Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 18

Objections

WP:NSPORTS has come to trump WP:GNG: Wikipedia is flooded with thousands and thousands of unreferenced one-line articles on players who are "presumed notable." Check it out: click on "Random article" from the main page. If you don't get a sports player within the first four clicks, you are my new hero. References be damned: they are notable because they seem like they autta be notable, because references "seem likely to exist" somewhere, even if no one can find any... which is pretty weak reasoning if you ask me, but there you have it. And the guys who made it happen are very proud of their 800+ articles apiece on these players. Wikipedia is now a sports roster. Whodathunkit?? Not me! KDS4444^Talk 00:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Case in point, I give you Stefan Stojanović (footballer born 1992). (and okay, it took me five clicks to hit on a footballer randomly, but you get the idea). KDS4444^Talk 00:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Brilliantly put. I agree WP:NSPORTS has come to trump WP:GNG. And it should not do this. GNG should rule. The NSPORTS guideline is causing huge mayhem in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Hrm. Speaking of Mr. Stojanovic -- have you attempted, and failed, to find sourcing for him? Has there been an AfD filed? Any attempt there at finding Balkan-language sources? Heck, have you attempted to find him on either the Serbian or Serbo-Croat Wikipedias? No? In your shoes, I wouldn't be bemoaning the sad condition of an article I declined to source, improve or file on.

  The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia has many tens of thousands of stub articles. A lot of us have been working very hard for many years to take these stubs and turn them into useful articles ... and, come to that, a lot of us have worked very hard to AfDing or PROD sub-stubs which don't even make NSPORTS criteria. It is, in fact, the case that the GNG trumps NSPORTS, and many of us advocate that at AfD on a regular basis. (If what the complaint really is here is that sports figures have a disproportionate media impact in our culture, and altogether too many of them would meet the GNG thereby, that's an arguable position, and I wish you well in having WP:V, WP:N and the GNG changed to conform to your own preferences.)

  That being said, Tomwsulcer, what is the "huge mayhem" you claim is being caused? Ravenswing 02:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up for Ravenswing: searches now completed on Google & GoogleNews, only trivial hits, does not even exist in the Wikipedias for Serbian or Serbo-Croatian, AfD process now underway, point well taken, and thank you. Having even 6% of the English Wikipedia's articles dedicated to the rosters of non-notable players does seem, if not like huge mayhem, at least a little like a cl#sterf*ck of some kind though, doesn't it? KDS4444^Talk 05:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not that I accept your wholly unsubstantiated WAG that there are over 200,000 articles of non-notable sports players; as with the "huge mayhem" charge, Chicken Little-esque hyperbole does no one here much good. Good work on the Stojanovic AfD, though. Ravenswing 11:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• There are two competing guidelines for notability: the general notability guideline and the sports specific guidelines. There really should be only ONE guideline: the GNG. That should be it. It should apply to all subjects, persons, topics, including sportspeople. But the point made by KDS4444 and myself is that the SNG has been overriding the GNG. What has been happening is these sports-specific guidelines have been written, so that a player plays in such-and-such a game or tournament, and there is the presumption that he or she will automatically meet the GNG. I sincerely doubt that this is the case. For one thing, there have been one-line stub articles that have persisted in Wikipedia for years without improvement. My sense -- unproven I admit -- is that many or maybe even most of these subjects are not really notable according to the GNG and they should not be in Wikipedia. There is not much media coverage of them. They seem non-notable. What KDS4444 asserts I believe to be correct: Wikipedia has become the repository of slews of one-line stub articles, subjects who don't meet the GNG, subjects who are in Wikipedia merely because they passed a requirement based on the sports-specific guidelines. Consider these articles: Mike Mangan, Owen Lentz, Mark Aylor, Hayden Mexted, Chad Erskine, Jonathan Vitale, Blake Burdette, Dan Payne (rugby union), Henry Bloomfield, Junior Sifa, Patrick Danahy, Bill Hayward (rugby union), Tom Billups, Richard Tardits (no references), Dan Lyle (2 refs), Alec Parker. Are these athletes notable? Maybe some are; but maybe some are not. What I am saying is these sports-specific guidelines cause confusion, undermine the GNG, and need to be seriously rethought. Maybe as a test of this hypothesis, I might put up the above articles for AfD, simply to see what happens, although here again, somebody may be stymied, because doing an AfD requires some preparation, background checking, and such -- a lot of work -- but I may just do it any way as an experiment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• (shrugs) Any article upon which you do the reasonable due diligence that WP:BEFORE requires, prior to filing an AfD, that turns up lacking sources, you can file on them with my goodwill. That being said, "they seem non-notable" is the standard battle cry of those who don't actually have any clue one way or another. If there are as few as a hundred thousand biographical articles on Wikipedia of whose subjects I've never heard, I'd gape with astonishment, but the only way I'd ever say "They seem non-notable" is if I actually checked first. Stub articles persist for years without improvement not because they're inherently unimprovable, but because no one's yet taken the time to do so. For instance, let's take a look at the unreferenced article you cite above. It took me all of 45 seconds to find out that Sports Illustrated did a feature article on the subject in 1988. There are a number of other articles on the subject, which quite properly validate the NSPORTS football guideline stipulating that any NFL player is presumptively notable.

  That being said, I recognize that SNGs may well confuse you and KDS4444, and that your personal opinion is that they override the GNG, but those opinions ought not be conflated into a Wikipedia-wide state of confusion about the meaning of the word "subordinate."

  (I also admit to being confused. Weren't you arguing, just a couple of weeks ago, that the NSPORTS rugby union guideline ought to be expanded to include a female athlete you thought ought to pass it, and now you're advocating the abolition of NSPORTS guidelines, citing as example a bunch of male athletes who meet the very same SNG you were arguing ought to be expanded? WP:POINTY, perhaps?) Ravenswing 03:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I did, but I acted in good faith. The NSPORTS caused confusion not just for me and several others but even for the person who nominated the article Valerie Griffeth for deletion on the basis of failing to meet the NSPORTS guideline. GNG should rule, not NSPORTS. That was unclear. Is there a problem with the NSPORTS wording, its existence, its relation to GNG? There appears to me to be a problem.

  My sense is that many contributors misunderstand the NSPORTS guideline. They think it trumps or matches GNG, and this has led to the creation of numerous articles in Wikipedia which fail GNG but meet NSPORTS. These stub-articles can linger in Wikipedia for years, unchecked, unreferenced. It may be that many of them belong in Wikipedia, but my sense is that many do not. This is a testable hypothesis; I can take a sample of the dubious sportsperson articles, check them out, see what percentage of these articles are notable, and get a better sense of what is going on here. I may do this.

  I tried KDS4444's random experiment, hitting the "Random article" on the Wikipedia main page. I did not get one of every 4 or 5 articles being a one-line sportsperson stub barely referenced, but rather, I did a hundred random ones, and found perhaps among them 6 dubious sportsperson articles (short, unreferenced, etc.) So it seems to be not as prevalent as KDS4444 makes it to be, but still there could be a problem, since 6% of Wikipedia's 4 million-plus articles is considerable. My one hundred was only one sample; if one repeats the experiment many times, finds the percentage of dubious sportsperson articles each times, and then averages these percentages, a more accurate percentage will emerge, and I may do this too.

  So, here is where I am now: test these hypotheses, find out, sample, research. I will keep an open mind that NSPORTS guideline may be right (that, say, the one-line stub unreferenced sportperson articles will prove notable after more work) but if I find otherwise, I hope that others will keep an open mind that maybe there is a problem here.

  My overall concern is that the NSPORTS guideline, via confusion, bad wording, its existence even, may be causing a lot of non-notable sportspeople biographies to slip into Wikipedia which is subsequently hard for the community to remove, if one strictly observes the steps required before deleting each article. In addition, the logic of NSPORTS seems unclear; why is it the case that playing in such-and-such a game automatically qualifies a subject to be notable? Is not each case different?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Others have answered other aspects of your response, but I'll take on the last sentence: the premise behind all NSPORTS criteria -- as well as behind any SNG -- is that someone who meets one or more of the criteria will be highly likely to meet the GNG. Playing a single major professional game might seem to a layman like a very low threshold, but the logic is quite sound: in our sports-happy, media-flooded culture, the odds these days that anyone playing so much as a single match in the Premier League, the National Hockey League or at a golf major will have been the subject of several qualifying articles.

  Is the system perfect? Nope. Heck, I drafted the ice hockey criteria, but I've also proposed significant overhauls to it (the most recent being only in December), because some of us recognized that various aspects didn't work out as well as we'd hoped. So I invite you to test it yourself: if (for instance) you think that the rugby union SNG is too loose, and too many players who pass it fail the GNG, propose that it be tightened. Ravenswing 01:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that the examples provided are all rugby players, which may indicate that the guidelines specific to rugby are too loose. Or it may mean that there haven't been enough editors motivated to find the sources that may exist to support these articles. It hardly means that NSPORTS itself is a problem. For example, I cannot recall a situation where an American baseball player who played in the past century or so was AfDed on the basis of having played "only" one game where it was not possible to find sources to support the article. And it is certainly possible to tweak the guidelines as appropriate, and as has happened on several occassions. And I certainly don't see any evidence of anything remotely resembling "mayhem" as a result of having NSPORTS. Rlendog (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is this discussion focused solely on WP:NSPORTS? There are notability guidelines for a wide variety of topic areas, all of which serve to give editors guidance on subjects that will typically meet GNG - entertainment, academia, history, etc. NSPORTS is clear that GNG must still be met. If the issue is that one feels the sports guidelines are too loose and go beyond GNG, that is a different question, but it feels like sports are being singled out a bit unfairly. This issue cuts both ways. I recently took part in an AfD review for Anete Jēkabsone-Žogota, a female basketball player who has starred on 2 European championships, plays in the WNBA and has represented Latvia in the Olympics. Checking NSPORTS would have helped that editor understand that this person is absolutely notable - certainly as much or more as an ensemble cast member in a TV show or an academic who has published in journals. Rikster2 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Why focused on WP:NSPORTS? Check out its second sentence, in bold: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. That is misleading: it implies either GNG or NSPORTS means notability. Only GNG rules; NSPORTS is only a guide. All articles must meet the GNG. In my view, this lack of clarity is causing problems here in Wikipedia. It enables article creators to skip the tough steps of finding references for articles about sportspeople, leads to numerous one-line stub unreferenced articles. In my case, the lack of clarity enabled a long deletion battle about rugby player Valerie Griffeth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Then propose a wording change that makes it clear that the subject must still meet GNG (or makes it more clear, because it is in there). The same issue is present in WP:ACADEMIC, by the way. Perhaps even less clear the subject needs to meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, probably will do, but first I want to study things more, specifically examining sportsperson unreferenced or under-referenced stubs. I see your point about the same problem being present in WP:ACADEMIC. It could be another instance when a supposedly helpful guideline has an unintended side effect of short-circuiting the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the previous discussion on the second sentence, which in turn links to the discussion before that one. My attempt to clarify matters was to add the FAQ, and in particular its first question, where the answer clearly states: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. Additionally, the first sentence on this page says: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia., and the first sentence of the third paragraph says: 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. Personally, I would prefer different wording for the second sentence, but I don't think inconsistent wording in one sentence is the root cause of misinterpretation. Editors must adequately communicate their concerns in discussion; there is lots of appropriate evidence within the wording of the guidance, in the FAQ, and in the discussion page archives about the intent of the sports-specific notability guidelines. isaacl (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll just comment that we just need to remember that these criteria set a presumption for notability, to allow a standalone article to be created and give time for editors to find sources to bring the article up to encyclopedic quality. This means that if an editor can reasonably show that there are no appropriate sources for a player after a goof faith search (per BEFORE) and that no new sources can be expected, that's a completely fair challenge to the presumption of notability. This guideline does not prevent these articles from being deleted, just to give them a fair change to get past that. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there are two issues at hand here. First, we have the opinion that the sports guideline is allowing inclusion of non-notable people. Second, is the profusion of poor, stubby articles from this topic area. In some cases, a sheer lack of coverage will directly contribute to production of a stub (as in the case of Jack Monohan, Jr.). Sometimes such a stub is produced out of disinterest. We actually have quite a lot of editors here that are happy to produce something like Anis Ananenka. It reveals a desire to produce an article while holding not the smallest bit of enthusiasm to engage with the article subject and its literature. I think this trend is just as responsible for these sports stubs as the overreaching of notability (I think Jack Monohan, Jr. would be much better treated by having a redirect with the current categories linking to a broader list article on related players). I have a feeling this "tiny stub creation" phenomenon has more to do with Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count than real content improvement – I find redlinks a great indicator of what topics require attention. Tiny stubs of only one or two sentences actually make it more difficult for me to locate knowledge gaps (as they aren't apparent unless viewed). I think article creators should actually engage with the topic to more than a superficial degree. Perhaps an extension of Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion#A1._No_context might discourage this kind of editing, but I get the feeling that is something that would generate a lot argument. SFB 19:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've started an idea lab thread on this topic of making tiny stubs noticeable. SFB 19:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• I disagree with the notion, I admit. Yeah, the sub-stubs bother me, and yeah, we know -- and many of us can name some perps -- that a number of editors think Wikipedia is some geeky MMORPG and create these near-to-worthless sub-stubs because they're whoring after edit count or some mythical article creation crown. So stipulated. But changes to deter or prevent this (such as broadening the scope of CSD) is a cure worse than the disease. If having some of these perps crowing over their place on the Top 1000 in the privacy of their parents' basement is the price we pay for people to feel they can create articles without undue burden, we ought to accept that. Ravenswing 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• FYI - plenty of consensus at AFD where technically meeting NSPORTS but failing GNG has resulted in a 'delete' - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, amongst others. Yes, those are all soccer-related AFDs, but the point is there - GNG is more important than the SNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) which resulted in a redirect... GiantSnowman 19:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I can add to that list by providing two examples in which I participated from baseball: Jose Lugo and Omar Poveda. Having said all this, can we agree that meeting WP:NSPORTS, the "presumption of notability" alone, is insufficient justification for retaining any article on a sports personality, and that WP:GNG must always trump it whenever notability is called into question? This allows anyone to justifiably nominate for deletion (though not prevent the creation of) any of the countless stub articles on participants in any sport for whom no actual, real, material, substantive, independent, multiple, secondary, non-trivial sources with in-depth coverage in any language (I think that's everything, right??!) can be SHOWN by someone to exist (i.e., we will not base article retention on the mere "presumption" of such sources) as well as allow the counters to try to rack up their list of created stub articles knowing that they may be taken down just as quickly if anyone calls them into question and the article's subjects are subsequently shown to fail to meet WP:GNG? This would mean that, if written, an article on a female rugby player (mentioned above) could be deleted as failing to meet GNG if inadequate sources are found, as well as could all of the corresponding articles on male players in any sport, rugby or otherwise, in the same situation (i.e., all of those stub articles written based on the presumption clause and then left alone or defended in the mistaken belief that WP:NSPORTS trumps WP:GNG). This would be fair to both the men and the women while not elevating or reducing the significance of any sports player based on gender (though it still gives men an edge as the subject for the creation of articles, which is still kinda unfair, but Jerry, don't let's ask for the moon as I am so very fond of the stars when they can be had). KDS4444^Talk 04:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• While at the same time wiping out all of the pre-internet era athletes that will require going to actual newspaper archives to source. So that anyone who has an itchy delete finger will have reason to throw up athletes that aren't immediately sourced, even if they are very likely to be notable. In essence, your suggestion completely negates the whole purpose of this guideline. -DJSasso (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, not really. If someone nominates an article on a 1940s athlete on the claim "not notable, couldn't find any hits on Google", that's a case where responders can call out BS on the lack of a in-depth search by the nominator and ask for a speedy keep. However, KDS has captured what the relationship is between the GNG and subject-specific guidelines; it is not a guarantee of an article but an allowance. What is the elephant in the room is that in the past, a few editors have used earlier versions of NSPORTS (back when it was PRO?) to semi-automate the process of creating stub articles for 100,000s of athletes which we are now stuck with. Realistically, NSPORTS and all other subject-specific guidelines are meant to be one-off allowances for an involved editor to have time to take a topic that meets NSPORTS to get more sourcing to improve it - that is, there is all good intentions in further expanding the articles. This mass creation of the 100,000s of athletes without carrying out any improves later is a problem , because these subject-specific guidelines are not automatic inclusion guidelines - no other guideline has seen an attempt to create an article for every possible case of the criteria that they have met. We have to recognize (via demonstrated AFDs below) that the community is not really accepting these stubs any more but we're well past the point of no return in terms of deleting them outright; we are likely going to be less tolerant however, of claims that sourcing exists for players with minimal game time/careers. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• So then nominate ones you have looked into that aren't sourced and nominate them for Afd. The guideline already allows for that. It in fact emphasizes it in the lead of the page. We don't need more bureaucratic wording to state that which is already stated. Semi-automated creation of articles is now disallowed on a wiki-wide level through other policies, so semi-automated mass creations will never be a problem again anyway. That being said yes some articles have been deleted because sources couldn't be found. That would indicate that this current wording is working. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman's reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saša Blagojević (as one example) tells me that the current language is not working. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Except that his comment indicates what this guideline is supposed to do. Protect this article from someone who makes no mention that they actually searched for references in the language of the player. All they say is they looked on other wikis to see if there was an article for the player. This is a perfect example of why this guideline is needed as it is. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that the nom's description of what steps they took to try to verify this (and in particular, an athlete who's entire career was while the Internet was a thing, so an online search will be sufficient) is a good faith, BEFORE-like effort to show no likely sources exists, thus making any claims that it meets NSPORTS as a reason to keep an invalid reason - now it is time for those that want to keep the article to find the sources now that it is challenged. This is how these guidelines are supposed to work. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Pre-internet isn't the only issue these SNGs are meant to protect against, language based issues are another one. To protect from editors who speak English and can't check Swedish language sources to see if there are articles in Swedish from deleting a wack of Swedish athletes without performing WP:BEFORE in the correct language. In otherwords to protect against Systemic Bias. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Names stand out in foreign-language searches even if you can't understand the language, and presumably if you get hits on that name for the sites, simple translation will give you an idea of what the article is about. The fact a player is not in an English-speaking country does not prevent a person from trying to prove or disprove their notability, as long as we are talking about where online sources would be the norm (eg here, 2005 and beyond). Now, I would also consider that not every country in the world has equal coverage in internet sources - but we are also talking Sweden here, which is a very well-connected country. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are doing searches in English on google often it will drop results that are not in English so you wouldn't even see them. Some do get through whatever filtering they use, but many do not. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is some magic that Google does, I agree, but I've found when searching on a term that is clearly in a language Google can make out, it will also give you results from that language too. But you can also force Google to return results from a given country too. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just taken a stab at rewording the tricky paragraph in question to clarify that GNG still supersedes NSPORTS. What a difference a colon makes! The earlier wording clearly suggested that one could meet GNG or NSPORTS; with the current wording, that is no longer the case, I hope. KDS4444^Talk 09:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellently done!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

But then I just got reverted. Oh, well. You gotta play to win (as they say). I now understand that an WP:RfC is the correct procedure for this process, and so....KDS4444^Talk 19:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Golf clarification

I would like some clarification regarding points 3 and 4. In both cases, the most notable examples are used, and thus give no clue about how notable a tour or amateur event has to be. The Web.com Tour, Challenge Tour, Japan Golf Tour, Asian Tour, PGA Tour of Australasia, Sunshine Tour, OneAsia, Korean Tour, PGA Tour Canada, PGA Tour Latinoamérica, PGA Tour China, and Asian Development Tour all offer OWGR points, but I don't suppose ADT winners are notable. As for amateur events, the European Amateur and Asia-Pacific Amateur are considered elite by the WAGR; the lame-duck U.S. Amateur Public Links is also notable in that the winner gets a Masters invitation (defending champion Jordan Niebrugge has an article). I think the NCAA Division I Men's Golf Championships could also be notable enough. I particularly want to know what Tewapack (talk · contribs) thinks about this. _{(suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ)} nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 03:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The European Amateur and Asia-Pacific Amateur are international level events - yes; U.S. Amateur Public Links - national but not top level - no; NCAA Division I Men's Golf Championships - probably. For minor tours that offer OWGR points, my personal stance is only if they offer above the minimum level points (6). For all, players may meet WP:GNG but not WP:NGOLF. Tewapack (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And I suppose the new Latin America Amateur Championship would also qualify. _{(suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ)} nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should we consider a rewording of the intro paragraph of WP:NSPORTS?

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.

---

Should we consider a rephrasing of the intro to WP:NSPORTS which clarifies that WP:NSPORTS is a useful guideline, but that WP:GNG is a superseding policy? If so, what might that phrasing be? KDS4444^Talk 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It already says that doesn't it?Spanneraol (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does. However, that doesn't mean that there is still not a problem. As we've been hashing it out on the talk page above and gone over at some length in the relatively recent past (here), the second sentence of WP:NSPORTS seems to suggest that a sports person can meet WP:GNG or the [at first glance] less-restrictive criteria outlined in WP:NSPORTS. Although a careful reading of the WP:NSPORTS guidelines makes clear that this is not, in fact, the case, the two seem to be at odds with each other and as a result Wikipedia has acquired a certain proportion (agreement as to exactly how much is not yet clear) of sub-stub articles on non-notable individuals whose existence might reasonably be the result of any good intentioned editor misreading these guidelines and interpreting them in ways not intended. It also looks like it would take relatively little to change the wording so that the contradiction does not exist, and so I have made this RfC to assess whether or not there would be an agreement to change the wording to a more consistent form. The fact that there has been so much discussion in the past seems to indicate that maybe something should be done. KDS4444^Talk 20:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Approve. There is much confusion with the present wording which implies that either the GNG or the NSPORTS guideline establishes notability. Here is the current wording:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.

— current (June 29 2014) wording.

But this wording causes confusion. It is not the case that either GNG or NSPORTS establishes notability. There is consensus that NSPORTS is only an indicator of probable notability, a time-saver, a guess. The confusion has led to unnecessary battling and the (probable) creation of numerous one-line stub articles (persons who meet NSPORTS while not meeting GNG). I like the KDS proposed wording:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guidelines: the sport specific criteria set forth below are not an alternative to those guidelines, they are rules of thumb to assist with determining the likelihood of a person having met them.

— KDS4444's proposed wording.

Therefore, I support KDS's proposed wording.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

KDS's wording is exactly correct on how the subject-specific notability guidelines are to work. They are presumptions of notability based on conditions that should lead to good sourcing being found in time. If an editor in good faith finds that a stub article cannot be expanded beyond that (having done the steps of WP:BEFORE) then deletion is completely fair. NSPORTS (or any other subject-specific guideline) is not a guarantee that we retain an article. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Approve KDS4444's proposed wording. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, rules are meant to "document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.". They "do not set accepted practice", which is what this proposal is attempting to do. One benefit of SNGs is avoiding a backlog of AfDs on inherently notable subjects on the grounds that a non-subject expert does not currently see sources in the article that meet GNG. The proposed wording gives the go-ahead to again create those AfDs. Also, the proposed wording does not exist in any other SNG that I am aware of. Note that Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)/FAQ#Q4 already addresses current practice of how articles that meet NSPORT but seemingly not GNG are addressed. If specific sports are too lenient, those should be identified and tightened.—Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Approve concept of clarification, this helps non-experts understand what might be notable, but it could be confused with GNG to newbies. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: I find Bagumba's argument persuasive: we would be in for a tidal wave of AfDs, having been bedeviled by exactly that before the SNGs were established in the first place. This also seems rather a back door way to eliminate NSPORTS altogether, as KDS4444 had been recently arguing until it was clear that there was no consensus for such a drastic move. Yet what's the difference here? Stating explicitly that SNGd don't really matter at all does pretty much the same thing. Since no one has yet demonstrated a general inability to AfD articles which cannot meet the GNG, this is a great deal of bother in order to produce a solution where no actual problem has been demonstrated. Ravenswing 05:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This is not correct at all. The point of NSPORTS as well as all subject-specific guidelines is to say "these are criteria that suggest that sources can be found if not at the immediate present and so we should give these time to be developed" with the ultimate goal for articles that meet the SNG to be of encyclopedic quality (read: more than a few bio lines) in the future. It is a presumption that allows for a stand-alone article to be made. Any editor can challenge that presumption but that claim better be one that has followed the steps of WP:BEFORE - specifically have they recognized if enough time has passed for sources to be found, and have they made a good extensive (read: more than google search's first few pages) search for material, appropriate for the topic. The SNGs are a balance between the quality control on topics required by notability, and the fact that there is no deadline for WP to improve articles. This would not eliminate NSPORTS as suggested because of the fact we're giving editors time (on the order of years) to figure out sourcing better. And FWIW this is how all SNGs have been handled in the past and reiterated at WP:N - it's a presumption, not an automatic allowance for an article, as has been treated in the past (the reason we have 100,000s of sports stub articles). --MASEM (t) 06:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Ravenswing, this would be a slippery slope in the opposite direction. This would cause the very issue that these SNGs were created to stop. Masem mentions that we would give articles years to improve, however, this wording makes it likely that no time would be given to those articles. This would likely cause a mass wave of Afd's on notable but hard to source individual from pre-internet era. Which is exactly what these SNGs are created to stop. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The SNGs were not meant to allow creation of 100,000s of stubs, they were meant as a case-by-case for a topic. But as I've noted above, an AFD nom of a pre-Internet player that claims "couldn't find any google hits" as the reason to delete is a good reason for a speedy keep for lack of good faith efforts by the nom. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I never said anything about creation of 100,000s of stubs. They were created to protect notable people from being deleted by people who didn't go through the necessary research before deleting. In the case of pre-internet era people that involves archives/libraries. However, couldn't find any google hits is a very common deletion rational. You and I both know that Afds are not closed when people use that rational. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • That's still a misstatement of the purpose of the SNGs, because we have no evidence yet that most of these stubs are of "notable people" - that's your claim, but as long as there are no secondary sources to back that up, it's only a claim. The SNGs are meant to give the benefit of doubt when certain criteria are met that sourcing will likely happen (induction in a Hall of Fame, for example) and it will just take time to find it. But that effort has to be made by the people that want to create or keep these articles. If no one wants to make the effort to improve beyond a stub, and someone else has made a fair effort to show that there are no sources, deletion is completely appropriate. And if that means the 100,000s of semi-automated-created stubs end up deleted (each one being individually reviewed in turn) that's completely fair. The SNGs are not "protection from deletion", but instead a presumption that allows for article creation. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Except that it is not a misstatement. They are protection from overzealous deletion. Yes, they can still be deleted if someone shows they have put in the required effort to find the sources. Now you are calling article semi-automated-created stubs. Is there a reason why you keep trying to minimize peoples work? It is obvious you have a hate on for sports stubs and that is fine. But opening up this guideline to make it easy to abuse is not good for the wiki. The guideline already states the GNG must be met in the end. We don't need more wording that essentially indicates that this guideline doesn't matter. This proposal is essentially asking that the SNG is removed but is doing it in a way that leaves the page here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
          • There was several cases about 6-7 years ago of editors using semi-automated tools to create 10,000s of articles on athletes on the basis of meeting the previous iteration of NSPORTS that was the guideline at that time (this was part of the reason that NSPORTS was revised). Not all athlete articles are that way, but there are a lot of articles created without thinking about improvement, and that's a problem; overzealous creation is just as bad if not worse than deletion, because deletion is a much harder metric to met while creation can be done by any editor. The problem is that the language as it stands does not emphasis the need to continue improvement after meeting NSPORTS, which is what the change given is needed. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with the other voices above. Wording as it currently stands is sufficient for the stated objective. I also don't see a bunch of stubs as being a real crime that requires immediate solving. Spanneraol (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Steroid-like growth of one-line stub-articles is not the only problem, but the current rule's lack of clarity causes confusion elsewhere, such as in deletion discussions. For example, consider this deletion discussion; the reason the article was AfD-ed was for failure to meet the SNG guideline (not the GNG guideline). The nominator read SNG, thought SNG was the dominant guideline (it is not); this triggered the deletion battle. But it did not end there. When I read SNG, I thought SNG was the dominant guideline; later, I thought it was either SNG or GNG; only near the end of the deletion battle did I get at the correct interpretation: that GNG is the dominant guideline, SNG is only a timesaver, a rule of thumb (akin to a grand jury, not the real jury). Lack of clarity caused fuss. Rules should be clear, straightforward, unambiguous, succinct, simple, easy-to-understand, like the double yellow line down the middle of a highway. The current wording is a muddle.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Except there is no lack of clarity. It says it in big letter straight out that meeting or not meeting does not mean the article must be kept or deleted. The suggested wording above however completely neuters the purpose of this SNG and this opens the floodgates to many more problems. Problems that were finally solved when this was created. Any admin closing a deletion discussion is well aware of what SNGs do and do not mean, despite what people might say in deletion discussions. This page is clear and straightforward and completely unambiguous. Hell it even has an FAQ to make it extremely clear. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The second line, bolded, confused me: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Like, either SNG or GNG means notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That sentence is pretty clear to me. You need sources to proove that an article meets the GNG or the SNG if you are going to claim they do. Nowhere in that sentence does it mention notability. For example you need a source to show that a player played a game in the NHL to say that he meets #1 of the NHOCKEY criteria. It goes on to state if you keep reading further into the lead that meeting these criteria are not guarantees of notability. The problem isn't the guideline, the problem is failing to read further. Changing the wording isn't a solution to that issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not everybody keeps reading; we're busy people; the bolded line looks like it says it all. It does not need to mention notability in the sentence because the whole guideline is about notability. Somebody reading that line is misled to thinking either SNG or GNG means notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And I was making the exact same mistake as Tomwsulcer!! I read "Either meet this requirement, or meet that requirement, either one is fine, take your pick, they're both perfectly good, and these requirements are a lot less stringent anyway." If I had read that while considering creating an article on a sports personality, and was a casual editor looking to write a few articles fast, I would have understood that as an invitation to create an article (a substub) about them with no references necessary (since guidelines say so) and with no intent of ever adding more in the future (so many articles, so little time! Next!). I do not know the history behind the reasoning for creating the various SNG guidelines, and maybe the aforementioned flood of AfD nominations is indeed to be dreaded and forestalled by just letting the waters build (since the dam is metaphoric, we can do this theoretically forever anyway). But I think the point that article creation is WAY easier than deletion suggests we should try to put the brakes on the creation end by being clearer with the wording in the first place. Is there no way we can do that? Somehow?? Without triggering an AfD flood? (Maybe there is not...?) KDS4444^Talk 22:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any change to any wording here at all if it results in more WP:POINT nominations of notable individuals as KDS4444 has recently been engaged in.GiantSnowman 17:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

*Dude... I checked the WP:BEFORE on each of those nominations... I came up empty, which is why I nominated them. It did not occur to me that it would be out of line for me to do so. But if I checked in good faith for viable sources on each one and didn't find any, then should I have... PRODed them instead?? My guess is you're gonna say, "No," so I could use some help— from you-- in figuring that out then. Meet me on my talk page, okay? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 15:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Dude, no, you obviously did not employ WP:BEFORE seeing as all but one of the AFDs I participated in were for a player who met WP:NFOOTBALL (as confirmed in reliable sources) and are therefore notable... GiantSnowman 18:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the point that's being made. Of course these players meet FOOTBALL, and there's sources to show they played the sport. Fine. But now the presumption of notability that the persons are really suitable for an article by having more detailed secondary sources beyond the evidence they played football was challenged, and KDS's BEFORE research brought up nothing. That is completely a fair challenge and the ball is in the court of those that want to keep to show there is more coverage than just the evidence of playing the sport. That's how the presumption of notability is supposed to work. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose in agreement with the Snowman. When confronted with wikilawyering types the more legal technicalities you give them, means more hoops to jump through. And frankly, when pushed into a corner with a wikilawyer, our "*fD" system comes up with some insane rulings just like the current american supreme court, for similar factionalized reasons (I digress). Frankly, if we were to reword the lede, I would eliminate the GNG loophole entirely. A wise wikilawyer could use that to make you "prove it." As more newspapers lock their archives behind paid firewalls, finding that history and making it available for the public is that much more difficult to prove (that a specified subject received significant coverage in a specific block of time). It is much more cut and dried to have a standard to achieve and not need to go further. Trackinfo (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • They lock down online archives, but not print ones which are still publically accessible. This does mean that there is work on a AFD nominator's side, particularly for players from pre-Internet eras, to do the leg work prior to filing and try to validate the lack of sourcing there, but if they have done that, then it is completely fair for the nomination to proceed. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • • You know they don't do that. Many of the AfDs I have been involved in have not been good natured. It requires no due diligence on the part of the nominator to put a subject on the defensive. And there are enough "yes men" to knod in agreement if anything can't be proven on line. Even when a solid case is proven, you cannot depend on the good senses of wiki consensus--if the case is weak due to historical blackouts, that spells doom for perfectly proper articles. Furthermore, with the red stain of an AfD deletion, when harder to find print sources are discovered, there is a permanent prejudice on the resurrection of the article. By giving any edge to bad faith nominations, you will increase their number. We already have far too many people here who seem to enjoy deleting valid content. I don't understand their logic at all. It seems like they make some sort of brownie points for the most articles they can trash. The proper application of NSPORT alone, without the additional application of GNG saves a chunk of that dispute. Trackinfo (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Stubs that have no way to be expanded are not valid content (read: third-party, secondary sourcing to meet NOR and produce encyclopedic-quality articles) with Wikipedia. And while I'm sure there are some AFDs that challenge NSPORT made in bad faith, there are also plenty that have been shown where the nominator did the right leg work to prove the absence of sources. So no, this is not a valid objection to this. When push comes to shove, there has to be sourcing to justify articles - that's the whole basis of "presumption" of notability in both the GNG and subject-specific guidelines, not a magic bullet that doesn't allow any challenge, particular with as broad as the NSPORTS guidelines cover (eg the one pro game rule) --MASEM (t) 05:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
          • My personal experience here has been, of the articles I have chosen to defend, the nominator was either acting in bad faith (not researching the subject before they NOM) or utterly clueless about the subject. Very very few have ever backed off and said sorry. Most pursue the "*fD" aggressively to conclusion. Some even win. Many of the supporters are equally clueless and I suggest, in bad faith because they refuse to use google (or use the search engine of their choice) to see the available sources. Some even ignore sources when I post them. The utter absurdity of some of these now historical arguments is confounding. I've commented on it in my personal remarks posted years ago. Its the worst feature of wikipedia operations. Now there are a lot of one line stub articles out there that conform to NSPORT. Can they be improved, certainly. It looks bad when we advertise what we don't know. Should the failure of someone to lift a finger to improve them make them subject to deletion? NO. If you discover such an article, use your google and you can improve the article yourself, in fewer keystrokes than it would take to send it to AfD. I have no clue how many articles have been deleted without my knowledge. All I know is much as I try, I don't have enough time to improve the chain of content alone, nor do I have the time to fight these built in derisive elements amongst the most experienced wikipedia editors. They should know better. They should act better to improve content rather than to remove it.Trackinfo (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
            • There is definitely bad behavior at AFD, both on nominators and !voters; this discussion won't change that, nor are those behaviors desirable. The problem is that when we actually have some who may want to go out and question if an article can be expanded and do the appropriate work and come out with no sources and thus nominates at AFD in good faith, !voters can no longer use "but it meets NSPORTS!" because the presumption that there would be more sources has been effectively challenged. That's what this change in wording is aimed to remind editors - NSPORTS is not a one-time check that prevents any challenge to the article as some treat it is as. Even an article that just meets the GNG is not an immunity to such challenges, though there that's likely more to direct the merging of the content. Particular with how loose and broad NSPORTS' criteria are compared to others, those creating or maintaining articles need to be aware that they will be more likely challenged for notability to meet broader WP's expectations. But that's all pending on fair AFD challenges that have gone through all steps of BEFORE. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Just happened onto an example today. Charles Foster (athlete) was a one line stub that looked like this, prose that said absolutely nothing about this man's accomplishments (though the info box had the info). From the single sports-reference external link, I was able to expand the article, find corroborating sources. And the first few lines of a google search showed even more. Which kind of confirmed the NSPORT assumed GNG association. Point is, it has been this way for almost four years, fodder for an AfD, with no attention except by bots. All it takes is for someone to notice it and do a little work. If the person who notices it first is one of the bad faith deletionists, a crew of "yes" men could have speedied this out of existence based on GNG without one attempt to do research. NSPORT and the external link probably saved that from happening. Don't give these bad intentioned, mean spirited editors any more ammunition. Trackinfo (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
                • Remember, I am not dismissing the importance of the work needed by WP:BEFORE. I entered "'Charles Foster' hurdler" into Google can got hits that , maybe not the best of sources, would tell me than an AFD of that article would be completely inappropriate. If someone did nominate it for deletion claiming there were no sources, that would be a bad faith nomination, and one easily proven out, and that's behavior (not process) we would admonish. What is happening is that there are editors making good faith attempts at BEFORE (explaining where they searched and how they failed to find anything) and being admonished for that and keep !voters continuing to wield NSPORT as a reason not to delete (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saša Blagojević). The language is needed to make it clear that NSPORTS is an allowance while efforts to find sources are found, but if sources simply can't be found in a good faith effort, NSPORTS no long can apply. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • Perhaps we should put some teeth into WP:BEFORE, maybe a short term ban for a bad faith NOM, with the length increasing with multiple offenses. I doubt that would happen because the worst offenders are high volume, experienced editors who know how to sway these back room deals effectively. Right now these people hurt wikipedia with impunity. I don't follow your logic on Saša Blagojević. I don't know the sport--I'm American. Our team at the World Cup is mostly players who grew up outside of the U.S. To me, this guy looks like an active soccer player, playing within the last month. Yeah its a shitty article, but not hopeless and in need of deletion. The fact that he is young and active in itself means there is potential for expansion. There are other people with the same name, the social media and wikipedia mirrors certainly clog google. It ain't easy, but still I was able to add an additional source to the article showing he played on the International team. How hard did the NOM work before? Trackinfo (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
                    • Specifically on Saša Blagojević: the person has a 10 year career, all post-2000, which means that Internet-only searches seem perfectly reasonable; this is also justified that he is from a country that is well-connected (not a third-world one). Yes, only foreign sources will likely be available but that doesn't prevent anyone from searching for foreign sources using that name and judging sources using Google Translate. Could there be other possible sources, sure, but the lack of any significant hits on Google for someone in this position is a good sign that not much else has been written about them. Of course, if this was someone from, say, the 1990s or earlier, or someone from a more economically-struggling nation, in which Internet coverage is much much less likely, I would demand that the person have searched paper sources for details. The point on this is that this is far from a bad faith nomination; it's not airtight, but it begs the question that NSPORTS can't be used wholesale to protect the article. In regards to giving BEFORE teeth, this has been a perennial proposal and has never gained traction, because it can be used both ways to game the system - just as there's bad faith nominations, there can be bad faith !votes that would try to keep obscure topics on claims the nominating editor didn't look in a dusty corner of a obscure building somewhere for sourcing (effectively). --MASEM (t) 21:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Which the current wording already allows them to do. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The proponents of this RfC are contradicting WP:N; namely, a topic is presumed to be notable if "It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."—Bagumba (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  This point was discussed at length previously, so in the interest of expediting conversation, can any interested parties review that thread? If there are any new points of interest to add or additional clarifications, please do offer them forth. isaacl (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  The key word that you omitted is "presumed"; the point of the change here is to remind editors that you can't just meet NSPORTS's criteria and then walk away without worry that the article will never be deleted. The presumption of notability can always be challenged, and the more you bring an article towards or beyond the GNG, the less likely it will be challenged. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, in favor of the new proposal below. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of alternative proposals

I think those opposed to change are overestimating the influence that a modification to the second sentence will have, given there is ample precedence behind the other locations in this guideline that already make the purpose of the guideline clear. How about just deleting the second sentence so its ambiguity will no longer be an issue? The nutshell summary and the rest of the introduction, I believe, cover everything necessary to describe the guideline. isaacl (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I like it, isaacl. Your proposed change would mean both 1.) not opening up the AfD floodgates, and 2.) not encouraging the creation of countless dead-end substubs. That seems like a best-possible. (And for what it is worth, and to set the record straight, I never meant to suggest that WP:NSPORTS be eliminated— that characterization feels unfair. I did mean to suggest that the current guidelines looked confusing and contradictory, and that a minor change might make things better. I am here to create a better Wikipedia with useful tools and information. I get excited about it! I make mistakes sometimes, too. I try not to. And I try to remain open to correction. I hope I haven't made a mistake with this RfC (have I?).) KDS4444^Talk 22:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
• Just so I have this clear in my head, issacl ... you're looking to replace that first paragraph with "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia," full stop? I can get behind that.

  For further clarification, though, the next paragraph, which currently reads:

If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).

... should be changed to "If the article does meet the sport-specific criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet any of the sport-specific criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Ravenswing 23:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the first paragraph would no longer have the current second sentence (set in bold). Your proposed changes to the next sentence, I believe, are purely grammatical and so I think could be made independently of any other proposal (and, in my opinion, could be made now as an uncontroversial grammatical edit). isaacl (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• One other thing the bolded sentence accomplishes is to point editors to the need for sourcing, and that isn't mentioned elsewhere. With that in mind, I suggest changing the sentence in question, to be in regular font, and to read: "All articles must provide reliable sources showing that the subject satisfies notability criteria." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC

• You mean, remove the emphatic nature of the part that mentions sourcing (which isn't mentioned elsewhere) and make it regular font? (which, btw, is fine with me: WP:ACADEMIC, for example, contains no such introductory bolded emphasis on sources). Or am I getting you wrong? Only seeking clarification. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 23:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry that wasn't clear. I actually mean two things. First, remove the bold font. Second, change the wording of the sentence, to what I wrote just above. (The gist of the second change is that we would get rid of the apparently confusing/complicating language about this page versus GNG.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Here, for more direct comparison, are the existing wording (and font), followed by my suggested change in wording and font:

• The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
• All articles must provide reliable sources showing that the subject satisfies notability criteria.

• --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Which I like, except that it's not entirely true in practice and we may not want people pointing to that line as evidence of another kind of confusing contradiction. Maybe something like, "All articles are expected to eventually include reliable sources showing that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria." That might allow people to still feel comfortable generating brief stub articles while not encouraging them to do so recklessly and without initiating a flood at AfD (all of which is what I hope any new wording will accomplish). KDS4444^Talk 14:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's a good point, and I agree with you. Let me suggest: "Reliable sources showing that the subject satisfies notability criteria should be added to the article." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• A point that I've come to realize is that what we want is to have all article meet the qualities of an encyclopedic article as defined by the core policies of NOT, V, NOR, and NPOV; the GNG gives a minimum level of sourcing that assures that this likely can happen. The SNGs like NSPORTS thus should be about giving ways the GNG will likely be met and thus reasonably good assurance that these articles are on their way to a proper encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. So, then... Where does all of this leave us? Does it seem like there is some consensus to change some of the wording of that second sentence? Or do we still need to collect additional input? I understand that an RfC usually remains open for 30 days or so, which means this one is to be considered ongoing for awhile yet (which is fine, just wanted to clarify for myself). KDS4444^Talk 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good question. I'll set this up as an alternative proposal now. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Instead of the change proposed above, this proposal is to change:

The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. (bold font)

to:

Reliable sources showing that the subject satisfies notability criteria should be added to the article. (regular font)

--Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer, per the discussion above. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Tentative Support. I am striking my support for the proposed alternative (at least for the time being), and I respectfully request that Tryptofish provide a word-by-word explanation of his proposal, and how he believes that this will impact AfD discussions evaluating the notability of a sports article in the context of both GNG and the sport-specific guideline under NSPORTS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• This just seems like a change in wording and not content, unless I am mis-reading it? GiantSnowman 11:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, the only substantive change is that we are not including language about "general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria", because the discussion at the top of the RfC indicates that there is editor confusion about GNG versus NSPORTS that results from the juxtaposition of those two guidelines in the existing sentence. Keep the existing point about sourcing (not really changing it, unless I'm missing something), but get rid of the ambiguous language about the two guidelines. Dirtlawyer1, please tell me if I can clarify that further. (That said, I don't much care if we make no change from the status quo.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This trimmed version accurately states the reality that the GNG is the basic guideline, removes the confusing line (GNG or SNG).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that the bot has removed the RfC tag as expired, and I suppose there is no consensus about the main proposal. I'll just ask here whether there is any interest in pursuing further the alternative proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2014 (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.

On the presumption of notability and SNG criteria

I invite interested parties to comment at WT:N#The application of the "presumption" of notability. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTY

Hi, I would like to ask about WP:NFOOTY. There is stated that player is notable if he played in fully professional league. So I would like to ask how many games does he have to play in FPL to be regarded as notable? 1, 10, 50? --Silesianus (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One match is sufficient to meet WP:NFOOTY. Demonstrating that the article meets WP:GNG makes it better. Hack (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concensus to be 1 match in a fully-pro league (or FIFA "A" international) is enough, but if sources cannot be found to show compliance with the GNG within a reasonable period (maybe 1 year or so), the article doesn't merit the presumption of notability and can be deleted. Jogurney (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

So, for example, if Lukáš Godula will play one match in current 2014–15 Fotbalová národní liga, is he eligible to have his own article? --Silesianus (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

As that league is mentioned here, then yes.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I need to reiterate that even if a biography meets WP:FOOTY, it would still need to meet WP:GNG if challenged. Though offline or non-English reliable sources are fine. Rikster2 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Potential new interpretation: NCOLLATH vs. GNG

A new interpretation of WP:NCOLLATH has been advanced as part of this pending AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dodge. Under this interpretation, NCOLLATH would effectively trump WP:GNG, meaning, in short, that if a given college athlete did not satisfy NCOLLATH, then there would no longer be an opportunity to argue the college athlete's notability under the general notability guidelines per GNG. In my experience in dealing with the AfDs for over 200 college athletes in the last three years, the majority were decided under GNG not NCOLLATH. Most college athletes would never be able to have stand-alone Wikipedia articles under this new interpretation. I urge everyone with an interest to participate in this AfD discussion, as well as the new talk page discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

When the sport-specific standards were proposed years ago, it was done with the clear understanding that they would not and did not trump WP:GNG. The sport-specific standards are intended to create presumptions that a person would pass WP:GNG, but WP:GNG remains the cornerstone of determining notability on a Wikipedia-wide basis. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not what is being argued. The issue that can come into play is that local and routine coverage is not specifically called out as not appropriate in the GNG, but has always been an issue for college/high-school players. As such, a player may pass the GNG but both fail NCOLLATH and only have coverage from local/routine sources. In such cases, NSPORTS overrides the GNG and says we shouldn't have an article. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

that argument holds no water. I think there is a legitimate disagreement as to whether the coverage is or isn't routine. You are arguing GNG, not that NSPORTS overrides GNG ever. Look at the long discussion above this one about wording the guideline - everyone agrees articles must meet GNG regardless of whether or not they meet the sports guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Masem, if you want to continue to argue that major feature articles from USA Today, the Associated Press, ESPN.com, and the Houston Chronicle are somehow "local," "routine" or "trivial" in nature, I wish you luck with that. Before going any further, I urge you to familiarize with these major American media outlets. You might as well argue that BBC coverage of the Boat Race is local based on the logic you are employing here, but you don't seem to understand that yet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

From the Frequently Asked Questions menu at the top of WP:NSPORTS:

"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 reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has 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 he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?[hide]

"A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet 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 he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?

"A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does 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."

[emphasis added by Dirtlawyer1]

Any comments regarding the plain meaning of the FAQs from NSPORTS, Masem? Especially regarding Q3 and A3? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is easy. GNG always trumps project-specific guidelines. When I read the AfD it feels like people have differing ideas of what constitutes GNG. If anyone is arguing otherwise (ie that the project guidelines trump GNG) they have no basis in Wikipedia policy. Rikster2 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

We have always allowed SNGs to be more restrictive than the GNG. This is the case for NSPORTS because GNG does not have any distinction on the concept of local or routine sources (We tried to add this to GNG but this was rejected), so NSPORTS makes sure to mention that local or routine coverage is not sufficient even for GNG standards. I believe NBOOKS has similar , more restrictive language. So the GNG is not the end-all of notability concerns. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so, as a general principle, when it was done intentionally and the language is crystal clear, Masem. But it's pretty clear that was not the intent in NCOLLATH. Please review and acknowledge Q3 and A3 from the NSPORTS Frequently Asked Questions, as posted above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The FAQ is not policy or guideline. And that local/routine langauge is still part of NSPORTS. So it applies. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

oh no, no, no. As someone who has contributed to sport guidelines, I can say they would be a LOT looser if they were the more restrictive guideline. GNG is always the final say. Please do take a few moments and read the other discussions on this page. They wouldn't be happening if what you suggest were the case. The SNGs are meant to be a guideline to who probably meets GNG, not as a replacement for GNG. I didn't just fall off of the turnip truck this morning, I've been embroiled in these conversations for years. The whole reason I found this discussion is that I watch this Talk page. Rikster2 (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Masem, I know, but I can point to the FAQs as part of the established consensus interpretation of NSPORTS and NCOLLATH. I can also point to hundreds of sports AfDs that have been decided over the past several years in a manner consistent with that consensus interpretation. What can you point to? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The arguments that Rikster and Dirtlawyer1, claiming the GNG is absolute, would mean that we should have articles on effectively every college athletes that play for the major NCAA schools, because they all do get coverage (of the local/routine ilk) that would meet the GNG, but fail the criteria of NCOLLATH. When this guideline was developed it was recognized that the GNG was insufficient because it did not address the consideration of local sources, and thus NSPORTS includes the general disclaimer that local and routine coverage is not valid alone for notability. As such, this overrides the GNG. This is an acceptable practice, based on a long-ago RFC about the interaction of the GNG and the SNGs in general (that the SNGs can be more restrictive than the GNG if they need to). Several other SNGs, like ORG, have similar language. Many Wikiprojects also have internal guidelines that even though topics may meet the GNG, its not considered approprite. All this stems, effectively from WP:NOT and WP:IINFO. The GNG is often the base allowance, but at times, if a SNG guideline developed by people that know the area well recognize that GNG-style coverage would allow for too much inclusion, they can override the GNG. At the end of the day, it's still about the presumption of notability, and the GNG is not an absolute for retaining an article either. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that I often vote "delete" on college basketball figure AfDs, your assumption about my intent is false. In the US, major college men's basketball and football are covered at a level similar to professional sports. This does not mean that every player - even at the very highest profile schools - is notable. I have personally voted to delete articles of basketball players from Kentucky, Duke and North Carolina (my Alma mater, mind you) - arguably the three highest profile "basketball schools" out there - because the players did not receive coverage significant enough to meet GNG. So you can stop right now in trying to name my motivations as you have no clue. The college athlete guidelines identify characteristics of people, who probably meet GNG because scads of ignorant folks (many from countries who have nothing similar to college sports and assume based on their local experience) AfD articles with the note "not notable - not fully professional." I haven't even assessed the AfD you guys are fretting over because it seems borderline and requiring more work than I want to put into it. But as someone who has been hammered about how the sport guidelines don't make clear enough that GNG supercedes them (an argument YOU are taking part in on the opposite side I might add) I find it galling that now someone would actually try to flip the script and argue the other side because it supports their view of what the outcome should be. You have a valid argument about Mark Dodge not meeting GNG - stick to that, because this argument is ridiculous and insulting. Rikster2 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Masem, if you're under the impression that either Rikster or I are some sort of proponents for manipulating GNG to keep articles for marginally notable or non-notable college athletes, you're barking up the wrong trees. We are the standards guys; take a look at our AfD participation histories. We believe in enforcing GNG as written, with teeth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• To both, my argument is not to try to question your motives, but to point out that the reason we do not cover college athletes is because NSPORTS specifically overrides the GNG when the only sources available are local or routine (the case of many college athletes). The GNG is not the absolute that is being claimed. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your intent and your execution are two different things. And you still need to point to something that actually backs up what you are saying. The sports guidelines point to WP:ROUTINE, but otherwise they basically go back to "must meet GNG." Rikster2 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage." at SPORTCRIT. That's the language that is not in GNG that is more specific to NSPORTS, showing how NSPORTS can override the GNG. --22:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)

That is non-binding guidance, not law. If your issue is with the wording of GNG, then work to get it changed since that is the thing that actually has teeth. NSPORTS doesn't, which I am told often by editors during AfDs. Rikster2 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I see it as a sport clarification that are consistent with the principles of "significant coverage" and "independence" in GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion (whether any SNG can be more restrictive than the GNG) has been asked several times in the past and it has always been that yes it can be, particularly dealing in an area where better expertise exists by interested editors to know how to avoid WP:IINFO inclusion where there is a systematic bias of coverage. I know that NSPORTS has had this discussion several several times before, and I haven't seen anything that changes this approach. This applies to both SNGs and Wikiproject guidelines. The only thing SNGs can't be is less restrictive than the GNG. This often includes limiting what sources can be used, onces that may be okay from a general standpoint of the GNG but inappropate to the specific topic (so Bagumba's point is in fact consistent with this). So yes, it is still the case that SNGs can override the GNG to some extent. It may be the language of that approach but that's how one can consider the practice. This is not a novel reading. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

if this has been asked many times then link some of those discussions. If true, I am going to spearhead some re-writing of these guidelines if, in effect, anti-sport editors can choose either side of the issue to AfD valid articles. Rikster2 (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The big one is: Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_29#RFC results. I note the closure's language pointing that SNG's that how Bagumba's described it - that SNGs can specify sources that clarify how to evaluate the GNG - is what we're talking about here and agrees with that conclusion of a large RFC. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I looked at that 6 year old discussion (I also did a random spot check of editors involved - congrats you are one of the few still active) and while there was support that "SNGs can outline sources that assert notability," many of the positive votes stressed that this did not trump GNG or the definition of WP:RS. Meanwhile, the proposal that "SNGs Trump GNG" was opposed at an 80% clip. Sorry, not buying. Rikster2 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's 6 years old, it hasn't been challenged in any manner, and it is practice on NSPORTS (as one example) by limiting what sources can be used as stated by Bagumba). So again, this is not a novel interpretation as being claimed. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, topic-specific guidelines can provide assistance in how to determine if a source is appropriate for establishing the notability of a subject. This does not mean the guideline is setting a higher bar, or superseding GNG; it is acting in concert with GNG to clarify it. I think editors should not feel one is being pitted against the other; one is just refining the other. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, I read the linked discussion and the next archive page and it was clear the details of the RFC had not been landed. Perhaps Masem would be so kind as to link the actually point where these changes were adopted. Rikster2 (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My recollection was that the results were consistent with the practice at the time (the RFC issued begging if the practice of the various questions was right, this was around the time of trying to creating guidelines for fictional characters/etc) and as the results were consistent with that, nothing needed to be changed. If anything, currently, WP:PAGEDECIDE has this information in it (last paragraph about determining sources), so it was added at some point. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• I looked at the AfD, and it seems to me that part of the problem resides in where some editors are arguing for deletion on the grounds that some sources are "human interest" stories, even though those sources are, as Dirtlawyer1 correctly points out, from significant news sources such as USA Today and others. The way I see it, GNG includes, in general language, a legitimate requirement that sources be "independent of the subject". Here at the SNG, I don't think that we are setting a higher standard so much as clarifying what "independence" means in this subject area. GNG gives examples such as personal websites as being non-independent. Here, we recognize that the local small-town news outlet can also be, in effect, non-independent. But that does not mean that national sources are also non-independent. So I would argue that this is less a "new" interpretation than an incorrect one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a separate issue about whether the non-sports part of his life, that being the 3 national stories that recount his 9/11 experience, are notable per the GNG. If they were, I would not question keeping the article on this point, because that goes back to the fact that the GNG is fine, despite having a non-notable college career. The question is if these stories really are sufficient under the GNG (and keeping in mind that he's been out of the spotlight for 7 years since those were written), as if they fail the GNG , and he fails NCOLLATH, then removal is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • You raise an interesting point: whether being not-quite-notable for two separate and unrelated reasons adds up to being notable for the sum – it shouldn't. My suggestion would be to argue that it is a case of failing GNG on each aspect. If that argument holds, then it's a valid reason to delete. But if the subject passes GNG on just one aspect, either one, then it should be a keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Tryptofish, you are wise. I think your analysis is four square on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:WHYN's goal is that "we can write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." I'd rather not create more rules about how subjectively "meaningful" the subject is to society.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• I've two thoughts. First off, the notion that the subordinate notability criteria are somehow superior to the GNG is completely wrong, and if Masem and crew wish to enshrine the SNGs as trumping it, the GNG's talk page is where they ought to start.

  Secondly, the notion that an article that otherwise passes the GNG must be stricken if it fails the mighty NCOLLATH is so farcical as to make a proper characterization of the proposal a civility violation. What the pluperfect hell? There are many thousands of prominent people who were, in their youth, undistinguished college athletes. Do we strike Gerald Ford's article because he wasn't a college All-American? Ronald Reagan's? John Kennedy's? I'm sorry, but if NCOLLATH is going to be the supreme measure of notability on Wikipedia, I want rather a broader consensus than Masem's say-so. Ravenswing 00:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • There is an issue with how this thread was started, because I and others were not challenging NCOLLATH, but more specifically that the language at the top of NSPORTS, specifically about local/routine sourcing not being appropriate. If the GNG was clearly met but did not qualify for NCOLLATH, we wouls still presume an standalone article unless the sourcing for meeting the GNG is local/routine only, in which case NSPORTS says not to have an article due to this sourcing being weak/inappropriate for sports areas. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, given that the article you are bunched up over has sources from USA Today, ESPN.com and the Houston Chronicle it doesn't matter if NCOLLATH says local, non-independent sources can't be used because none of those are. And, no, the Houston Chronicle is not the local paper for College Station, Texas. Rikster2 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      • And I've said on that article I'm no longer considering those sources being local, but there are other issues with those sources in terms of other policy/guidelines. But fact still remains that if the sources were only local for that person, NSPORTS would be reason to delete it. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
        • No, that is covered under WP:RS as well (specifically the sections titled "Context Matters" and "News Organizations"), which is linked at GNG. The SNG simply gives more color as to what that might look like for the subject. It isn't some binding rule. Rikster2 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Neither is the GNG being absolute - it is a guideline after all. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The specific guidelines in this article are not, by consensus agreement at the time of their creation and in many discussions since, intended to replace the guidance of the GNG with an accomplishment-based threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thus using the thresholds in these guidelines to supersede GNG is inappropriate. I agree (and have raised previously) that the issue of what constitutes a reliable, independent, neutral, non-promotional source for demonstrating Wikipedia notability is something that ought to be clarified. However, this would not result in replacing the need for appropriate sources with accomplishment-based criteria for inclusion, as this would run counter to the basic principles of Wikipedia notability. isaacl (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of reminding editors of WP:ROUTINE for college and high school athletes as this does tend to be a problem. The whole point of NSPORT is addressing sport specific problems and I think this language is in that spirit. MATThematical (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Pending AfD: Single-season articles for individual athletes

Here is an AfD discussion that may be of interest for those editors concerned with notability guidelines for sports-related articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season. WikiProject Tennis editors are asserting that an internal WikiProject "guideline" is the basis for keeping the article, not Wikipedia-wide notability guidelines. Please feel free to express your opinion in this AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlaywer1, I kindly request you to rephrase this notification. It is biased and therefore inappropriate according to canvassing guidelines (WP:CAN). These guidelines clearly state that notifications must be "neutrally worded" and that it is considered "campaigning" to post "a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" as you have done here. The first and last sentences are fine and frankly you could and should have left it at that. The rest is not only unnecessary but also subjective, contains a factual error (three editors were part of the WikiProject discussion not two) and a textbook strawman, i.e. a biased misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. Please modify.--Wolbo (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

While I disagree with your characterization of my notice as factually inaccurate, I have nevertheless modified the notice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: That is still not OK. I am one of the editors you are referring to but I never asserted that "an internal WikiProject "guideline" is the basis for keeping the article, not Wikipedia-wide notability guidelines.". That is a strawman argument, it misrepresents my view (and I believe other's as well) and it frames the issue in a non-neutral way that favours your viewpoint (which violates WP:CAN). That sentence needs to change or be deleted. I'm sure you do not appreciate having your viewpoints misrepresented any more than I do and I would expect some care in this from someone who recently stated that "I'm fairly sensitive to canvassing issues because I've been on the receiving end of it..." --Wolbo (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• In response, let's review the following quoted arguments:
• "Articles of this sort are common for the top current tennis players. Category:Tennis player seasons lists 64 such articles (by my count), including 9 for Maria Sharapova. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines states that articles like this are allowed for tennis players who have won a grand slam tournament."
• "[T]he point is that according to the current tennis project criteria, which were discussed, she qualifies for a season article and that is what we should judge, in addition to any other relevant guidelines that apply. If you disagree with those project criteria then that is a discussion to be held at WP:TENNIS but not here. As it stand I believe the tennis project has strict criteria compared to some other sports."
• "Strong Keep per longstanding Tennis Project consensus. Why the heck was this even nominated? All players who have won a major in their careers can have seasonal articles for every season they competed. Certainly to create it one should do the proper sourcing to make it complete, but this is a long established protocol."

The meaning of the quoted statements is clear enough, Wolbo, and I see no reason to further modify the AfD notice above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have lost hours of sleep on this subject. There is an abundance of single-season articles for various non-major sports teams and players (many of them at Category:All articles with too few wikilinks). In my opinion many of them are of non-notable teams, playing non-notable seasons, often with incomplete statistics and no prose. I want to delete them all en masse and send scolding emails to these article creators, but I'm just not familiar enough with the conventions of sports Wikipedia, and it seems like these articles are encouraged. Is there any way to reach a consensus with both sides, and clearly distinguish notable seasons from what IMO is data cruft? I mean, I wouldn't make a separate article for the 2009 season of Wicked, or the 2012-2013 season of the NBC Nightly News. Gccwang (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Reply: I'll reiterate the same argument I made at the Sharapova AfD, which is more pertinent here anyway. To wit, the (rather obvious) reason why season team articles are notable is that seasons are how team sports are organized. Teams compete within discrete seasons, their whole activity is based around achievement in discrete seasons, team honors are exclusively gained within discrete seasons, championships are defined as being the best in any given season, and the media coverage of those seasons, as discrete units, is overwhelming. There is nothing particularly notable about, and no one particularly writes about, performances of Broadway plays or seasons of network news shows. (By contrast, discrete seasons of network dramas do receive coverage, especially where story arcs are concerned, and Wikipedia has many such articles.) The coverage of team sports seasons can be found anywhere: sportswriters discuss the team's prospects in the next season, write recaps of the previous one, and so on.

  Since Wikipedia defines notability as whether a subject is discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources (as opposed to whether we think a subject ought to be important or not), NSPORTS criteria generally hold team seasons to be notable. Indeed, such articles are allowed -- and it's just as well you held back from scolding editors for creating articles they're allowed to create -- and no doubt will continue to be. Ravenswing 09:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty I am having trouble resolving in my mind is that 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season has been evaluated as achieving Good Article status, and it has at least one sentence on every series in the season, with many individual games being covered as well. If this level of detail is considered desirable (personally, I don't believe so, as do others, but obviously there are those who disagree), then I find it hard to refute by analogy that the extensive coverage of major tennis players doesn't warrant similar summarization in Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• For the record there was a WP:TENNIS request posted here back in 2011 regarding this problem. I found this entry at the Notability talk archives, which clearly shows that there was intent to bring other editors' opinion to the table. It's interesting to see that on the same page there are regular editors who are very vocal at the current AfD but failed to even reply to this heads-up. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 18:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hopefully, this issue is getting more attention this time around from experienced editors, Lajbi. I am seriously considering posting an AfD notice on the talk page for all of the sports WikiProjects because I believe that this concerns all regular sports editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• We don't deal in analogies, which are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, and from an angle debarred through WP:V. We do not have team season articles because there are editors who want to cover teams in anal detail; we have them because there are reliable sources discussing the subjects. We don't have individual tennis player season articles just because the concept of "seasons" doesn't generally pertain to individual sports; we lack them because reliable sources don't exist discussing them as seasons.

  If (say) you believe there is reliable coverage, discussed in significant detail, of tennis players' seasons as seasons, demonstrate it through proven sources. Ravenswing 20:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Are you saying there should be no individual season articles in tennis? Is this the same Ravenswing who three years ago laid out a pretty well thought out argument in favor of individual season articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010? As you said there: "We allow season articles in team sports, and I see no reason why such articles in individual sports couldn't be notable or well-sourced for preeminent stars such as Federer. ... I'd have to imagine there'd be enough to say about the years of a Federer, a Tiger Woods or a Jeff Gordon to sustain such articles and strip excess detail out of the main articles." That made good sense then. What's changed? Cbl62 (talk)

• I am saying exactly what I said; kindly don't put words in my mouth or set up strawmen. I also stand by my earlier statement; I see no reason why it's impossible for seasons of preeminent stars to be well-sourced. (You'd likely do rather well at such sourcing, if you're ferreting out comments from three-year old AfDs.) Indeed, pretty much any subject that's well-sourced wins a GNG pass, regardless of how unimportant we think the subject is. That is a very long way away from giving a presumptive pass to season articles for players of individual sports generally, something for which I do not believe sources exist, for which I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on a general level, and which I quite oppose. Ravenswing 16:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Uhhh..... quoting you is not putting the words in your mouth, it's finding them there. Your more recent comment (i.e., that "the concept of 'seasons' doesn't generally apply to individual sports") had led me to think that you had adopted a more draconian view that season articles should not be permitted for individual tennis players. I'm glad to hear that I misunderstood you and that you still stand by your earlier comments. Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• • As I mentioned, I would not personally argue for this level of detail in team season articles. However I have difficulty constructing an argument that would reflect a view that this detail meets Wikipedia's standards of inclusion which would not also apply to top-level tennis players, who also have extensive coverage. My preference, as I stated in the discussion I linked to, would be to use reliable, independent, non-promotional, notable sources that summarize the season in question as guidance for what should be included in a season article. Others have chosen not to do this for baseball season articles, and have relied solely on individual game coverage as a justification. Thus I cannot say that individual tennis tournament coverage should not be used to justify including this information about specific players. isaacl (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Ravenswing: ATP usually cover the seasons of bigger names. Here's one for Djokovic's 2011 season. It also calls it "one of the most storied seasons in tennis history". One could argue that it's a primary source but it's not from Djokovic's website nor does the ATP organises the Grand Slams (the ITF does) but covers them in the article. Also it is true that it is one of the most widely covered seasons as you can see at the 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season references. Are these satisfactory enough? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 13:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Lajbi, the ATP's coverage of tennis players and their seasons cannot be used to determine the notability of those subjects, any more than coverage of NFL.com, NBA.com, MLB.com, or other press releases and articles written by leagues, conferences, and teams because such sources are not independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG. Such sources may be reliable sources, however, to verify facts in our Wikipedia articles. Editors often confuse the two uses. Bottom line: material written by an athlete's association, league, conference or team does not support the athlete's (or individual season's) notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• "One could argue that it's a primary source?" One can't argue otherwise. I really want better examples of reliable sources than the pro tour websites. How about newspapers? Ravenswing 16:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Read between the lines. I said visit the 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season and see it for yourself if it's good for you. I won't post articles here one-by-one, because there they are already and plenty of them since that was the season with the "winning streak", which was indeed widely covered at the end of the year by newspaper sites. (And still ATP is independent from the four biggest tournaments, which clearly defines what was accomplished in the season; ATP literally has nothing to do with them). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 19:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• • • • I'm not saying that around 30% of the current season articles shouldn't be deleted just pointing out that some seasons deserve an article contrary to what @Dirtlawyer1: expressed above (if I understood it right). Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, Lajbi, I have not said that none of these individual player seasons deserves a stand-alone article. I have said that they need to comply with Wikipedia-wide notability standards. WP Tennis' current standard is: If a tennis player wins a single Grand Slam event once in his or her career, then that player is forever entitled to single-season articles for every individual season/year in the player's career, regardless of the notability of the individual season. That's goofy, and it doesn't work because it doesn't track the mainstream media coverage of the player's career. Significant coverage determines notability. By forking these players' careers into detailed single-season articles, the notability of many of these individual seasons cannot be substantiated. It's a problem, and it's unfortunate that no one was addressing the Wikipedia-wide notability issues when these articles were being created. BTW, to my knowledge, no other sports WikiProject has sanctioned anything like this level of detail for career coverage for individual athletes. There may be exceptional cases, but no other sport is pushing detailed single-season articles for individual athletes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this issue, and it occurred to me to look at how Wikipedia treats seasons, or comparable time periods within a career, for other kinds of notable persons, besides athletes. I decided to look, not necessarily as representative samples because I'm not sure what would really be "representative", at Pablo Picasso as someone in art, William Shakespeare as someone in literature (whose page is an FA), and Tip O'Neill as a politician with a long period of service (many Congressional sessions). In Picasso's case, we do indeed have standalone pages about some time periods of his career: Picasso's Blue Period, Picasso's Rose Period, and Picasso's African Period. In contrast, while we have pages about Shakespeare's life and Shakespeare's plays, both of which discuss time periods in detail, we do not break out pages about time periods in his career. (For instance, Shakespeare's early plays, in spite of being obviously notable, do not get a blue link.) Similarly, for O'Neill, we do not have Tip O'Neill's 1977–1978 speakership, even though the events during that Congressional session would likely pass GNG. It seems to me that Wikipedia does not, as a matter of general custom, create year-by-year standalone pages about notable people, even when the people are very notable. Instead, what makes Picasso's "periods" notable is the existence of very extensive critical commentary about each such period, individually, in a way that identifies those periods as notable as topics of their own. Similarly, for Albert Einstein, we have Annus Mirabilis papers, but not Einstein's Annus Mirabilis, because the work, not the year in the career, is what is truly notable. So, it seems to me that "season" pages for athletes should follow roughly the same practice: if there is a significant amount of independent secondary source commentary that the 1992 season of athlete X was an extraordinary season that stands out as a topic of its own within X's overall career, then a standalone page is probably called for, but having separate pages for every season in a notable athlete's career absent more than the typical coverage of any notable athlete is probably a bad idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Let me return to the "whistleblower" sport that started this. In tennis there are 17 seasons where a Grand Slam was completed and still none of them has a season article yet while all of them would truly deserve one and I guess they wouldn't raise so many concerns if they were the ones to be first created. Of course there could be some other important seasons (Olympics singels & doubles victories by e.g. the Williams sisters) but that would be enough. Of course I'm still okay with a wider allowance (One grand slam/season) but I understand that sometimes less is more. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 20:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What also needs to be looked at is page size and splitting requirements. Per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 60k of readable prose are frowned upon and Sharapova's main page is at 56k. When players start winning Majors and become popular the information in the press and sports sites go up exponentially, even in years they do poorly. These things get added to articles whether we like it or not. If Sharapova's 2013 season info gets pushed into her main article subsection, it gets larger in proportion to other sections and pushes it over 60k. And that could happen to others of her seasonal articles as well. They are natural splitting points off the main page that are easily followed by readers. I would think that most readers don't automatically go to Sharapova's 2013 season page... they want more so they follow the link provided. If they don't want more they read the quick summary and move to the next section of the main page. What could be done is if two or three seasons are sparser than others, they could be combined into "2009–2011 Jane Doe tennis seasons" with the main page link going to the proper section of the multi-season article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

A thing to consider here, looking at Maria Sharapova's page and the sections that track her career by years, is that it is basically one step away from WP:PROSELINE. "She played at (this tennis touney) and won. She then played at (that tennis tourney) and lost." This is poor writing and leading to a lot of size problems. A lot what is being said can be highlighted into a single paragraph with statements like "Sharapova's 2013 season was considered one of her best, having won X out of the Y major tourneys and..."

Single season articles for individual players may be frowned on, but I see no reason why a career stats article would fail, which is equivalent to a filmography or discography for others. (This would also apply to profession team players with long careers that would otherwise overwhelm their article). Noting that the major playoffs have formats like 2013 US Open – Women's Singles, the bulk of the tables on the current 2013 Sharapova page can be condensed, or even lopping off the table part that says who she played against and the match set results of each, and doing that in a simple sentence, letting the actual playoff page serve to have a reader who wants to track to that level of detail figure it out.

Between these two condensations of text (focusing the athlete's article on major highlights, and reducing the details needed per season knowing it's documented elsewhere on WP) you can achieve what should be a good balance here - a detailed article in mostly prose on the athlete's career, and a summary of their wins ala a filmography. This still keeps the option that rarely but not unheard of , one of these individual athletes will have a record-breaking year that could be treated as a separate article. However, that should be something that comes in time. I don't have any point of reference to give as example, but I would suspect one or more of Tiger Woods' earlier gold careers could fit that bill. No information is going anywhere, it's just refitted to better suit WP's approach. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)