Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

Apparently changing "presumed notability" to "presumed coverage" in our sport-specific guidance is still, somehow, controversial?

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

---

Diff. Do we really need to go over this every single time we identify a piece of overlooked legacy wording? The change (bolded) is in this passage:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes from any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), e.g., Ian Thorpe, or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games, e.g. Laurentia Tan. However, winning a medal in a competition with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants receive a medal) is not an indicator of presumed notability, and other exceptions may be listed at sport specific guidelines.

The current language implies either that medaling in a competition with more than three participants is an indicator of presumed notability, or that medaling when there are ≤3 competitors affords the same presumptions as when there are 4+ (because the latter also is not an indicator of presumed notability). The original intent of this wording was to distinguish between these two groups re: notability guidance, so to retain that distinction the language should reflect our updated presumptions.

This really should not be controversial. JoelleJay (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you please post an additional diff showing why you think this was an oversight? Because presumed notability appears several times around that passage, but presumed coverage does not exist in the article and the exact phrase has only been used 49 times on Wikipedia according to a quick search. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

...did you miss that whole RfC and the followups? Here is when the guideline stabilized with all instances of "presumed notable" supposed to be replaced with "significant coverage is likely to exist". The term doesn't have to be "presumed coverage", the point is to remove the "presumed notable" language. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over ten months since that closed. I don't mind the edit, but the problem with that particular sentence is that changing it from presumed notable to presumed coverage makes the entire thing worse/less clear. At least the current edit makes clear someone who got an Olympics participation trophy isn't entitled to an article. I think options are removing entirely or changing it to something like ...Laurentia Tan, unless the athlete competed in an event with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants received a medal.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think your suggested wording is great. I'll implement it. JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to my implementing this? @Cbl62? I tried to do so earlier but was reverted again by @Cassiopeia despite this discussion having a pretty uniform consensus against retaining "presumed notable" and for "likely to have...". JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

T-N-T! T-N-T! T-N-T! ;) On a more serious note, I have no objection to the change. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What specifically is the proposed change? Which section/paragraph and which specific substitution? Such is not stated anywhere in this thread.North8000 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The section in question is the green text in my first post, the proposed change is the green text in SF's comment. It's an extremely minor change that simply makes the guidance consistent with everywhere else. JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, just leave it as "you should be able to figure it out" instead of distilling it into a clear proposed change. So, with that narrowing, you are asking about 2 people for feedback. :-) North8000 (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes from any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), e.g., Ian Thorpe, or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games, e.g. Laurentia Tan. However, winning a medal in a competition with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants receive a medal) is not an indicator of presumed notability, and other exceptions may be listed at sport specific guidelines.

changed to

Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes from any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), e.g., Ian Thorpe, or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games, e.g. Laurentia Tan, unless the athlete competed in an event with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants received a medal.) Other exceptions may be listed at sport-specific guidelines.

JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me, and I support that change. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me, too. Cbl62 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Since I saw it's been reverted already, I also support this change. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I support the change. It reads better. - Enos733 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2022 RfA, we've used "likely to have received significant coverage" as the operative language. I support that. The phrase "presumed coverage" strikes me as something that can and would be misconstrued. At Afd, we generally don't allow folks to rely on a "presumption" that SIGCOV exists. To the contrary, we generally require that "actual" SIGCOV be presented. Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm fine rewording it to say something about coverage likely existing rather than "presumed coverage", I just wanted to remove the "presumed notable" and figured it would be more controversial to fully rewrite that sentence. JoelleJay (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• At this point, I think it'd be best just to apply some TNT. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am working on a draft. - Enos733 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Don't mean to be rude, but that won't work. An American football player must be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (i.e. one of the greatest 300 figures ever, when there's probably 50,000 notable figures) to be considered as "likely" to have significant coverage? That is only going to result in nominations for deletion like "isn't in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not notable" or "only was a starter in the NFL for six full seasons, not notable" – which are plainly ridiculous. The players in the Big Four leagues having presumed notability for playing a game is the only thing that made sense (especially post-1930, that criteria really worked); and although I know the anti-sports editors will never let this page return to sense like that, restricting it to only the greatest ever would only encourage silly time-wasting deletion nominations. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  My sense was that this edit is very narrowly construed to the Olympic games part of NSPORT. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that regarding short term effect those terms are all the same.....they mean "OK'd by the SNG". In the bigger vaguer picture, "significant coverage is likely to exist" might be better because it follows the pattern of nearly all SNG wording by giving deference to the GNG coverage criteria and the need to establish it if questioned. Whereas "presumed notable" can be read as granting it irrespective of GNG coverage and "Presumed coverage" can be read that suitable coverage is presumed to exist rather than needing to be established if questioned. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Please note that for a subject to be notable (GNG), the subject needs to have Significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the subject is talked about in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. If a SNG indicate certain criteria to be notable in Wikiedia, let's a say XX sport needs to be world top ten ranking by certain source or a medal holder for certain sport, then in regardless how significant coverage a subject is, if the coverage is all about routine tournaments or the results that would considered routine report and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG unless the sources talk about somethings else of the subject. So in short, presume significant coverage does not means presume notable - it is a big different here. In Wikipedia, we always set GNG criteria as the first and most important one. Cassiopeia talk 06:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  ...why did you revert this extremely minor change again, asking for a link to the talk page discussion that I pinged you to yesterday? JoelleJay (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I don't get it at this point. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• User:JoelleJay Again, pls provide the links where consensus has been achieved and close by other editor which does not vote the changes as per norm. I have no objection if the changes is consensus and an editor who is not involved with the vote has closed the discussion with the conclusion changes is supported as this is not only the Wikipedia norm for any changes in Wikipedia guidelines and especially about notability/specific notability guidelines, any changes, regardless how minor, is important as per interpretation/definition for it should not take it lightly at all. Pls understand, I come in good will and try to serve Wikipedia as per it agendas, guidelines, and norms. Get someone who is not involved and closed the discussion. Whatever, the closing outcome, I will be OK with it. Stay safe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiopeia (talk • contribs)

Unlike the (unintentional) case with my initial BOLD edits, this current edit is not a substantive change to the guideline, and especially because we also have unanimous support for the proposed wording, it does not need formal closure. Changes may be made if there are no objections or if the discussion shows there is consensus for the change. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time. JoelleJay (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The norm is to get an editor, dont need to be an admin, to close the discussion and state the result. If there is unanimous decision, then it is easy to close the discussion (usually after 7 days the discussion has raised). It is better to be slow and do the what it takes then just change in such manner especially about notablity which is one of the most important topic in Wikipedia and it is not hard to find an interested editor to do the closing (for I dont see "each" editor state "support" of the wording change for at least I am the one of the editors state a closing should be done" since I did not vote support so it is not an unanimous support for this topic. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

That is the norm for substantive changes; clarifying the wording of a guideline in a way that 100% reflects pre-existing consensus (and now also represents unanimous consensus among editors who have actually opined on the proposed wording) falls under Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time. Meanwhile, your continued reverts do fall afoul of policy Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page. Frankly, you should not be policing this area if you do not have the language proficiency to understand the changes being made. JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

you do not have the language proficiency to understand the changes being made A gentle and friendly minnow slap -- keep it on substance rather than the editor's personal attributes. Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• I pointed my view which every editor allow in good will to do here and not arguing with your info but you seem attacking my English which is my second language. To get someone not involve to close the discussion is a easy manner but I guess you are not willing to do so. I have nothing more to add. Cassiopeia talk 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  It's really not something that we need an RfC over, especially considering we now have six editors who have approved of it explicitly or implicitly. SportingFlyer T·C 18:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've restored the edit. SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Guidelines for wrestlers/judoka/grapplers

I see them for boxing, kickboxing, and MMA, but not for wrestlers, judoka, and other grappling sports (besides sumo). Seems like a big oversight considering wrestling and judo are Olympic sports. Am I missing something or have these just not been structured yet? Spagooder (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

IAAF is now World Athletics

Regarding 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?

I'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)

Sorry but no. I would try to Google his native name in South Korean sources (i.e. " 박철진 site:.kr") but if that doesn't turn anything significant up then he's all out of luck. Alvaldi (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

At the end of the section it now redirects to, it reads:

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs)

Bobsleigh and skeleton

Recently, 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)