Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)
 | See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability for a discussion from January to March 2022 which reached a consensus to revise various aspects of the sports-specific notability guidelines. |
Relation to general notability guideline Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.) Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?
A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then they meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if they do not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist. Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?
A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given. Proposing revisions to Notability (sports) Q5: I want to create a new sports-specific notability guideline or revise an existing one. What approach should I take?
A5: Consider what criteria that, if met, means that the sports figure is highly likely to have significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources. Test your proposed criteria by trying to find persons who meet them but do not have appropriate secondary coverage. It's best to keep your criteria fairly conservative, since for most contemporary persons, establishing notability via the general notability guideline is straightforward enough and the additional buffer time provided by a sports-specific notability guideline isn't needed, so trying to draw a more liberal line isn't worth the effort.
Many discussions on rules of thumb start with, "This league/championship is important," or "This sport is popular in country X." While these arguments provide indirect evidence, a much better way to reach an agreement is to double-check if everyone meeting the proposed criteria has appropriate sources meeting the general notability guideline. For example, for an individual championship, you can list everyone who has won the championship and, for each person, the corresponding sources that show they meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Subsequent to the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, proposing a guideline for the notability of an athlete purely based on their participation in a non-championship final or non-Olympic event is likely to meet opposition. Note the "nutshell summary" and the "Basic criteria" section are high-level descriptions of the type of criteria used by each sport. This does not mean that any criteria that fit these descriptions are suitable. You must demonstrate that the proposed criteria are effective as a way to determine if a subject meets the general notability guideline.Q6: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?
A6: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information. Q7: But these athletes have won championship X; surely that makes them notable?
A7: For better or worse, discussions in Wikipedia use the term "notable" as a shorthand for "meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia". As a result, there are many subjects that can meet the everyday meaning of notable, yet fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article. References
|
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 | This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
IAAF is now World Athletics
editRegarding the Athletics/track & field and long-distance running section, the IAAF has renamed itself World Athletics. (The IAAF page has also been renamed.) Zatsugaku (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
What's happened to NFOOTBALL?
editI'm looking for guidance on notability criteria for professional (association) footballers, but WP:NFOOTY seems to have disappeared from this article. I've found some old discussions about it and proposals for change but can't see what the current guidance is? Can anyone help? Orange sticker (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can you find multiple sources of significant coverage about the subject? Then he is likely notable. If he doesn't, he likely is not Alvaldi (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- No. I was just hoping there was clearer and easier criteria as in other sports, as this player did play at international level and in a World Cup (see this Article for Deletion). Thanks! Orange sticker (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- At the end of the section it now redirects to, it reads:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs)Sports which are not listed on this page should defer to the § Basic criteria for guidance. This includes both those which were never listed, and those which were but have since been removed, most recently following an RfC from January–March 2022.
- There was consensus in a 2022 RfC to remove solely participation-based criteria. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability#202203070648_Wugapodes_2. There was then consensus while implementing the RfC to remove NFOOTY because it was solely participation-based, and discussion regarding an alternative was tabled. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Bobsleigh and skeleton
editRecently, I've been looking through articles of winter sport atheletes and doing a quick copy-edit on them, especially bobsleigh and skeleton. However, I noticed every one-time Winter Olympics participant has been documented even if they're not notable. A lot of them are also poorly-sourced or poorly-written stubs. I was wondering if there was clearer and easier criteria for these types of atheletes; otherwise, we may assume their articles pass WP:SPORTBASIC? Specifically, even for two or four-person bobsleigh, do they need to be in top ten of every bobsleigh tournament according to IBSF to be considered notable? CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Bridge
editI propose the following for inclusion to the main article.
I will ask other Bridge editors to comment and add.
Bridge
edit(Note: I am not sure how to create Shortcuts, nor how to check with conflicts with other shortcuts on other topics. The shortcut WP:BRIDGE refers to physical bridges)
- Significant coverage is likely to exist for Bridge players if they
- Have won a medal at an international event at the senior, open, womens, mixed, youth or junior level. International events include the European Championship, World Championships and North American Bridge Championships (NABCs).
- Have placed first or second in a major North American Bridge Championships. Major events are Vanderbilt, Spingold, Soloway or Reisinger.
- Have won an open, mixed, senior or women's North American Bridge Championships.
- Have been elected to the Hall of Fame in their National Bridge Organization (NBO)
Discussion information:
European and World events award medals. NABCs do not.
Other National Bridge Organizations (NBOs) may have appropriate qualifications. For example someone in the Hall of Fame for a NBO.
- Oppose The proposal shows no evidence that individuals with these honors have recieved significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. For new guidelines we need extensive evidence that SIGCOV can be presumed for >90% of individuals. Nothing here indicates any work has been done to establish this evidence. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I used guidelines from other less well known sports, for example, curling, orienteering as a equivalency and mapped Bridge events to other sports.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
FAQ numbering
editBI noticed here that the FAQ numbering skips 5. I'm thinking we should probably renumber the questions, but I wanted to check and make sure 5 wasn't being excluded deliberately before BOLDly making the change myself. If we're keeping the same numbering for historical reasons, we ought to make a note to that effect rather than just not having a Q5 at all. Hamtechperson 00:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)