repetitive. By this same logic, an athlete meriting an article in Track and Field News might not qualify to be notable. I contend that by the time that sport specific publication makes more than a casual mention of them, they are notable (or pretty damned close). Yet some city league star could get a full article written about them, on a slow news day, back when the L.A. Times covered local sports. And local papers will still, independent of the source, fill their pages with just about any local athlete who has a following, but is that subject notable on a worldwide basis? Probably not. What I am saying is that some judgement is needed here. With the ever shrinking pool of real journalists out there, particularly sports journalists, I think sports specific media will be proven to have more thoughtful judgement of notability than a paper who throws an newsroom assistant in to fill space with a local story. In today's internet news media, any coverage is hit or miss. And when you introduce history into the equation, I'm finding the pool of source material that any search engine can find is actually pretty limited. It is overwhelmed by sites that are not searched by the spiders, documents that haven't been posted and sometimes even by wikipedia's own mirrored presence. Because we have the ill-informed frequently governing and guiding decisions at AfD, we can't allow subjectivity. I understand that. I would like to find terminology that does credit sports specific media with being WELL informed about its subject and a good guide for notability. But we have to be careful to distinguish between the casual mentions and phenomena. Trackinfo (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Note about RfC

Editors may be interested in an RfC concerning the scope of this guideline at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#RFC: Notability of Youth Olympic Games events. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable Continental Competitions

I would also like to add the following to the football criteria.

Players who have competed in any of the major club competitions in Europe (European Cup/Champions League, Fairs Cup/UEFA Cup/Europa League, and Cup Winners Cup) or South America (Copa Libertadores, Copa Sudamericana, Copa Mercosur, and Copa Merconorte) will generally be considered notable.

Any thoughts on this? Eldumpo (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See [[7]] for previous comments on this.

A RfD of a FC Flora Tallinn player, the Estonian champions who will be appearing in the qualifying rounds caused me to go dredge up this suggestion. Flora's not in a fully professional league, but the Champions League matches get a significant amount of press. At what point would Flora and FC Levadia Tallinn become notable enough to have their players kept? The league they're in is 18 years old, and they've won the Estonia title eight and seven times respectively, so it's hard not to argue they must be close; I would assume they get a lot of press in Estonia. Would making the UEFA Europa League or UEFA Champions League group stage be the tipping point? How about other continents? - Wmcduff (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to remember its not about the teams being notable enough so their players are kept. These guidelines are guidelines as to when a player is likely to have sources. You still need sources for each player. Would the individual players all have articles specifically about them individually just for playing on a team in that championship? I doubt it. This guideline isn't a free pass to keeping an article, articles still have to have enough sources to prove notability. This guideline just tells you when thats likely to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I suppose they need the English media column-inches to get inclusion. But if I were to RfD a Macclesfield Town player who was around one game, I suspect I'd have to fight a lot harder than a journeyman Flora player at the moment (assuming they weren't someone on the national team). It's just a question at what point would Flora get the same defense as the least supported League Two team? For me, I'm thinking players who competed at the Group Stage of one of the European Cup competitions would have to be considered notable, no? - Wmcduff (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation: Semi-pro football

There is a discussion about notability of American semi-professional football going on now at Wikipedia:WikiProject American football/Semi-professional football discussion. Please come participate and comment!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Basketball additions

Another editor, not me, added the following to the Basketball section. Personally, I have no opinion as to whether the addition is useful or not, but I feel that it needs to have consensus before adding it to the guideline, so I've reverted it and copied it here. Thoughts?

1. Were a major statistical category season leader in NCAA Division I competition.
2. Were named an NCAA Division I conference player of the year.
3. Were voted as a consensus first or second team NCAA Division I All-American

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the second two additions are just making more explicit this criteria from the college notability standards:

1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record.

Template:College Basketball Awards is the basketball equivalent of Template:College Football Awards. Conference POY awards are already on the football template. Rikster2 (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• It occurs to me that the additions were put in the professional athlete part of the guideline, so we may need to look at college basketball as opposed to professional. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

College basketball does not deserve its own set of qualifications. College sports covers it all. In fact, as Rikster2 pointed out some of the clauses are exact replicates.MATThematical (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Golf

I think one of the guidelines needs to be editted. Allowing anyone who makes the cut at a major to be notable seems to be a low standard. I propose this be changed to "finished top 10 or low amateur". 10 is a bit arbitrary, if anyone has a better number lets go with that (perhaps the number that gets you invited back next year) --MATThematical (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I should preface this by saying I only know golf from my days producing sportscasts, I'm not a fanatic, but I would think that even getting IN to the handful of "major" tournaments listed in each division is notable, or pretty d#@$% close. Granted they do allow for a few exceptions to get in, including the amateurs, but that is a very limited few. Making the cut against the best of the best, as it were, should certainly make one notable. I don't think we would be "letting" very many new articles be created under that standard. If there were some amateur out there who played well enough to get in to the major tournament, played over his head and made the cut against the big boys, then disappeared off of the scene forever, that in itself would make that person notable enough to be subject of an article. In my sport, I've written many articles about people who have (had success at major events, then disappeared) done things just like that. Trackinfo (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Clubs

Could we have some guidelines on sports clubs please. I recently had to tell someone "I am sorry, I have no idea whether a British American Football team would be notable or not". And what guidance is there about Old Cranleighan Cricket Club and the countless other amateur old boys sports teams. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was decided when these were created that clubs would not fall under this guideline. You would have to look in the archives for the discussion. Something along the lines of GNG would be good enough for clubs. So to answer the persons question, the team would be notable if he had sources that indicate it was. -DJSasso (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Note about RfC

Editors interested in this guideline may perhaps also be interested in the discussion at WT:N#Do subject-specific guidelines override the GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Martial Arts

What should the guidelines for Martial Artists be? Bluefist (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the place to start would be to define where it differs from WP:ENTERTAINER, and then define what is the highest level of competition, such that it would also pass WP:GNG if sourcing were adequately at hand. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability for rugby club

Does anyone have an opinion on the notability of Killarney RFC? I personally don't see how it satisfies our guidelines, and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Professional wrestling revisited

I don't understand the decision to declare WP:ATHLETE not applicable to professional wrestlers. The phrasing of WP:ENTERTAINER makes it clear that it is not appropriate for professional wrestling--it would certainly be a huge mistake to leave notability open to interpretation in terms of something as ambiguous as "a large fan base". The closest it gets is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Obviously, the only part that applies is multiple television shows. Would this mean that a wrestler is not notable if he or she works for only one major promotion (remember, actors can appear on multiple shows and in multiple movies simultaneously, whereas wrestlers at or near the top of the profession are contracted to one employer)?
WP:ATHLETE has always made more sense, as wrestling is structured like any other major sports. There are independent promotions (similar to major junior or minor professional leagues), developmental territories (similar to farm teams), and major promotions (similar to the big leagues). Whether it is scripted or not is irrelevant--yes, titles aren't won based on talent...at least, not directly. The promotions decide who gets the titles, and they (almost always) give them to people who have distinguished themselves, so there is very little difference. In this sense, despite their pre-determined outcomes (I'll resist the temptation to launch into a discussion of point shaving, gambling, and thrown games), they can be seen as athletic competitions.
It is not my intention, however, to defend professional wrestling as a whole (to be honest, it disgusts me, and I haven't watched it in about 15 years). I simply mean to show that, while one superficial connection can be drawn between professional wrestling and television stars, multiple logical links can be made between professional wrestlers and athletes. I believe that it is important to ask the question: Is notability better demonstrated by requiring wrestlers to switch employers to demonstrate notability in order to appear on multiple television shows, or is it better to stick with the guideline that the subject must be discussed in multiple independent, published, reliable secondary sources? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

See and I disagree, most of the links you have mentioned are superficial linkages. Where as there is a completely direct link to being your average performer on TV where everything is scripted. A professional wrestler is no different. Entertainer or GNG cover this and it most definitely does not belong in a guideline for actual sports. If you feel entertainer isn't good enough or leaving it to GNG isn't good enough then make a seperate pro wrestler guideline proposal. But it certainly doesn't belong here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I also do not think that it belongs here. I really see no reason why it would not be under Entertainer, although it may, perhaps, make sense to modify something there to clarify the TV star issue in this regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This guideline isn't applicable because pro wrestling isn't a sport. Outcomes are determined in advance, rather than being the result of competition. As such, its practitioners are performers, not athletes. The industry structure argument you make applies just as easily to things like musical theater (Broadway, regional circuits, community circuits, etc.) as to sport, and is therefore invalid in this case. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see why WP:ENTERTAINER isn't a fit; wrestlers are certainly television personalities, the events are television shows (mostly), and there's certainly a large fan base. -Wmcduff (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Boxing

Similar to the above for MMA, guidelines should be in place for boxing as well. Boxing is filled with club shows, guys who fought once, and other types that are considered "professional" but are not "notable." I think guidelines should be added for boxers.

As a start point, here is a very raw suggestion of notability requirements that I can think of:

• Any fighter who held a title (regular, interim, super, etc.) of one of the four major sanctioning bodies (IBF,WBA,WBC, and WBO) or a historic major sanctioning body (NYSAC, NBA.
• Any fighter who fought for a title (regular, interim, super, etc.) of one of the four major sanctioning bodies.
• Any fighter who fought for and/or held a specialty world title (e.g., duration world title during WWII, black world title, lineal title, etc.)
• Any fighter who has been ranked in the top ten or champion of any weight class by Ring magazine.
• Any fighter who has appeared in a fight on a premium network (HBO or Showtime in the United States).

A few roadblocks I can think of that need to be resolved (there are probably more).

1. Historically, there have been strong regional bodies. For example, in the 30s and 40s the European Boxing Union and British Boxing Board of Control were quite influential and winning titles of these bodies were quite highly regarded. I think fighters who won these titles may be considered notable enough. However, in modern times, there are many regional bodies/affiliated organizations who grant titles. To be honest, these are now lightly regarded. I am not sure how to best balance historical regional titles vs. modern regional titles.

2. Similar to 1 above, before the 1960s/70s, there were half the weight classes (8 then vs. 17 now) and each weight class had one champion (vs. 4+ today). Plus, there were strong race and supposed organized crime issues in fighters landing big fights. Therefore, there are likely many notable fighters from historical times that do not meet the five criteria I listed above. Not quite sure how to quantify their inclusion.

I am not quite sure how to being adding this to the notability section for sports. I assume people will comment and if no one responds in a week I will add this to the article. If there is a better way to proceed, then please chime in. Thanks. RonSigPi (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has commented in a week, I will add a slightly modified section similar to the above. If people think it should be changed, modified, deleted, etc., then it can be discussed in due course. RonSigPi (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding as someone who knows little about the sport, I think it looks quite consistent with the rest of the guideline. I just wonder about the last point: are any of the premium cable TV challengers sometimes not notable (like a notable fighter against a non-notable opponent)? I don't know, just asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Many networks when not carrying a major fight carry a fight that is an A fighter (well known) vs. B fighter (designated opponent that may not be known). However, usually the premium networks (especially HBO) are so well known and covered so much in the boxing press that the B fighter, while still being mainly an opponent, gets enough coverage to become notable. I would contrast this against something like ESPN2 Friday Night Fights where a notable A fighter is commonly against a B fighter, but the coverage of the fight does not inherently cause the B fighter to become notable from fighting on FNFs. Maybe there is a case where fighting on a premium network did not make someone notable (maybe someone who fought on HBO's short lived KO Nation)), but due to the coverage of HBO and Showtime, this seemed like the route to go. RonSigPi (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

GNG vs. specific sport guidelines

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Merkow there is discussion that may interest some who read this page. It relates to what the result should be if a subject (arguably) does not meet a sport-specific guideline, but (arguably) does meet GNG. And whether failure to meet a sport-specific guideline implies that what otherwise appears to be GNG coverage is actually insufficient coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The top of this page specifically mentions that a subject can still be notable if it doesn't meet the sports specific guidelines. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is correct. Meeting the GNG is a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, as far as notability is concerned. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, some SNGs can limit GNG-meeting topics - this one does that to some extent with amateur and high school athletics which, back when this was re-revised, was a point observed that the GNG remains mostly mum on the exclusive use of local or routine sources, so was added here. But the AFD in question is certainly more than local and routine sources. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)