Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 2

Golf: Competed in a major -> Made cut in a major

I don't think competing in a major should guarantee notability. My argument is that a local club pro who competes once in the US open as an amateur, and finishes last should not be considered notable just because he competed int the US open. He is likely to only have local media coverage. Basically majors that have local qualifying contain non-notable participants. I am OK with the masters guaranteeing notability because it only allows for the top 2 players in the national amateur championship entry (plus the winner of the public linx and a few international amateurs). It does not allow in non-notable club pros and scratch golfersMATThematical (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this change. The events also have invitations that can be given at the discretion of the managing body, which could in theory include anyone, so that should not automatically confer notability. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the concept of this entirely of Notability Sport, but if we are going to do this, I would like it to be if a golfer is a member of the PGA Tour or any of its affiliates, LPGA Tour or any of its affiliates, European Tour or any of its affiliates, LET Tour or any or its affiliates, or any other major golf tour around the world. I am an inclusionist by nature, which notability is always deceptive and is in the eye or eyes of the beholder.69.137.120.81 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You should not have to win to justify notability, such as Ian Garbutt.69.137.120.81 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your complaint here, we do not require a win (a win does get you in though if you do not meet any of the other requirements). Ian Garbutt would be deemed notable by several of the standards in the golf section, including his amateur win, and making the cut at the open championship. MATThematical (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the "make the cut" boundary. It is quite common for very unnotable golfers to get wild cards into major events. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tennis

I took a stab at the tennis section, but as I don't follow much tennis, I could easily be wrong about the criteria. I think the first two are OK, but there likely need to be a few more points added. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've just (1) amended it to mention WTA Tour examples as well; (2) clarify that it applies equally to doubles players; and (3) specifically excluded junior events. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Australian Football

I've had a crack at AFL. Comments welcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cycling

I've had a crack at cycling. Comments welcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Added Gymnastics Section

Perhaps the most controversial requirement is that in order to be deemed notable I required that one must compete in the Olympics on either a medaling team, or in the individual all around or event finals. I figure since gymnastics is a team sport it doesn't necessarily make sense to grant notability to someone who just competes for a non notable team. Maybe medaling team is too strict. Feel free to modify this requirement. Also I have split up international competitions that should require a win and those that should require a medal, because some are more prestigious than others. -MATThematical (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The key word is compete, right? Merely showing up as part of a designated team is insufficient for notability, correct? If so, I support this. The problem, as mentioned earlier, is finding a reference to support that Billy Bob not only showed up for the Olympics team in "Free Style Wrestling" but actually met judges criteria for competing. Not sure how this works for non-field activities. Student7 (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

In gymnastics this would be really easy to determine, because everyone's score on the team is kept track of. I agree that it may be tough for other sports.128.84.60.119 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Current

The word current should be struck from all entries on this list. There is nothing "current" about wikipedia. If someone attained this level of excellence at any point in history, our natural current focus should not exclude them. Granted our documentation for current activities is better, but even if the current agencies were not in place in previous times, some credible source was keeping the statistics then it should still be valid. Most of the records and statistics we keep today emanated from someone else starting the process years ago.Trackinfo (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

College football

The sentence "Current college football players are notable if are a key starter for a major Division-A school." is much too broad. Only the best players on the best teams are likely to be notable. The linesmen, kickers, etc. are unlikely to be notable in any way.

• If they don't go pro (most don't) there is no reason why we should have a permanent "biography" on a short period of their life (unless they go on to do notable things outside of football).
• These are college players, not professionals, so we should presume they are not notable unless they draw media attention independent of their team.
• Notability is permanent - there should be no difference in notability standards for current and former players.
• For most college players there will not be enough biographical information available to write a decent article that covers the person apart from their football participation.

So for college players who have not yet gone pro, I think it's enough to limit articles to players who have won major awards or have been the subject of multiple articles in national (not local) publications, where those articles focus on the individual person, not the team. We can cover other players as part of the article on their team, splitting out the player article when the player goes pro or wins a major award. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly accept that proposal, it is too broad in my opinion. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 01:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just don't like the wording of "current players" used on both the college football and college basketball sections. That leads to articles being created and deleted rapidly. Spanneraol 04:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I used CBM crtiria here, it is too broad, and notabilty is permanent. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 16:22, 5 Septembr 2007 (UTC)

I think these things have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. You might think, for example, that a college offensive lineman is not notable. But I used to live in a mid-size, football-crazy town in an equally football-crazy state. An offensive lineman from this town went on to play at the big state university. There were several articles written about this guy in the local paper, and the guy was certainly mentioned in big-city newspaper reports about the college team. So an article on the subject would meet criteria for verifiability and reputable sources. Who are we, then, to say that the article doesn't belong? -- Mwalcoff 22:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The entire point of notability guidelines is to say what articles don't belong. The point of WP:BLP is that we err on the side of privacy for people whose notability is in doubt. Remember that notability is permanent - we should ask "has this person done anything so that he or she will be notable in ten years". If the answer is "no" then we shouldn't have an article on that person. I have more detailed reasoning at the top of this section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of what CBM said - notability extends beyond the realm of "one town." If they are only of note to people in a specific community, then they do not meet general notability standards. JmFangio| ►Chat  22:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue of privacy, which is the major intention of WP:BLP (along with preventing libel). We're dealing with people's athletic careers, not their personal lives. We simply repeat information that's already been published in media guides, team websites, local media, etc. Regarding JmFangio's comment: A major-college football player is notable to his entire state and to the entire world of American football. The question is whether there is enough indepedent verifiable information on the person. A player's hometown paper is a source of such information. -- Mwalcoff 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• In taking some liberty on what you mean, I assume you think of a "major college football player" as someone like Bo Jackson or Peyton Manning or Patrick White (American football). These people are clearly notable (even absent the NFL careers of the first two). To use your example, let's take a player from a small town in Indiana and let's assume that player attended the University of Notre Dame and played on their football team. If the town he comes from writes an article on him - it's not necessarily because the person is notable in the encyclopedic sense. Rather, it is a community where individuals are often noted in the local paper. Similarly, if the South Bend newspaper (I'm not sure of the name) says "John Football" appeared in a game; or, if the Chicago Tribune makes a reference to him in their college football section space dedicated to the univerity - the player is still not achieved a level of notability worthy of inclusion. In fact - notability on people says "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." JmFangio| ►Chat  04:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not a football guy, here, but I don't necessarily agree that a published description of a player's in-game actions necessarily constitutes trivial coverage. If anything, the reverse would seem to be true, particularly for an extended description. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Re "We're dealing with people's athletic careers, not their personal lives." These are college players, and most of them will never have an athletic career. They will play football for a few years and then move on to something else. If the only thing that we can say about the person is that they played college football, that isn't much of a biographical article. The very best players will be recognized by national media coverage or will win awards, and we can cover them then. The rest can be covered in articles about their teams.

The goal of our articles is permanency; we don't really want an article in 2030 that says "John Football was a starting lineman at Big Ten U for 4 years from 2003 to 2007. He won no major awards or recognitions during that time. He did not go on to professional football and now lives a private life in Idaho as the owner of a chain of car dealerships." — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a player who reveives only "trivial coverage," such as a mention in box scores, may not be notable. My grandfather was a backup guard for what we would now call a mid-major school back in the 30s and 40s and was mentioned in box scores, but I wouldn't consider him to be a "notable" football player. On the other hand, any starter at any position for a major college like a Michigan or a USC should be considered a pro prospect. I also disagree with CBM's assumption that a player who does not go pro has no athletic career. A "college career," as they call it, is an athletic career. I mean, take someone like Greg Frey, who was the starting quarterback for a season at Ohio State. The article's just a stub now, but it could certainly be expanded using newspaper articles from the era. Is he notable? I think so -- being Ohio State quarterback is a huge deal, at least in Ohio (which has 11 million people or so). -- Mwalcoff 23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Worrying about preventing articles based upon WP:BLP considerations are a red herring for any player on a major team such as Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc. If these people were afraid of the limelight, they would not have played for a well-known program. These are not privacy-seeking people with respect to their involvement in college football. We can deal with WP:BLP by careful about what goes into the article. Johntex\^talk 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) The Greg Frey article is exactly what I am trying to avoid. He is clearly not notable. His article makes no claims that he won any awards or recognition at Ohio State. He is now, apparently, a productive member of society but not notable as an assistant high school football coach. There is no reason why we should be the second hit on google [1] when people search for him. We should cover him in the article on the Ohio State team, not in his own article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I especially care but see also Greg Hare (speedied) and Rod Gerald (prodded). Thatcher131 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Being quarterback of Ohio State is a huge deal, and not just contemporaneously. I guarantee you more Ohioans can name the current Buckeyes quarterback than the name of the current lieutenant governor (Lee Fisher, for the record). Similarly, I'm sure more Ohioans remember Greg Frey than the contemporary lieutenant governor, Paul Leonard (outside of Dayton, where Leonard was once mayor). And yet we have articles on the all of the Ohio lieutenant governors since 1939. There are a lot of people out there who are interested in college football history, and while you might disagree with their choice of hobby, it's not really our place to decide what interests are legitimate which ones aren't. From my perspective, Paris Hilton has contributed nothing of worth to society, but we have an article on her, too. -- Mwalcoff 01:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Both the lieutenant governor and Paris Hilton has muliple non-trivial, national independent sources covering them, many of those players don't Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Though his article doesn't mention it, Greg Frey played for the Cleveland Thunderbolts in the Arena Football League[2], which would make him eligible even if his college career isn't notable. Spanneraol 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If playing for the Cleveland Thunderbolts is considered more notable than being the starting QB at Ohio State, there's something wrong with the proposed guidelines. Arena Football may be professional, but there's no question that Big Ten football ranks far higher on the football radar screen. -- Mwalcoff 23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea that anyone playing professional football is notable is a compromise that I won't argue too much against. But the idea that anyone playing college football is notable merely because their team is notable is not right and I will argue against that. It did turn out that Frey meets our standard of notability because of his pro career, but his college career alone does not warrant an article on him. It isn't our goal to have an article on every person who was ever in the news or on TV; we need to be more selective than that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Greg Fay is clearly notable, as is any person who ever played quarterback for Ohio State. The only exception to that statement would be someone who played so long ago that reliable references are not available. Any guideline that values Arena football players above players for major college football programs would be a terrible guideline. Far more people fill Darrell K. Royal - Texas Memorial Stadium each home game than fit into any Arena football venue, and more people watch college football on TV and read about it in the papers as well. Johntex\^talk 23:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

They should be avaliable, 1980s isn't that long Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Recent AFD concensus showed that quarterbacks who played for major confrences (like the ACC) are notable Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 20:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Fortunately, AFD discussions don't establish precedent. The point of this guideline is to do that, I think. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but being a starting quarterback on a Big Ten team is light years beyond the Arena Football League in terms of status, as any football fan can tell you. At Ohio State, Frey was playing in front of 90,000 fans and a national television audience; in the AFL, he was playing in front of 3,000 people and rarely any TV. -- Mwalcoff 22:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Let me be very clear that I am not saying that these players should not be covered in Wikipedia. They should be covered. I am saying that if the person is only notable for playing for a good school for a few years, but drew no special national acclaim beyond playing for that school, then it is really the school's team that is notable, not the person, and so the person should be covered in the article for the school's team. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • That does clear it up a bit. What it seems like you're getting at is that if the only information a given editor has on a college player is that he played 8 games and ran for 542 yards and four touchdowns, that information does not belong in a freestanding article. Rather, it can be put in an article like 1992 Ohio State Buckeyes football season or something. That makes sense and reminds me a lot of the compromise I came up with for Wikipedia:Candidates and elections, which is officially inactive but seems to still be used by some people as a guideline. The idea there was that if you only had a stub's worth of information about a candidate, the information should go into the article on the election rather than a freestanding article on the person. What you're saying is that because of the paragraph on Frey's post-college career, the article has extra information that can't go into an article on the relevant season and therefore requires an article of its own.
          • So I agree with you on the basic premise. Where we may differ is on when a freestanding article may or should be created. Personally, I feel that if an editor has enough independent, verifiable information on a starting D-IA player -- at least at a big-time program -- to go beyond what would be in the team article, a freestanding article is OK. -- Mwalcoff 06:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Sorry for the delay. I think it depends on having the right kind of coverage. Every QB gets covered in their local paper, whether they play for a big school or not. Even high school QBs get covered in their local paper. So in order for news coverage alone to establish notability, it would have to be pretty good coverage - like a feature story in a national magazine about the player. But players like that are probably good enough to get that sort of coverage will probably win awards anyway. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• The current wording is far too restrictive. It focuses too much on quarterbacks at the expense of players making important contributions at other positions. Also, there should be no difference in the requirements for a former player compared to a current player. We don't want to write good articles only to have them potentially deleted after the player graduates.

We need to allow articles on skilled-position players for all the major schools. Articles to those who have won awards or set school records is a little too confining. The number 2 receiver at a program like Texas Tech has still made a lot of receptions / yards / touchdowns.

We need to allow articles on assistant coaches for major schools. Whether or not they ever played in the NFL is completely irrelevant. If they are known for being a college coach, then that is what they are notable for. Johntex\^talk 22:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding players, I agree that we shouldn't have different standards for former and current players. If the player won't be notable in 10 years, they shouldn't have an article now. Unless the player is actually covered by national media or wins awards, what reason do we have to think that the player, above and beyond the team they play for, is notable?

The issue of coaches hasn't come up in this thread yet; I'd be interested in knowing what others think about them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "covered by national media". Graham Harrell is an example. He is clearly notable. He is "covered" by national media to the extent that they mention he is a candidate for awards, but he has not won the awards. I am not aware of any national articles that were specifically written about him exclusively.

Also, I think the reliance on "national media" is a problem. Small town newspapers are on thing, but if someone plays ball in Houston or Chicago and gets coverage in the Houston Chronicle or Chicago Tribune, those are reputable publications reaching an audience of hundreds of thousands of people. That is coverage enough. Johntex\^talk 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I agree with Johntex there, if the newspapers are obviously major, like the Chicago Tribune or the New York Times, etc, they are respectable national sources. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Definitely. Sources such as the Chicago tribune and the New York times are national media. However, if the person is only covered in the local section of the paper, that is different and probably up for debate. However, if they are covered in the sports section (not in a local subsection) it is clearly national coverage. MATThematical (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
        • This discussion has been cold for two and a half years, and several people involved in it have left the project. You'd probably have better luck starting a new topic header on the subject. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• FYI I've kicked this idea around a lot. There is an essay at WP:CFBN for review if anyone wants to jump in.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Martial arts

Some time back the Martial arts Project came up with a notability guide for martial arts related articles, its in the format of 'points to think about' with regard to the general notability guide but it would make sense to use it as a starting point & then integrate it here. --Nate^t/_c 08:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a good starting point. Can you propose a streamlined version of it on this page without all the commentary. I think its way too long and could be cut significantly, schools and styles could be combined into one section. Post a note on the talk page of that article to point out that its being considered for revisions here. - MATThematical (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth pointing out that the guide as written doesn't seem to apply to mixed martial arts, which should probably have a separate standard. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a condensed version here with a link to the existing WP:MANOTE would work well. As Hit bull, win steak points out, MA covers a lot of different sports forms - it would be too big to fit here. jmcw (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with jmcw. I believe WP:MANOTE has provided a good (and generally accepted) list of things for people to consider when writing or evaluating martial arts articles. I think it helps article writers when a project, any project, gives some guidance as to what notability is because it's a step towards more objective standards. Of course, everything is subject to WP:GNG. It is true that MMA could probably use their own set of benchmarks. (As an aside, I personally think that most MMA events shouldn't be listed since WP:GNG states "routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article.") Papaursa (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Add overarching modified WP:GNG clause

I would like to add a general section to this page, so we don't repeat things all over the place. I was thinking of adding "Unless otherwise stated below all Athletes are deemed notable if they meet WP:GNG with the additional requirement that the significant coverage be at the national or international level". Perhaps even call it something, so we can refer to it in the individual sports section. For example, football players who don't meet "what ever we call it" are deemed notable if they meet the following..." -- MATThematical 00:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be in favor of giving that a try. I've been thinking something similar, but I haven't been sure how exactly to word it, so I'd encourage us to develop something like this. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I asumed that would be at the top and it would be worded the same way that it is on the Notability (people) page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented DJSasso's suggestion as a starting point. We can work to make it more specific to athletes from there. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that looks good. I'd like to make a suggestion by way of making it more specific. Would it make sense to add a few more words to make clear the need for the secondary sources to be (1) non-local, and (2) more than just compendia of statistics? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The non-local etc is something that has to be settled at GNG because there is prescedence with that being enough for people like local politicians. I would leave that out for now since it is something that is very debatable. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, these kinds of concerns are why I brought it up in talk first, and there is going to be push-back against any such provision. However, I'd like all editors here to think hard about whether adding this would actually be helpful in settling perennial debate that has plagued ATH, and also in making clear that a home-town piece about a high-school athlete does not qualify for GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would support language along the lines of At least one source must be a non-local publication to establish notability. For the stats bit, I agree that we don't want a directory of stats. If it is impossible to write at least 3 paragraphs of prose about the player, then IMO he probably doesn't meet GNG, and we should tighten NSPORT to reflect that. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize the attempt is to stop the home town pieces on highschool athletes from happening, but remember this page is inclusionary not exclusionary. This page is meant to show who it can be assumed has the required sources to meet GNG even if you don't have them right at hand. Its not a page to layout people who can not have pages even though GNG says they can. Which is sort of what this wording would do. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I was actually referring to the wording I would support at GNG, I should have been more clear. I agree that we should have no wording here about sources, we are trying to establish what accomplishments guarantee those sources will exist. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 15:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries I should have been more clear. I was replying to Tryptofish. There shouldn't be any wording about sources. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not ready to accept that as settled. This thread starts with the question of whether there is anything that should be clarified as it applies to this guideline. The community is not going to accept a document from here if it is framed that it can only be inclusionary and therefore anything exclusionary has been left out. WP:GNG does not actually use words about local/non-local at this time, so it is a matter of interpretation of the language about independence. "Which is sort of what this wording would do": so that implies high school athletes might be able in fact to slip through GNG—why wouldn't we want to spell that out here? And as for compendia of statistics, again GNG has language about significant coverage that is subject to interpretation. Even if such interpretation has had some consensus over recent AfDs, it would simplify argument at future Afds if we make it as clear as we can here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the notability sub pages are sub-servant to GNG. They do not override GNG. The community will never accept a proposal where GNG is overruled. That has born out countless times at AFD where people try to use any of the various sub-pages as a reason to delete when the person already passes GNG. The sub-pages are to state when sources to meet GNG exist, not to say when you are notable enough. That is what GNG does. -DJSasso (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I am proposing, as with ACADEMIC, to make this page a clarification of GNG, not an override of it. GNG implies that minor, small-town news coverage is not enough to establish notability. Such sourcing is particularly likely to come up in athletic pages. I'm saying that it's helpful to make clear here how GNG applies to sourcing common in the subject. GNG implies that brief listings in compendia of statistics are not enough to establish notability. Such sourcing is particularly likely to come up in athletic pages. I'm saying that it's helpful to make clear here how GNG applies to sourcing common in the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Multi-sport events

Near the top it states that:

• (Unless noted within a specific section) Have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition such as the Olympics or Pan-American Games.

In my reading, this is a bit more lenient than what WP:ATH gives. If the guideline will contain sub-Olympic multi-sport events, I think they should be listed as a number of them could be considered to be on the same level as the Pan-American Games. Severo^TC 15:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think ath currently means anything that is on an international scale. So the things like the world championships, the olympics, the pan-am games, the commonwealth games etc. So I don't think this is any different. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. I agree that WP:ATH applies to the international scale, but that may not include area restricted competitions like the pan American games, the African games etc. I guess the wording is kind of vague. It is very common for participants in the pan American games to get no media coverage even in their home nation, especially for the lesser known sports. However, if this person competes in the Olympics or the world championships they will likely get coverage from at least their home nation. I think the key word in ATH is highest level, and that is usually meant to mean the Olympics or a meet of similar quality. In sports where the Americas are not very strong, mere participation in the Pan American Games may not mean someone is notable, however competition in the goodwill games, world champs, or Olympics might. I suggest we take pan American out of the nutshell, as that should be left between sports.MATThematical (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Olympians

Sorry to repeat everything but I am late to this discussion. Authorizing notability for Olympics participation seems obvious to Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc. with lots of competition. But what about "Downhill slalom" for Panama? Pentathlon for Patagonia (not a country, but you catch my drift)? It does not seem to me that all athletes, by merely qualifying for the Olympics FROM their country are quite on the same footing. There are qualifying rounds at the Olympics themselves which weed out the slow performers sent by wannabe countries, often at the athletes own expense. It seems to me that the person should be notable only after "qualifying" AT the Olympics itself. Not merely being a member of a national team. The problem here is that it is difficult to obtain WP:RELY footnotes to sustain an entry. Publicity surrounds a person who is sent, but not if s/he fails qualification. Student7 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is something I've considered as well. I would imagine, though, that an Olympian would have coverage, even if not qualifying for the final. The coverage may not be in English, but I would guess that in Panama, there would be a lot of national coverage for their downhill slalom contender. If the press is anything like in the U.S., then they would undoubtedly have in depth coverage of their whole life. It would likely vary from sport to sport, though. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is also the perfect issue to handle in the new sports specific page. There is some discussion for track that one must compete in the Olympics by qualifying with the B standard. In Gymnastics I made it so that you have to either be on a medaling team, or make the individual all around or an individual event finals. In skating perhaps a good rule of thumb would be that they have to compete in both the short and free skate programs (only the top 25 make it to the free skate out of either 30 or 35) -- MATThematical 14:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For Athletics, an athlete must attain a "B" Standard in order to compete . . . with the exception that a country can enter one athlete if they don't have anyone who has a B Standard. So the athlete, poor of quality on the worldwide basis, would still be notable as their country's only entry in Olympics. Mehboba Ahdyar for an example. OK, she became a bigger story from her disappearance. There IS a story behind these things. In other Olympic sports, you'll end up with Shiva Keshavan or the Jamaica national bobsled teamTrackinfo (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The feeling at WP:OLY is that any athlete that competes at the Games in any sport is deemed notable. As has already been pointed out coverage will be out there, even if not in English, and additionally sites like sports-reference carry detailed results for all Olympic appearences often with short biographies of athletes. Basement12 (T.C) 14:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify a misconception that appears to form the foundation of some of the notability arguments above. Qualifying for the Olympics is not as simple as a country sending an athlete. In nearly every sport the athlete must meet minimum international qualification standards. So in the example of the downhill slalom skier from Panama, that skier would have to accumulate enough points in FIS-sanctioned races to qualify. Here [3] is an article about a skier from Madagascar who did compete at the 2010 Vancouver Games because he had received enough points. Regarding the athletics example, as Trackinfo said, countries can send up to three participants who achieve the A standard or one participant who acheives the B standard. Nations that have no athletes that meet the B standard can can send one athlete to compete in one athletics event at a Summer Games. Here [4] is a reference for this information. The A and B standards are set for all athletes around the world by the IAAF. I would therefore agree with Basement12 that any athlete who qualifies for the Olympics is in the elite class for their sport/event and so should be considered notable simply for acheiving that status. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related note WP:OLY would also like to include our thoughts on notablility for Olympic events and nations competing at the Games in these guidelines. The proposal we have would read something like the following:

• Athletes from any sport are considered notable if they have competed at either the Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games. e.g. Ian Thorpe
• Nations participating at an individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics
• Sports at individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics or Wheelchair curling at the 2010 Winter Paralympics
• Events at individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's

For details on suggested content for the above article types see Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style.

There is already an unwritten consensus for having these articles but this would be a good place to formalise it. Does anyone have any issue with the above or any idea of how/where to incorporate them into the guidelines? Basement12 (T.C) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I should also add that pulling the rug out from less-competitive Olympians from non-traditional countries is contrary to the (worthy, IMO) goals of WP:CSB. I would oppose any proposal that we do so. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sure that isn't the intent of the editors above, your statement is well said and important to consider when deciding the notability of Paralympic/Olympic athletes. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I still have issues with merely participating in the Olympics being enough for their own article. There were over ten thousand athletes in Beijing. The example of Ian Thorpe is an exception, as the guy falls under WP:GNG. Most participants in the Olympics do not accomplish anything beyond making it there and have zero coverage in any media. This results in perma-stub article with nothing beyond name and affiliation. A more representative "Olympic athlete" could be Fatma-Zohra Oukazi, member of the Algerian women's volleyball team at the Beijing olympics. Did Algeria win anything in that competition? evidently not (it finished in 11th place according to this article: Algeria women's national volleyball team). Is there any info available anywhere to expand the Fatma-Zohra Oukazi beyond the stub it is? I doubt it. Without WP:ATH, would the article survive any deletion process (speedy, proposed and discussion)? Highly unlikely, because the individual is not notable by any reasonable criteria. There's a reason why WP:PROF asks for more than making it to a tenured position, I don't see why we should make the bar so low for athletes.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As an Olympian at the top level of her sport the sources will be out there even if they aren't in English. A quick search for your example of Fatma-Zohra Oukazi yields [5] [6] [7] [8]. It seems her club were champions of Africa in 2009 and runners-up in 2008 and that she won an award for best player at her position. The point about showing bias against the less successful nations is important; there isn't a single British Olympian, no matter how badly they do, that I wouldn't be able to write a well sourced article on given a bit of time and I can't believe that the same would not be true for an athlete of any other nation. Basement12 (T.C) 20:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Neat. But can you do the same for every member of that team? I wouldn't mind stub articles if there's at least one source beyond evidence of participation in the Olympics. Something along the line of showing that there is some sort of significance of coverage, to insure a modicum of quality in the athlete articles (and some meat beyond athlete A was in Olympics B). The changes to Fatma-Zohra Oukazi are improvements, but half are actually about her team's result in Beijing, not about her in particular. This information should be covered already by Algeria women's national volleyball team.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't added anything from the new sources to the article yet, merely tidied up what was already there, I've placed links to the stories I found on the talk page to be used later. The point of these guidelines is to outline athletes for whom it should be possible to find sources and information; so yes, in my opinion it should be very possible to do the same for every member of the team and thus the guidelines need to allow for them all. I find it very hard to believe that the press and media outlets in any given country wouldn't provide some detailed coverage of their Olympians Basement12 (T.C) 23:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:GNG issues of local/national coverage

So far there have been arguments saying that local coverage is granted in WP:GNG, and that overrides anything. I'm a bit confused here. WP:Academic seems to be exclusionary, our page is inclusionary, which I for the most part agree with. But why can't are article have both exclusionary and inclusionary clauses. Why can't just for athletes we require non-local coverage, but academics are allowed to have a whole bunch of clauses used to exclude WP:GNG guidelines. I don't see how this is a WP:GNG issue. Could we make the high school athlete section be the only exclusionary clause in the essay, requiring coverage to be non local. MATThematical (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The High School section ALREADY states that they must have done something nationally recognized to be included. I still dont see the issue about the local thing... local only coverage is already not accepted... why do we need to restate that? Spanneraol (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to gain language that notability claims that arise from "narrow" coverage (which can include highly specific geographical coverage as well as some niche topics) are likely not to pass for notability. That is, a high-schooler athlete that is only covered by local press will not likely be notable per the GNG - taking the onus off NSPORT to make that assertion. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I share Matt's and Masem's concerns, and note that they also are being discussed above, in the #Proposal: Add overarching modified WP:GNG clause thread. Although high school athletes are where the issue is most acute, I think a case can and should be made that this should apply to this entire page. And I think the inclusionary-only concept is a problem. It is really arbitrary, since we are trying to develop a guideline that will solve the problems of ATH, not perpetuate them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Anything exclusionary has to be taken up at GNG and not on any of these subpages. The purpose of the notability sub pages are just to end the endless arguments on if sources exist for people where they clearly do but aren't easy to find in the internet age. They are not to create a bar higher than GNG that someone has to pass. -DJSasso (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the Notability sub-pages are exclusionary. Some people try to use them that way, but their purpose is only to state when the sources to meet GNG are likely to exist and that you only need to find them which could be digging through microfilm or going through 300 year old archives. As for the worry about the high school athletes, that section already has wording so as to make sure they have done something of a national scope. -DJSasso (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to state that this page is supplementary rather than inclusionary/exclusionary. WP:ACADEMIC judges the notability (by notability we always mean coverage in secondary sources) of academics by the impact of their work. The goal of this page is to become the counterpart to WP:ACADEMIC, allowing us to judge athletes by their accomplishments in the sports world. This should always err on the side of caution; some notable athletes will not meet the requirements of this page. That's fine, since there's always WP:GNG. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And that is fine, but what Masem and Tryptofish seem to want to do is that if a player doesn't meet this page then they don't get an article. And that was clearly shot down in the Rfc. -DJSasso (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. What am I saying is that any topic, not just sports players, is very unlikely to be considered notable if the only sources that discuss the topic in depth are local sources. That means that NSPORT should read as "a player is considered notable if they meet the GNG or one of the criteria below", with the understanding that the GNG already discludes local athletes because of this language. If a player that doesn't meet the resulting criteria still gets wide non-local coverage (like I think LeBron did in high school), they are still notable by the GNG. Thus, it is not necessary for NSPORT to worry about excluding local sports but should only focus on criteria that involve the highest level of play. --MASEM (t) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's important here not to get too far away from the original intent behind these policies. We're trying to make sure that the information on these people is reliable and verifiable. If local sources can help accomplish that goal, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be used in an article. And as an added point, sources from local coverage across a wide range of disparate localities are just as good at demonstrating notability as a national source that reaches those same localities. So local sources are not prima facie irrelevant when considering issues of notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Very true, which is why the language towards the GNG or whereever just needs to be clear that coverage only by local sources in the same focused area is not likely good for notability; local sources can still be used to supplement a notable topic otherwise shown as such from broader sources. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If that is what you mean then yes I have no problem with that. As long as this page isn't trying to override GNG then I am fine. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that wasn't what I said either. As I said in the thread above, the purpose here should be to make clear what does (or does not) satisfy GNG, as it applies to the kinds of sourcing likely to be cited in these kinds of pages. It is not about overriding GNG. It's about clarifying it, spelling it out. The overall problem all along has been that GNG, because it has to apply across all subjects, is vague about some kinds of sourcing. Some of this vagueness has been particularly apparent with respect to athletic sourcing. ATH is criticized because it fails to clarify these ambiguities, and ambiguities are used to argue that something satisfies GNG when it really does not. Here, we should resolve that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think this page should do any of those things. It's up to GNG to be clear on if local sources are enough or not. The current discussion on GNG seems to be favoring locals sources to be enough. I think there are many cases where local sources are enough. Especially if you go farther back in time, I think it would be a very bad idea to say they are no good. Which is why I think this is an issue that should be decided at GNG and not ATH. Because it can't be enough for some and not enough or others. -DJSasso (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do think that as long as the GNG gains the assertion that notability via only-local-sources is not going to cut it, then all NSPORT needs to say is a reminder after all the points that local, sub-pro athletes, even though they may gain coverage by many local sources, are usually not going to meet the GNG requirement for notability requiring broader coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, I would agree with what Masem says, but look at how, just above, DJSasso says that the opposite is taking place at GNG (current discussion seems to be favoring local sources as enough). The fact is, GNG is necessarily vague. And that's just fine with the editors who are fans of sports pages, because they can use that vagueness to justify inclusion. Someone has a gush piece in the minor local press, and a brief mention in a list of statistics—do we really want to say that satisfies GNG? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A gush piece in a local newspaper would not be enough even under current the current GNG. GNG requires you to have articles from multiple sources. How many local highschoolers are going to have gush pieces in multiple local newspapers that would qualify as an RS. People keep acting like a single write up in one local news paper passes GNG. But it doesn't it requires write ups in multiple papers. Even multiple write ups in the same paper are not enough. -DJSasso (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Masem said simply that it would be helpful to have a reminder of that. I agree. Apparently, you do not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually his direct quote is "Thus, it is not necessary for NSPORT to worry about excluding local sports but should only focus on criteria that involve the highest level of play." -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to "then all NSPORT needs to say is a reminder...", just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And the rest of that section says "as long as the GNG gains the assertion that notability via only-local-sources is not going to cut it". We can't give a reminder on something that doesn't exist yet. There like here, the people seem to be having issue with restricting local sources. Because some localities are bigger than others. For example some cities are bigger than entire countries. But you would accept a national paper in a small country over a local paper in a large city. At some point you have to trust the people at AFD to not be idiots and to know when the sources are enough. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Which I pointed out, about the rest of what that said. About the large city, small country thing, that's something I'm perfectly happy to discuss and fix. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This talk thread started with what I think are some very valid and reasonable questions, and I'm afraid that it has gotten sidetracked with hairsplitting in a way that merely distracts from the useful issues at hand. Let me ask two very straightforward questions:

1. Do we feel that an athletic bio should be considered notable if all of the sourcing available is in the form of locally-written gush pieces?
2. Do we feel that an athletic bio should be considered notable if all of the sourcing available is in the form of entries in lists of statistics?

It seems to me that one can have an opinion either way on these, on the merits, but I would come down strongly on the side of saying that the answers to both questions ought to be "no". It also seems to me that saying "no" is entirely consistent with what GNG already says, and is not carving out any kind of new ground. However, the mandate (such as it is) to develop the NSPORT guideline as a possible replacement for ATH calls for making NSPORT clear on issues that have been problematically vague in ATH. The argument keeps coming up that the sky will fall if we say anything here that is remotely exclusionary. That argument is incorrect. ACADEMIC has exclusionary content, and no laws of thermodynamics will be broken if we say something (mildly!) exclusionary here. The argument keeps coming up that the sky will fall if we say anything here that could not, in principle, have been said instead in GNG. That argument too is incorrect. ACADEMIC spells some things out that go beyond GNG, and we can certainly spell some things out here too, if we feel that they are justified on the merits. So the question comes down to how one would answer those two questions I posed here. If one wants to answer "yes" to them, then say so, but please do not obfuscate the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that academic has exclusionary text. But that isn't true the very lead says that academics can still be notable if they meet none of things listed below if you meet the normal criteria for notability. Again this page is only intended to be a list of when you can assume that the sources exist. Not what level of sources you need. As for your questions, they are worded in such a way that you are forced to answer no. A local gush piece, no of course that isn't good. But a local well written journalistic piece, yes that can be a valid source. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

ACADEMIC has text that makes clear that certain kinds of sourcing that might appear to pass GNG are not sufficient to establish notability. I'm glad that you agree with me that the answers to my questions are "no", whether forced or not. I'm very receptive to taking into account such things as what distinguishes a good local source from an inadequate one. I take it you have no modifications to suggest with respect to statistics? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rugby League

First grade NRL or ESL (or equivalent in times past), or international representation. This is pretty much the standard for the other code of rugby as well. Keeps the lower grade players out, who may well be deserving of articles as lower tier comps in England and Australia are televised and recieve good viewing figures. No change, else to open up for more rugby league articles, although I don't believe this would gain much support, even within the community.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this - as long as it says you must have entered the field in a first-grade match rather than merely being a member of a first grade squad. Perhaps with a footnote that both Super League and ARL count for the 1997 season. Also, do we need to be a bit more restrictive for international representation? I've seen quite a few ridiculuous "international matches" in rugby league... --Mkativerata (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot of pre-Broncos Queensland players who played at state and national level would be rendered non-notable by this criteria. Perhaps a slight rethink? --Falcadore (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry any non-junior representative team automatically qualifies a player for an article, I would certainly see no reason for a shift from that.This deal is getting worse all the time. (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can improve the current text of the rugby league guideline. In particular, points 1 and 2 overlap, and I don't think reserve grade players should be included. How about:

• 1. Have played in a first grade match of the National Rugby League or Super League, or their earlier iterations.
• 2. Have represented their country in a competitive international fixture.
• 3. Have represented New South Wales or Queensland. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the above might be a bit restrictive. What about when there was a Rugby Football League Championship Second Division, would that not be regarded as notable. Also, would the Queensland Rugby League be regarded up to a certain year, and what about leagues in France? Also, what does a competitive fixture mean - only World cups? Should it be reworded to say 'full' international. Eldumpo (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Have domestic football in France or the QRL ever been fully professional (as opposed to semi-pro)? If not, extending the guideline to those leagues would take it beyond WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of this NSPORTS approach was to ultimately move away from WP:ATH and not be tied to its wording? That said, the Rugby league in Queensland article refer to the QRL being professional. Eldumpo (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I wondered if the criteria for referee might be improved if it also takes account of being selected for major games (origin, finals, internationals). LunarLander // talk // 23:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

On the media journalist one add something like "or writer" to the end LunarLander // talk // 23:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaelic games

I am going to delete this section for now. Lets discuss it here on the talk page. Are we really saying that anyone who participates in the Gaelic games in any sport at just the county level of a single country is notable. I highly doubt that this is the highest level of the sports in question, maybe for some, but probably not for most. Lets discuss. MATThematical (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"Gaelic games players who have

• Played at senior inter county level in the League or Championship"

Inter county is the highest level of Gaelic games. There are internationals but they are hybrid sports and don't really count. Gnevin (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that county competition is the highest level at the gaelic games, but does everyone who competes even for one second and the gaelic games get significant written media coverage. I am not familar with the event but it seems like many of the sports competed at the gaelic games are also competed at the olympics or world championships, I would think that the gaelic games is not as high of a level as the olympics, am I wrong on this? -MATThematical (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes your wrong. Gaelic games , really refers to Gaelic football ,Hurling and to a lesser extent Gaelic handball none of which are Olympic or world championship. We are setting guidelines here not hard and fast rules. If someone played for a second then they are probably not notable Gnevin (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I think we may be in agreement here. I have a few questions though before we put it back in? Do any of these sports have professional leagues? Is the Gaelic games at the county level the highest level of these sports? For example is the All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship at a higher or lower level than the gaelic games for hurling? Or perhaps my confusion lies that the conditions were placed in the wrong section, and that the gaelic games were meant to be in the sport notability section and not the amateur event section. The way it read to me was that the conditions were sectioned implied to me that the Gaelic games were an event, such as the Asian Games. It looks like these sports get enough media coverage, but I am an outsider so I am not sure whether what I am seeing is from the Gaelic games or something else. Thanks for the clarification. MATThematical (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

None of these are professional and county level is the highest. Can you rephrase than the gaelic games for hurling? Gaelic games is just the collective name for several sports originating in Ireland and run by the GAA. Gnevin (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I now fully understand the confusion. Gaelic games was put under the amateur people section. Curently the professional section has all the amateur sports as well. For some reason I thought it was an event like the Asian games, that included all the gaelic sports.MATThematical (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Added Section: Athletics/Track and field

Added this section mainly based on the notability essay I wrote for the Athletics community a few days ago. Perhaps the number 50 feels arbitrary, but I chose this number based on the fact that this is the average number of athletes the olympics allow in per event (some events more, some events less), hence a mark within the top 50 athletes at the end of the season is more notable than showing up to the olympics, so I thought this was a pretty strict number, feel free to debate it here. In general feel free to discuss this new section or edit the main section of the article.MATThematical (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

OK based on people's edits it seems like we are going to have to reach some sort of concensus here. Lets please keep in mind that we want to be somewhat consistent across all mainstream sports. I will break this up into a discussion on what appears to be the two contraversial clauses of the athletics section

2. competition in a major international event

Originally I had "competed at a major elite level international competition (i.e. a golden league meet)", yet some editors want this to be stricter. This would be to make the track qualifications way more exclusive than other sports to gain notability. Perhaps there was a mis understanding because I used the golden league meet as and example, which is harder to get into than the Olympics. Is it really the intention of the editor to require people to win at the olympics or an event of considerable standing. I think that currently people are using the track guidelines to change competing in the highest level of their sport to something else. I in the meantime have changed the condition to compete in the finals (which is a compromise), but I believe this way too strict. I would be able to compromise to change it to semi-finals to eliminate people who just show up. However, it seems that any Olympic competitor is going to meet WP:BIO/GNG if enough research is done. -MATThematical (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Perhaps we should have a separate clause for world championships and Olympics and other high level international meets? Is this the problem, or is the problem that people want to challenge the basic concept of WP:ATH style guidelines across the board here. Above I assumed that the misunderstanding was how high level the golden league meet is. I would say that requiring a top 2 finish at a highest level international competition is like requireing an American football player to make the starting lineup of the all star team. MATThematical (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Just one remark: "Has competed in the Olympics or World Championships" should perhaps read "Has competed in the Olympics or senior World Championships", where "World Championships" means IAAF World Championships (see disambig created minutes ago by me), not just IAAF World Championships in Athletics. GregorB (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point, that is certainly what I meant since the second to last condition requires one to win the age group (i.e. youth, junior, or masters) world championship in order to be notable under a world championships clause. I fixed the wording and the link upon your suggestion.-MATThematical (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

4. within the top X individuals in the annual leading marks list

"4. Owns a mark that placed the athlete within the top X individuals on the world-leading list at the end of any calendar year"

lets come to a consensus for a good X. I originally posed 50 because that is about the number of participants per event at the Olympics. This was immediately chopped down to 10 by another editor, which seems arbitrary. Some baselines would be 12 the average number of athletes per final at the olympics (I think this is a bit harsh sense these athletes will be on average way better than the top 12 at the Olympics), 20-25 the average number of athletes at the semi-finals in an event at the Olympics, or 50 the average number of athletes per event at the Olympics. -MATThematical (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Any number will be arbitrary; but it definitely shouldn't be higher than 20, and probably lower. Plus, "any calendar year" isn't nearly good enough. It's only good if the event is/was really contested, which many events historically weren't. (Practically any event in say 1860s, for example women's pole vault until about 15 years ago, and weirdo events even today.) If we want to keep this at all, we have to make something like "if the event in question already had been part of, or admitted into, the Olympics or World Championships and hasn't since been removed." (Removed in this case excludes events that were immediately replaced with a very similar event not removed in turn, like women's 80m hurdles or outdoor pentathlon.) Sideways713 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sideways713, who did a better job than I did of articulating what I was trying to get at when I made the edit to X=10. I think it should be something less than 20 over all years. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes made by Sideways713

I made plenty of changes to this - I'm listing all these here so they can be discussed if necessary:

• Scrapped "has been ranked number one in the world at the end of a calendar year within their age group". In my experience, this doesn't bring nearly as much notability as a (youth/junior) world champ medal - any medal - supposing "ranked #1" is to be understood as having the best mark at the end of the year. It's just a very obscure stat even hardcore track&field nuts probably won't notice. Besides which, "age group" is a bit ambiguous. Does it mean the IAAF definition of Youth/Junior/Senior?
• Included "has won a medal at European Athletics Championships, European Athletics Indoor Championships or Commonwealth Games" - anybody who medals at any of those is clearly notable. (We definitely need a similar standard for US, NCAA, Russian/Soviet champions etc., though "US champion" has meant a lot of things in the past and currently means the winner in a meet where only placing in the top 3 really matters. Anyway, it's hard to explain why we should do that for US and not, say, Gibraltar.)
• Replaced "Owns a mark that placed the athlete within the top 25 individuals on the world-leading list at the end of any calendar year" with "Owns a mark that placed within the top 10 in the world for that year in an outdoor event then part of (or admitted into) the Olympics or IAAF World Championships and not removed since" per my reasoning above.
• Stipulated that world/continental records must be "ratified or noted by the appropriate official body" - makes it clearer we don't want junk records, not-really-records or 1850s shot-puttish records, though it's a bit unclear what "noted" means. (And what about world youth bests, which aren't officially records?)
• Didn't do anything to Has finished top 5 in a major international competition (for example an IAAF Golden League/IAAF Diamond League meet or a Major Marathon) but that badly needs a revision. Top 5 is completely arbitrary - different standards should be required for different events and meets - a time frame is completely lacking (were marathons currently major always major? What about say Fukuoka Marathon, which was clearly one of the most prestigious marathons around once?) And in addition, there's plenty of room for loopholes. IAAF GL/DL meets have been known to hold non-notable national events as part of the meet. You could argue those aren't "international" - but add one random semi-notable foreigner and they suddenly are...
• Made it "[marks] currently listed on the IAAF senior all time list." I'm not sure if this was the original intention, but I'm not convinced junior marks - let alone youth marks - are sufficiently notable.

Sideways713 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to make the wording more precise, and I agree with a lot of the edits. I do like some of the edits, but disagree with others. First, lets try and get to the general philosophy of WP:T&F. The idea is to grant notability to those who are likely to be covered by major (in print) sources even if they do not come up in a Google search beyond mere stats mentions. So lets go through your edits 1 by 1:

1. the Euros etc: I agree with this edit and think that combinding 3 and 4 is a good idea, so that they are both medalled. This makes sense because the international golden league races are just as competitive if not more so, than the Euros. We might also want to add the asian games here, although more most events this isn't as competive (since there are not as many asian countries that send multiple athletes). As far as the loophole goes, I guess we could give an explanation of what international means. But remember it says major international not just international. I think the current explanation suffices.
2. Developing similar guidelines for US, NCAA, Russia, etc.: for some events this may make sense, but for others any given country may not have any good athletes, with the exception of a few events. One way to get around this would be to say National senior champions who also have a mark on the senior world leading list. MATThematical (talk)
3. Top 10 on the leading list: We need to make it clear that this means top 10 people and not top 10 marks. Often one person will own all 10 or close to all 10 of the top 10 marks. I also think that if we want a number less than 25, 12 is less arbitrary as it is number of athletes in the average finals of the Olympics. Why does the event have to stay an olympic event though. That makes no sense, if you are notable you are notable, it does not change with time. I won't remove an olympic event (as it implies to one time an olympic event) but I think this should go as well.

Overall I liked your edits. Please check my changes MATThematical (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Im not so sure about my comment about national champions. Any notable national champion (or top 3 finisher I might add) is going to make it to the Olympics or world championships of that given year, with the exception of the single off even year. I guess my comment would make sense for that year. Top 3 is meaningless in this year anyways.MATThematical (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

The reason why I stipulated the event has to be and stay in the Olympics/World Champs was to get rid of junk events where even the #1 mark for a year doesn't mean much. Take some old events like, say, the 10 mile walk from 1908 Olympics. That wasn't big, even in its own time, and making the top list didn't mean much. That's why it was discontinued. Currently, nobody competes in it; if somebody - anybody - did, he'd automatically make top 10 for that year and become "notable." It could be you or me. Stipulating the event had to be in the Olympics/World Champs already gets rid of junk from the early times (say 1860s in all events, and way later for some - women's PV marks from the 1980s just aren't notable). Events that were in the Olympic program, to stay, can quite safely be assumed reasonably seriously contested.
In running events, we should allow equivalent performances over corresponding imperial distances somehow. Sideways713 (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Any number is completely arbitrary. Why "average number of Olympic finalists"? I just don't see why that's supposed to be meaningful... Anyway, the average number of Olympic finalists across all events is 10.63 (excluding straight finals, which push the number off the charts, and supposing no extra qualifiers in field events or via protests) and has been various other, equally unmeaningful things in the past. I don't have anything against 12 but don't understand this argument for it. Sideways713 (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you said "number of athletes in the average Olympic final" rather than "average number of athletes in an Olympic final", which might mean something different. But I still don't get why it should be meaningful... and a good 42 per cent of events that aren't straight finals have 8 finalists. Sideways713 (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah instead of calculating the mean number of athletes per final, I took the number of athletes in the median final. I guess this is just as arbitrary as 10 though. I just think 10 is a very tough standard, the idea is to pick a number such that any athlete above that number is going to satisfy condition 1 if you look hard enough. I personally think any athlete that has a top 25 mark will satisfy this but perhaps not for the offbeat events. Do you really only think the top 10 will. Maybe top 15? top 20? MATThematical (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with 12, but keep in mind that the bulk of all athletes are historical and the sport has changed a lot. Today, anyone in the top 12 (in current Olympic events) is individually notable and in all probability good to go under WP:GNG (which makes this a bit redundant considering the current criterion #1, no?) Back in the day, we could be talking some talented US college boy who dabbled in the sport for a couple of years, maybe got some local attention, perhaps placed 4th in the NCAA x yards and then quit without ever competing internationally. Sideways713 (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Added a national championship clause. The reason for 100 is because there will be a lot of repeat marks (there are only probably about 50 athletes in the top 100). There is a lot more repeats as you move up the top so top 50 may be too harsh, but I would be willing to go lower than 100, basically chose it because its a respectable mark if you look at the lists, and the national championship is likely to give them notability if they achieve anything remotely respectable. Certainly the national champion will get national coverage. -MATThematical (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's good for today, but the problem is the early times, when the fields were thinner and 100 was quite a lot. Of course, the very earliest times predate both reliable lists and IAAF, but that's another problem more than it's a solution.
Take Charles Kilpatrick, for example. He's currently a redlink, but I'd definitely say he's notable enough for an article. It's not currently clear if he makes our cut: he's probably good for GNG, but the sources will be 1890s newspapers; his best performances predate the Olympics; he made a world record, but that wasn't ratified by the appropriate official body (IAAF) due to IAAF not existing; he was US champion, but though he would have been well in the global top 100, there was no global top 100 list for him to be well in; he's not even in the National Track and Field Hall of Fame.
I think he does make the cut by a whisker as 800 had already been admitted into the Olympics by his later years, but push him back a few years and it's suddenly very unclear. Then, of course, that would be a hypothetical problem; and the clearly notable athletes that do predate the Olympics tend to make the cut on GNG. Sideways713 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the number of repeats varies hugely by event. In something like the marathon there are almost no repeats. In my opinion, it would (if we do it this way at all) be better to tie it to a given rank not counting repeats; say top 30. Sideways713 (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that statement about going with rank instead. 30 may be harsh for the sprinting events that have a lot of people from the same country (for example the womens 100 has 17 women from the USA in the top 25, and only 8 countries are represented in the top 30, extending that to 50 adds at least 5 or so more countries). Unfortunately 30 might make better sense for the middle distance races such as the 800 which seems to be very diverse. Overall I think we should go with the higher number to error on the side of caution, after all they have to win their national championship too.MATThematical (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your new edits, except perhaps for one I'm confused about, what do you mean by admitted Olympic event. Do you mean if an event is going to be in future Olympics? I think the top 12 in a calendar year should only apply to events that are in the Olympics or world championships in that given calendar year, or if no WC or Olympics is competed that year the event must be competed at the nearest future WC or Olympics. This would make your 100 mile race walk example only notable for those who competed in it while it was actually a recognized event. I don't know how to say this without being overly long, but I may give it a try. MATThematical (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Age group records

I think we should replace "has at any time held a world or continental record (including age group records and indoor records)" with "[...] (including junior records and youth bests)" (and masters records? I'm not sure...) for extra clarity. For one thing, it clarifies what we're supposed to do with world youth bests, which aren't technically records. Another, I think we only want to include the traditional age groups. An age-9 record in an event, for example, isn't notable - I won't be surprised if Mondo Duplantis gets a page here one day, but it shouldn't be for quite some time (unless something unexpected happens...), and he's about the most notable age 9 record holder around. (You could argue those would be out anyway on the appropriate body clause, but that's a bit unclear.) Sideways713 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, youth and junior and potentially the master age divisions are the only ones I would consider notable. Im not too sure about the masters either, probably they need to meet condition (1) since the older faster fields are variable between years. The youth fields are much more consistent, it seems.MATThematical (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The current phrasing " (including world junior records and world youth bests)" seems to be deliberately omitting the Masters age groups and is thusly unacceptable. The phrasing I saw in a previous evolution, "(including age group records and indoor records)" was far more acceptable.Trackinfo (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability of coaches and clubs

Notable coaches and clubs should also be mentioned somewhere, similarly to how baseball is listing coaches, owners, GMs, umpires etc. just below us.
This would be my tentative first draft at notability of coaches and clubs:

• Coaches are notable if they have coached multiple Olympic champions, World champions or senior World Record holders and have received widespread credit and significant international coverage as a result.
• A coach that introduces a new technique or training method may be notable without meeting the above criterion if the technique or training method is itself reasonably notable and the coach in question is widely credited as the originator.
• Clubs generally aren't sufficiently notable for a standalone article. A notable club should receive international coverage for its successes and have a résumé comparable to that of Irish American Athletic Club, with a very large number of successful Olympians over a long period of time. If a club is or was highly successful and prominent for a relatively short period of time, thanks solely or mainly to one leading coach, then generally only the coach will be notable.
• Individual High Performance Training Centres (HPTCs) do not merit articles.
• For any other figures related to the sport, such as statisticians, IAAF members and athletics journalists, only WP:BIO and WP:GNG apply.

For example, Racers Track Club isn't notable, at least yet, but its head coach (Glen Mills) is. Sideways713 (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Going through it again...

Trying to interpret what all the stuff we currently have actually means, some complaints still come up:

A1. Meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO with significant independent coverage at the national or international level
A2. Has competed in the Olympics or senior IAAF World Championships
A3. Has finished top 3 in a major international competition (for example the European Athletics Championships, European Athletics Indoor Championships, IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 5 Major Marathons)
A4. Has won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those that do so without ranking in top 50 on the IAAF world leading list during the same calendar year
A5. Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records and world youth bests) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body
A6. Owns a mark that placed the athlete in the top 12 in the world for that calendar year in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics, or an equivalent performance over a closely matching imperial distance
A7. Has a non-relay mark currently listed on the IAAF senior all-time list
A8. Has won an individual gold medal at Junior or Youth World Championships
A9. Has been inducted into a major hall of fame, such as the National Track and Field Hall of Fame
N1. Coaches are notable if they have coached multiple Olympic champions, World champions or senior World Record holders and have received widespread credit and significant international coverage as a result.
N2. A coach that introduces a new technique or training method may be notable without meeting the above criterion if the technique or training method is itself notable and the coach in question is widely credited as the originator.
N3. Clubs generally aren't sufficiently notable for a standalone article. A notable club should receive international coverage for its successes and have a résumé comparable to that of Irish American Athletic Club, with a very large number of successful Olympians over a long period of time. If a club's success is solely or mainly due to one leading coach, then generally only the coach will be notable.
N4. Individual High Performance Training Centres (HPTCs) do not merit articles.
N5. For any other figures related to the sport, such as historians, statisticians, IAAF members and athletics journalists, only WP:BIO and WP:GNG apply.

My problems with this:

A1: Feels weird. WP:NSPORT will only really matter if WP:BIO is changed to refer to WP:NSPORT, in which case A1 will essentially refer to itself. It might be better to only mention GNG.

A2: We don't Wikipedia cluttered with 2-line unexpandable stubs of Micronesians who take 66s for 400 meters. They're fine if they meet A1 (think Eric the Eel) but other than that, not really. I think we should exclude athletes who're only in thanks to any one-per-gender-per-federation type mercy rules, unless they meet A1.

A4: I think I want this revised back down to 30. 50 might (just might) be okay if we were only talking today, but the sport has changed a lot in 100 years. Notability may be permanent, but notability criteria are not.

N5: See A1. (Though I wrote N5, so it's my own fault.)

Recording down my interpretations (these should of course not, ever, in any form be added to WP:NSPORT itself, way too bulky) of those I can't complain about:

A3: Including but not limited to. The highest level of global competition in any given event other than OG/WC (if any such can clearly be defined) can automatically and without ambiguity be considered a "major international competition"; for example, the IAAF World Race Walking Cup or IAAF Hammer Throw Challenge.

A5: Including records with any implements official at the time the record was made but obsolete now, including junior/youth records with adult implements, but not including relays or events in which IAAF world records are currently not recognized, unless/except

a) the event was contested at the Olympics immediately following the record or
b) the event was contested at the Olympics immediately preceding the record and then replaced by an updated event (for example the women's pentathlon or 80m hurdles) or
c) the event was an imperial distance closely corresponding to a more acceptable metric distance and the mark (appropriately converted) was superior or equal to any recorded over either distance (with 100 yards closely corresponding to 100m, 120yd hurdles to 110m hurdles, 440 any to 400 any, 220 any to 200 any, 880 any to 800 any) or
d) in the (historically) most notable events in which IAAF records are currently not recognized, viz. 2 miles and the 200 meter straightaway.

A6: Counting indoor results as part of the outdoor season. Including discontinued Olympic events, but only during the period commencing on the January 1 immediately following the last Olympics at which the event was not contested and ending on December 31 of the year of the last Olympics at which they were. In the case of updated events, a transition is deemed to have occurred on January 1 of whichever calendar year the change was officially announced to take effect starting in. In the case of new events, the period is deemed to commence on January 1 of the year this event's inclusion at the first Olympics or World Championships at which it was contested was formally announced, or the year immediately following the last Olympics at which the event was not contested, whichever is earlier. A6 should not be applied to the pre-IOC era. For closely matching imperial distances, see above under A5. The 200 meter straightaway is to be seen as a fake imperial distance in this context.

A7: Not counting disqualified marks.

Additionally, I wonder whether we shouldn't include men's 3000 metres under A6, despite its lack of Olympic status, given it's way more common on the Golden League/Diamond League/any league/Grand Prix level than any other non-Olympic event.

Any dispute? Sideways713 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For the most part great points. I will try to go through yours 1 by 1. A1) fixed A2) I agree with this point in principle, but I think we need to think about how this will work around the boards. For the most part we are on the same side of the isle in terms of not wanting a ton of stubs. But other sports have a community skewed the other way. I don't want to restrict Athletics too much beyond what we restrict for other comparably notable sports. I would be OK with perhaps editing this condition to one of the following options (1) competed in the olympics or World championships, and did so by achieving the Olympic or WC B standard. This standard is relatively tough enough to eliminate the joe shmos (45.xx for the 400, with xx depending on the year). Anyways I think the problem is that every country gets one entrant (not per event) if they have no athletes in any of the events that meet the B standard. These are usually the athletes achieving poor marks. (2) restrict to those who made the semi-finals, or for those events that don't have a semifinals the top X individuals, something around 25 would probably be reasonable here. I personally prefer (1) because it is more objective across all events (regardless of whether they have rounds), but it has the disadvantage that it is not reliant on the results at the Olympics. A4) I think your post is valid about earlier eras, but we still require them to be national champions, I really don't see 50 being a problem here. I would be willing to compromise with 40. I really think that 30 is too strict, Looking at my womens 2009 100 meters example where only 8 countries had athletes in the top 30. I think increasing this to 40 brought it up to about 11 or so nations, which seems low, but reasonable for a less diverse event. Perhaps the best of both worlds would be to say within the top 30 individuals or top 12 nations. This way we keep it low for events that a lot of countries participate in (the top 30 individuals would apply) and higher for the less diverse events (top 12 nations would apply). This might be too complicated maybe top 40 would be the better compromise. Would you be OK with either of these? N5) fixed and moved to N1 as an overarching statement to include even coaches, I removed the examples, I think it is obvious that this applies to any non athlete. Let me know what you think. -MATThematical (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention I shortened some of the N requirements. I thought they were too bulky. Most of them I did not change the meaning, however, I did make one change that definitely does change the meaning. I required the coaches to be a coach during a point in time when the athlete accomplishes something notable, (we don't want to have a high school coach has coincidently coached two individuals who happen to go on to be olympians, unless they meet 1). I also lessened the requirement to 1 olympic champion but many notable athletes. I think this is fairer, if they have one olympic champion/WR holder, and have many other elite level athletes who meet 1 this should be enough in my opinion. Coaching two olympic champions is a really tough requirement, I think. Feel free to discuss and change them back. I am also not sure if the HPTC is necessary, wouldn't that fit under club, and if so I assume almost if not all HPTCs would not make the cut under the club requirements. Can we explicitly role it in to the club clause? 03:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MATThematical (talk • contribs)

I figured HPTCs shouldn't be able to make the cut at all, no matter what they do, unlike normal clubs which can make the cut if they're exceptionally successful and prominent. As for A2, your 1) is what I thought of, too, but I'm starting to think it might not be enough. I think we agree we don't want 2-line stubs that can never be expanded and consist of something like "athlete x (born February 29, 1931) is a former track & field athlete who competed mostly in the marathon. He represented Ruritania at the 1963 Summer Olympics, finishing 47th in men's marathon with a time of 2:42:42.4." But I guess just cutting out the standardless will be simplest... and applying this retro/pseudoactively in cases of no standards to possibly meet. (Old Olympics, any XC champs, etc.) Or else, back to the drawing board for something really strange and completely arbitrary. Sideways713 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We should probably extend inducted into a major hall of fame to non-athletes? Sideways713 (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

agreed on the hall of fame part. My guess is that most countries who do not meet the b standard in all their events do not choose to enter the marathon.Hence I think all male marathoners have ran a 2:18 or faster in order to qualify. The real kicker is an event like the 100 meters where it appears that most of those countries enter their non B standard athlete. You see men running times around 11 and women running times around 12. The longer the race generally the better quality the field. Anyways, Im a bit nervous about making it overly complicated. I think the B standard may be the way to go, it will eliminate the chance of a lot of non-notable stubs, even if some do sneak in. As for HPTCs I guess I dont really understand the difference between them and a club. Could you explain this to me, I likely agree with you, but aren't sure, so if you explain your rational in detail to me, I think I will be ok with this.MATThematical (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

One reason for what you say is that IAAF currently strongly encourages entering those mercy athletes in short sprints (probably because they're more timetable-friendly there). Entering unqualified athletes in 10K, steeple and deca/hep is actually forbidden (at least was for '09). Of course many of them would end up in the short sprints anyway; they're natural, easy, more small-country-friendly. Nevertheless, there generally are a couple non-qualifiers in the marathons.
As for HPTCs, I'm no expert on them either; the major reason I'm inclined to keep them out is that I feel they have enough in common with each other that we should either allow individual articles for all HPTCs, or none. And going by the fact that nobody has to my knowledge yet created an article for any HPTC (or even HPTCs in general!) and HPTC itself redirects to something completely different, there isn't much of a general feeling that HPTCs are notable enough. Sideways713 (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the point 4 (won national champs and got top 40) is a little unnecessary. I assume this is meant to include athletes whose careers predate major global championships? However, I would assume that the old-era athletes worth talking about will likely fall under the GNG regardless. Is there a good example of a reasonably notable athlete who would get in on this point alone? If not, it is definitely worth scrapping on the grounds that modern-day athletes who fail GNG and have only national level achievements and no significant international experience are certainly not worth bothering with.

I'm not exactly sure of the value of world junior or youth bests as a valid reason for inclusion. If there isn't enough talk about their performances to satisfy GNG then we can only presume that it is not really a valid reason. Javier Cienfuegos last June springs to mind. It was talked about, it was worthy of note. Are there any athletes people consider worthy of inclusion that would get in on this part of point 5 alone? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 13:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's simpler to have additional criteria besides GNG even when there is a very high overlap (i.e. the presence of GNG as well is almost guaranteed), as the additional criteria are (in these cases) absolute while plain GNG is almost always harder to check and, having checked, to decide about. Sideways713 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only this but the world championships has an off year (ie. it goes: olymp, WorldChamp, off, WC, olymp). Therefore, this clause is necessary to cover notable athletes who attain their notability during the WC off year. As pointed out it is also important for historical figures, since they may make WP:GNG in print, but those articles may be difficult to find. -MATThematical (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to follow all this, but I'm assuming that you are coming up with a "qualifying" measure for Runtanians and others, who must run at some "qualifying" time in order to be considered as "notable." I understand that this is usually required for the Olympics anyway, but maybe not some othere international events (e.g Latin American Games, eg).Student7 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see point 2 (major international competitions) be made less harsh and extended to people making the finals i.e. 8 for the sprints, 12 for the field finals etc. The Golden League in particular is a very prestigious event - why restrict notability to only those who have made Top 3? Eldumpo (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree top 3 in Euro Champs/GL/DL is tough and could be extended. But I'm not convinced a GL/DL last place finish automatically makes you notable. Or take the WAF - is Steffen Co notable? As far as I can tell, his only claim to notability is randomly competing in the WAF. Maybe top 5 would work for Euro/GL/DL/WAF/RW cup. Sideways713 (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that not all of these meets are at the same level. At the Euros I would say top 5 or 8 makes more sense. For Golden league the top of the field is very strong (probably better than Euros) but the bottom of the field can often be quite weak. Also, for the sprints there is no heats in the golden/diamond league so a last place is certainly not notable. What about having 2 sections: (1) finished top 8 in any senior level international competition in which most events contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g. Euros, major marathons, etc.). (2) finished top 3 in any other major international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g. golden league/diamond league meets, and also the world junior championships). -MATThematical (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope for top 8 in Euro/Euro Indoors/CWG/major marathons/RW Cup/Asian Games. You can argue for top 8 with Euros, maybe CWG too if you're British, and while top 8 for major marathons is really too much by comparison, marathoners have a harder time making the cut otherwise so that may be okay. But top 8 in Asian Games vs. top 3 in GL/DL... no. Generally, even that infamous last place finisher in GL/DL (or even a second-tier GP) is more notable than the 8th-place finisher in Asian Games. They just don't have that depth - and historically it's even worse.
Some Asian Games 8th placers will be notable, but a huge majority won't. In fact events regularly have a hard time scraping together 8 athletes! Looking at Asian Games alone, without considering any other meets, the only sensible choices are none, top 1 and top 3. I'm leaning towards top 1 (winner only) but if it can be shown that medaling reliably gets you significant coverage, I'll be happy to go with top 3.
For now, I've entirely removed any specific mention of Asian Games in WP:NSPORT. Sideways713 (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree I had similar thoughts when proposing this, but decided to include Asian games because it fit the many heats requirement. I did not realize how much lack of depth occurred historically (I was only looking at meetings in the past 10 years, which have been fairly competitive). I tried to reword the clause so that less prestigious large scale meets don't get in under that clause, but feel free to edit it to make it more clear. I also think that area medalists will surely get national media coverage. We just don't see it because we aren't in Asia, hence medaling makes a lot of sense here. Just as a note I thought the contains many heats or extended fields was a good objective clause but apparently it isn't so it is now only part of the new clause-- 23:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions to rules

For each of these restrictive definitions, they make me recall athletes that fit outside these borderlines. I've created a few of these articles like Mark Fricker and Marty Krulee. I guess after identifying these I'll have to take my lumps from some deletionist (expletive deleted) who will challenge. While I think WP:GNG still suffices for these cases, not everybody gets the same coverage and can produce the same documentation. These guys were from the 1980's, but go back further in time, we don't have the same quality of sources available on line. So my key question is, how do we account for people like this within these restrictive guidelines?Trackinfo (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This page isn't about who can and can't have pages. Its about who is likely to have sources exist. GNG is what will determine if your articles meet notability requirements. Basically you will have to put your work in to find the offline sources for these people who don't meet the requirements on this page. But this page itself won't disqualify them, it just means that you will have to work harder to proove they are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

100% agreed MATThematical (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That certainly just needs to be clear. I remember a few cases from back of people that were having problems with athletes that were notable by the GNG but didn't meet ATH and thus were being threatened for AFD. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You might say that, but I don't believe that is the way it will be used. If there ever is any logic to the AfD process, these kinds of definitions are used as tools to justify deletion of articles, plain and simple. WP:ATH is frequently cited as a cause to delete. Yes, it can also be called upon to justify keeping an article, when circumstances warrant. If this is to replace WP:ATH, what is to make its used different as interpreted by thousands of wikipedia editors (of even the handful who populate, create and decide AfD discussions).

We could be discussing quality of sources, branding of those sources and their qualitative attributes. I've got plenty of problems with wiki people who decide what sources are good enough and what are not (with little knowledge of the subject) too. We are not really having those kinds of discussions here. And how could we? If we want to get to reality, in my area of expertise Track and field athletics: I know what could be considered credible sources, like major daily newspapers (that I use to reference my own articles frequently) are more likely written by a second level hack sports writer/intern who got dumped on the story because the top guys are writing about Major League Baseball. Or a track athlete is featured because its a slow news day and they need filler. Meanwhile far more knowledgeable and accurate information is written by passionate bloggers and participants of forums within our sport. How do you define that concept? You think we might have a problem? We already do. I have another wiki editor, part of the self appointed information police, who is following my contribution list, deleting references I have placed in articles based on his prejudices. How do we stop this kind of insanity?Trackinfo (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WP is a tertiary source, summarizing what is out there in secondary sources. This, by nature, will bias the work (eg baseball verse track athletes) but given that we're summarizing secondary sources, that ratio of reliable sources for one sport compared to another should be reflected in the quantity of information we have about those sports too. (and that analogy doesn't end at sports). Thus, if track and fields is barely covered by reliable sources save during Olympics or the like, then we shouldn't have a large amount of coverage of that sport comparatively. We should not be trying to correct the bias that naturally exists in the reporting mediums before that information gets to WP. --MASEM (t) 06:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting that we reduce our content in secondary sports through any artificial means. We collect editors who have their sphere of knowledge. I assume each writes with the same motivation as I: Fill in the blanks. Write about what is missing. Personally I am posting what I know about. I then find sources, references that know the same thing and thus confirm or corroborate that information. If other sports, or other subjects outside of sports, have fanatics or experts here, I'd rather let natural selection decide the amount of fanatical coverage those subjects can post on wikipedia. If they are really popular sports, then someone else can write about the minor league players who played one game in the bigs in their sport--they will get the coverage and attract the editors based on their popularity (or people filling in what is missing). But then, I think information and knowledge is good. Too much information is only applicable when discussing bodily functions.Trackinfo (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I'm trying to say. There is no way we can normalize to have the same number of articles on curling as we can on baseball to remove the apparent bias there is in their coverage. That bias is outside of WP's control, so as long as the relative scope of what we cover of these two sports is in line with the relative amount of coverage these sports get, we're ok. What I do see as an info that you suggest above that because some sports aren't covered in great detail in major outlets we have to start turning to less reliable sources (blogs and the like of fans). This shouldn't be done particularly for notability's sake, but instead we can identify unaffiliated and assured experts in the field to start to consider their input as reliable sources for notability. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is: We should take certain serious blogs and forums more seriously AS sources. Particularly in a statistically based sport such as Athletics, they are frequently better than the mainstream media who only pays attention with one eye when it isn't busy. I use mainstream sources in my articles because it presents less resistance, it minimizes the article unnecessarily being dragged through AfD or a deletion war (I've been through both) by editors who don't have a clue what they are talking about but want to get brownie points for another article deleted. But more details are verifiable through what are considered the lesser sources and there are people on here who will just blank that based on their impression of the source.Trackinfo (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Those types of sources (especially forums) are not considered reliable, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you want to change that, you would need to gain consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability for those changes. Frankly, there's not a snowball's chance that you will get agreement for those changes, so I would focus on finding non-internet reliable sources to support your articles. I'm sure there are track & field magazines and books whose contents are only available offline, and these are perfectly acceptable for supporting article material.  — Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is correct. While we're willing to accept less than "peer reviewed" works for more non-academic topics, reliability is a requirement, and the use of blogs and forums will be very difficult, even if that's where the topic is best covered. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was pointing out the facts, which go against the reality of what WP will accept. WP will thusly contain less information simply because it considers these more credible sources as unreliable. Its a prejudice that ALL blogs are unreliable.Trackinfo (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We drifted off subject, sorry my digressions lead us to that. The key thing is the use of this new Notability definition. It will be used as consensus position paper in AfD arguments and that will lead to its definitions taken as absolutes whether we intend it to be or not. If this new standard defines out certain sectors even through omission, that will still be taken as the gospel. We must be careful about the limitations we build in here.Trackinfo (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You may misinterpreting what these guidelines should be doing, which is to assert cases of athletes across vary sports that are virtually guaranteed to have sources out there to build out a good article and which may not yet exist or may be difficult to acquire at the present. It is not to unbias the coverage of one sport over another due to a lack of wide coverage in reliable sources. Even if ATHLETE or NSPORT didn't exist, and we only used the GNG, there would be some sports that will only be briefly covered due to lack of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. That is, the limitation here you appeared to be worried about is from WP:RS, not from notability or ATHLETE or NSPORT. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The first line states the purpose: "This article is regarded as an essay, used to discuss whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." How much clearer can the purpose of this be. This is setting the standards of notability to spread about Wikipedia. The standards we accept here will be used as a tool to delete articles that do not meet these exacting standards. My point is clear. There are some people who might not meet these categorical, numerical standards that DO merit an article for something significant they did within their sport. Then trace the pattern at AfD. Many cases, most cases are decided by arguments amongst people WHO HAVE NO CLUE about what they are discussing. These guidelines will likely sway the argument in an negative direction for these exceptional cases. I've been through the arguments regarding BLPs. There is a whole crowd of (I'll call them a non-expletive here) idiots who think they get brownie points for deleting articles. Some want to blindly delete articles by the thousands. They use lack of sources and quality of sources as a tool. And most importantly they use these guidelines to justify their arguments. The thing they fear the most is daylight. They will not set up a system to notify potentially interested parties--like project managers and home pages. They prefer speed to delete things before anybody notices their (work) damage.

What all this means is the guidelines we create here must contain sufficient flexibility, perhaps even ambiguous statements that would allow for significant exceptions. Otherwise we are contributing to the destruction of valuable information.Trackinfo (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we're still talking about WP's verification policy, which is stronger than notability; it does not allow us to use blogs and forums and other sources to assert notability; if notability of people within a sport are otherwise not assert in any other fashion, maybe that sport is not as notable as some might think. Nothing here is going to be able to change that part of WP:V. --MASEM (t) 04:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Figure Skating Way too Lenient

Competed at a junior world championships. Thats not notable is it? Are we seriously saying that competing internationally as a junior is notable. This is a huge disparity from other Olympic sports where we require the athlete to win the junior championships. I think figure skating and track and field are of relatively comparable notability (perhaps skating is slightly more notable, but not by much). To stay consistent between the sports I think we need to revamp almost all the conditions for skating.

1. The first part should only contain the Olympics and world championships (certainly remove World Junior champs). I understand that the world junior championships is slightly more prestigious than it is in track and several other Olympic events because of a skaters ability to develop faster (at least I think this is likely true). However, this is a reason to require a medal instead of a win, not a reason to give all junior world championship skaters a buy. The other events should require one to finish well too, perhaps a medal, or a top 6 finish (6 because that is the number of skaters in the final group). What do people think
2. (national champs) Medaling in the US, Russia, or Japan may be notable but the 3rd best skater from Israel or Greenland is not necessarily notable. Change to requiring a win. Non winning Medalists in notable countries will compete in at least one of the events listed in number 1.
3. change medal to winning an event on the ISU junior grand prix
4. delete 6, not even sure what this means. It sounds like a back door way to get non notable skaters in. All you have to do is compete with someone from a different country and your notable as long as you are a junior or senior. To me this requirement is a bit unusual.
5. delete the second section, and replace it with meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG with coverage at the national or international level. If they are notable for other reasons, they should have to meet the other reason's WP guidelines.

Coaches etc.

1. in the first condition add "multiple", and I also think we should require the coach to have coached an Olympic/world championship medalist not just a few notable skaters
2. again we should require a stricter term than notable for coreographers as well

MATThematical (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the original discussion at [WP:WikiProject_Figure_Skating/Notability] is more clear on many of these points. In particular, please note that:

• "Junior" is an age division, not a skill level, in international competition. The World Junior Championship, in particular, is designated an ISU Championship and is quite a prestigious event.
• The original list of criteria includes the explicit restriction on "international competition" that it refers to competitions where skaters are selected and entered by their national federations, not to competitions with open entries where "all you have to do is compete with someone from a different country". As I recall, the rationale for this item is to cover skaters who competed internationally in the past, before the formal Grand Prix circuit was created in the 1995-96 season or even before many of the competitions that are now designated Grand Prix events were established.
• The original list of criteria does include the restriction "many" on coaches and choreographers.

That said, I think there are way too many articles in WP about current skaters who may have strictly met the notability criteria of verifiably having competed at the elite level, but without having actually accomplished anything that would give them long-term importance in the context of the sport. For instance, I'd be quite happy to drop participation in junior competitions other than the World Junior Championships as a criteria for notability. The ISU Junior Grand Prix was originally intended as a developmental program funded from the TV rights of the elite senior Grand Prix, for example, and very many skaters who compete at these events never advance beyond this level of competition. Those who do will meet some of the other notability criteria. Dr.frog (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a reasonable way of restricting this. Note now that we are doing this for all sports, so we have to have some consistency across the sports. I follow skating, so thats why I'm getting involved here (although not as closely as the people in the wiki project). In track Junior is an age restriction not a skill level also. I understand that Junior world champs is very prestigious in skating especially because a skater can reach their prime quite early. However, just showing up means that this competition is equivalent in prestige to the Olympics or senior world championships. I think finishing in the top group, i.e. top 6 is a natural restriction if we don't want to go so far as them medaling. If the skater is truly notable they will eventually compete in a senior world champs or Olympics or win their national championship. The question is should we make pages about every junior skater who failed to go any further than qualifying for the junior world championships. I think not. How well do they have to finish for you to be comfortable claiming they are notable if they never went beyond this performance? This is why I think medaling in the natural requirement. For those who do not go further than the world junior championships for some reason (i.e. never went on to the senior WC or Olympics) I would only be comfortable saying they are notable if they medaled at that their respective JWC. Perhaps we could come to a compromise here. In track we also require medaling at the Euro Champs and other international non-Olympic, non-world championship events, so I would like to restrict this here as well, but perhaps this needs to be increased in the track section, and not decreased in the figure skating section.MATThematical (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There are about 100 skating bios tagged as unreferenced BLPs (incorrectly in some cases -- I've found a few that are for skaters who are deceased or very likely deceased.) The issue is brought up on the discussion page for the Figure Skating Project [9]. The actual list is, of course, automatically maintained. [10]

It's a lot of work turning up references for these, I can only manage 3-4 per day. I don't particularly care if I do some work to get citations for a bio only to see the bio go into AfD because of lack of notability. But I don't want to see a reasonable notable one go to AfD just because nobody else was working on this list, and it didn't get cited before the June 1st deadline. So I'd appreciate it very much if people concerned with skating notability standards could go through the list and determine status, perhaps tagging the bios directly where they don't meet notability requirements, or mentioning it on the talk pages if they seem borderline. Some might be considerably more notable than they might seem at first glance (e.g., Regine Heitzer, which I'm leaving with regret because there's more to say, but many more unreferenced BLPs to work through) but others have me wondering. I only have so much time to whittle away at this list before June 1st. Yakushima (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)