Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 22

Boxing proposal

For criterion number 2, in view of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Boxing clarification I propose the following:

Proposed

A boxer is presumed notable if he or she:

2. Has won a regular/full top-level non-world title for an affiliated organization of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g. IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated (NABO)). This includes regional titles of major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF Latino, WBA Pan African, WBC International, or WBO European). This does not include lower titles or regional organizations (e.g. the NABA is included since the NABA is directly affiliated with the WBA, but the NABA-USA title is not since it is a lower title of the affiliated organization). This also does not include national titles that are only directly affiliated with the affiliated organization and not the major sanctioning body itself (e.g., the BBBofC English title would count as the BBBofC is directly affiliated with the WBC, but the Boxing Union of Ireland title would not as the Boxing Union of Ireland is only directly affiliated with the European Boxing Union and not the WBC or WBA itself).

RonSigPi (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse I think this meets the middle ground and the overall consensus. Clearly world title bout fighters are notable. Even with four sanctioning bodies and the WBA awarding commonly 2-3 titles per weight (something they will stop doing soon - see [1]) its of little those fighters are notable. However, due to the number of regional titles, the de-centralized nature of the sport, and the difficulty in obtaining and evaluating non-English sources in a worldwide sport the current criteria was causing confusion. This makes it more clear what titles count (e.g., see [2] for WBC affiliated organizations). It also takes out the more liberal reading, so that way every nation that awards a title does not confer a presumption of notability. It also requires winning the title, a requirement some thought would be best considering the overall number of titles. I think it takes care of most of the reasonable concerns raised. RonSigPi (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The guideline is already too restrictive and this appears to make it even more so. In terms of British boxing, many boxers are notable who don't get to fight for a British title or higher. This effect of this change appears to be to limit notability to those that won British titles. This is out of step with the guidelines for every other major sport. Many British boxers who never get to fight for a British title get plenty of coverage, are 'well known' enough to be included, but this guideline would suggest we only accept the national champions, completely out of keeping with the guidelines for other major sports such as rugby, football, cricket, etc., none of which require subjects to be 'world class'. --Michig (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because it needs said, the guidelines are not a death sentence for notability (though many editors treat it as such). If someone does not meet WP:NBOX, then all one has to do is show WP:GNG is met. If a well covered British fighter never wins (or fights for if my proposal is broadened) the British BBBofC title, then they just means WP:GNG need to establish notability as opposed to relying on the presumption. Again, I agree what I proposed is restrictive (more so than I would have liked), but I thought it started at capturing the overall consensus. I may be wrong. RonSigPi (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. That will just result in muddying already muddy waters. I agree with much of what Michig has stated above, why hold the bar for notability of boxers higher than any other comparable major international sport?

Also the BBBofC English title is a regional title to the BBBofC British title and I wouldn't necessarily consider that you obtain notability by winning that and the Boxing Union of Ireland title is a full national title and affiliated to both the EBU and the WBA which I would consider automatically notable. RonSigPi's proposal seems to be suggesting the opposite.

Let’s say that each of the four sanctioning organizations have on average 10 title holders at one time between World, Interim, Intercontinental, International and Continental titles over the 17 weight classes that is a total of 680 notable boxers at any one time. The reality is that it will be much less more like 4-500 when you take into consideration vacant titles and boxers who hold more than one title at the time. By comparison look at the FOURTH tier of English soccer alone, who all gain automatic notability for playing one single game in that league, that one strata of one football league in one country have more automatically notable participants per season than the totality of global boxing. Just let the sheers numbers of that seep in for a moment.

I’m sure I have more to say on the issue but raising the bar higher for notability for a sport that ALREADY has the highest bar for notability of any major established sport seems a bit bonkers to me. My thoughts would be to simplify the boxing’s notability criteria to a more inclusive level and if there are queries over notability after that then let WP:GNG sort it out. --Donniediamond (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Because I linked the Football League Two, out of interest I then clicked on the link to the league and picked a team at random and found an article about Aidan Hawtin. He has played ONE game for Oxford United, so I looked at the match report for the game and he played ONE minute of that game. ONE minute in ONE game of the FOURTH tier of soccer in England = automatic notability. Compare that the current AfD for Ahmed Elbiali, a 14:0 pro boxer, who previously fought in the World Series of Boxing and is now signed with the most powerful promoter in professional boxing - that AfD currently has 4:3 'votes' in favour for deletion. Something is wrong here and the balance is out of kilter.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That indicates a problem with Football as much as anything else (classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Also members of team sports is not really a comparable metric. If we are to compare one should consider other individual sports and more specifically other fighting sports. Compared to kickboxing or MMA for example I don't think the bar for boxing is much higher - all aim for the principle of competing at the highest level and there has to be some indicator that an individual is actually doing that. A undefeated record does not do that - just means his promoter is doing his job, nor does it matter who their promoter is. Title fights really are the best option for boxing.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We should be aiming for a balanced coverage of different sports across the project. I agree that the football, cricket, American football (etc.) guidelines can be too inclusive at times but they have a pragmatic approach which avoids time discussing hundreds of articles at AfD. Boxing is *nothing* like kickboxing and MMA - they are not mainstream international sports in the way boxing is. Anyone who gets close to fighting for a national title in one of the major boxing nations is going to be notable enough for inclusion, and even being ranked in the top 10 in some of these countries will pretty much guarantee enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. There are plenty of boxers whose careers don't really get anywhere - we should exclude those unless there's some other good reason for inclusion, but this proposal sets the bar way too high. --Michig (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes Peter, other stuff exists. How does one determine where to set the bar without comparison to other bars? Is it reasonable to sweep an argument aside by quoting a shortcut to an essay? As for your comparison to other sports - 1. Kickboxing is such a niche sport it is impossible to compare to boxing, you might as well compare tennis to real tennis. As for MMA, three fights, even three losses, on an untelevised portion of a UFC undercard gets you past WP:NMMA. I would hardly consider that a higher bar than for boxing. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet both define what top level competition is and neither use number of overall professional fights understanding full well that getting paid to fight is not a key to notability. The argument for notability above revolves around which titles indicate competition at the highest levels. Some regional titles do, some don't. Amateur national titles do a reasonable job, professional less so. I would like to see the criteria clarified for regional and national titles and am not to bothered if there is some loosening or tightening. I am not opposing or endorsing the above but again would certainly want some indication what is meant by top-level competition.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yet 'getting paid to play soccer is a key to notability', even if it was just once, and for a single minute.

Today I quickly drafted a new notability criteria for boxing HERE. I would really welcome some feedback on it in it's talk page before I officially propose it.--Donniediamond (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that's better but there will still be a lot of boxers who are notable and worthy of inclusion that don't meet any of those criteria. --Michig (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree Michig but it is a step in the right direction. What or who have you got in mind and how could these be included?--Donniediamond (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think both are not great options. For A, point 2 is a moving target. Someone isn't presumed notable now, but if tomorrow his countryman fights for a world title that would change the presumption? Similarly, if someone fights for a title tomorrow from a country that never had someone fight before, than someone all the way back to the 1960s all of a sudden becomes presumed notable? Under that logic Oswald Sampson [3] and Oxley Agard [4] are presumed notable due to the success of Andrew Lewis fighting 50+ years later. Seems like a very far reach. I think we need a relatively fixed standard. For B, the way rankings are manipulated I think you would get a lot of fighters not notable presumed as such and likewise lose a presumption for an even larger number of fighters that should be presumed notable. I think your best bet is option A without point 2. Its clear and easy to follow, won't change much over time, and have reasonable certainty for notability. I think fighters only fighting for national titles/nationally known should just have to be with WP:GNG because I just don't see a better way. RonSigPi (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding A#2 being a "moving target", don't we already have a very similar rationale the current guidelines under criteria #4 "fought in the final of a national amateur championship for an AIBA World Amateur Boxing Championship medal winning country." However, to take on board your point, maybe to tighten A#2 up we could say introduce the word "prior" or “previous”. Thereby showing that it is likely to be an already established boxing nation. I really think we should include National titles in there because they are often have more history, validity and authenticity than some of the major sanctioning bodies ‘sub world title’ titles.

Regarding A#3, I agree, rankings can be manipulated, but I think you are maybe overstating the level of manipulation, especially these days. Usually the manipulation is bringing a boxer ranking #15 to #9 or from #4 to #1. Generally the Top 20 is the actual Top 20 but the order across the sanctioning organisations can change for political reasons but the makeup of the Top 20 varies very little. As a quick exercise I went through the heavyweight rankings for the WBO, WBC, IBF, BoxRec, The Ring and fightnews.com and there was a only total of 37 boxers. That show a high level of agreement across the recognised bodies. All 37 of those boxers already have a Wikipedia article except one, Andrey Fedosov, and Fedosov would pass notability under A#1. So, whilst there may be cynicism over rankings and I am cynical myself at times, the facts bare out that it is a very strong indicator of notability.

Another reason for including the rankings is that it is clearly defined and there are historic records available. It could potentially also do away with the cumbersome wording of what titles from what organisations and from what affiliates qualify or don’t. It could be an easy, pragmatic and definitive way to stop a lot of arguments.

I have made a second draft of Option A now to reflect the above.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I like the idea of rankings, but not as an exclusive criteria as you had in option B (i.e., not ok without regional titles also). I would, however, limit it to top 15 since that is who can fight for a world title in the major organizations and I think only the WBC goes beyond 15 in rankings. Also, I would think about adding the TBRB. Far as the nations go, yes #4 is a moving target as well and I am not thrilled about it. However, at least that has a more limited time frame of about 40 years than 120+ years. For the professional national titles, what do you think about something like "national titles of nations that claim at least 8 distinct world champions". This way nations that have solid histories are included, but not every nation that has an obscure title holder (the number 8 since there are 8 original weight classes, so in total the whole spectrum can be considered as represented). I just think the Guyana example I raised before would allow for too much, but the eight limit would include many nations like US, Canada, Australia, many European nations, etc. With eight world champions, it can be fairly presumed boxing is a big sport in that country, is well covered, and there is significant coverage for national titles.RonSigPi (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue with limiting it to the Top 15 instead of the Top 20, as you said, that entitles a boxer to fight for that world title so there is at least some rationale behind that figure and it is not a completely arbitrary figure. I will also add TBRB to the list but like The Ring I doubt there is anyone in their Top 15 that isn't in at least one of the major alphabet titles Top 15 rankings already. But I'm happy to add them even as a mopping up exercise.

As for upping the number of world titles that a nation would have to have under their respective belts to have their national title recognized as an established boxing nation's world title, I am certainly open to discussion to that. The football project have a list of all Football leagues that automatically make players in those leagues notable, I don't see why we couldn't do the same sort of list ranking Nations by their number of world title holders. I know Boxrec have already undertaken a similar project so it would be easy to use their work as a jumping off point. Instead of my suggestion of 1 champion and your suggestion of 8 champions, would you agree to a compromise of 4 world champions?

I have made a third draft HERE to reflect these changes.

I am good with four (half of the original weight classes) and good with your proposal (i.e., I will endorse). RonSigPi (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I've commented on the AfD in question. It should easily pass GNG, esp. on the coverage of him missing the Olympics due to the Arab Spring. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I do want to address this notion of "competed at the highest level." People saying that is world level are, in my mind, being narrow sighted and ignoring other guidelines. I will even look at other individual sports. In athletics, finishing top 8 in a major regional games or top 3 in a lesser regional games makes you notable. So there you don't even need to win. In Motorsports, I think Xfinity Series drives meet metric one, and that is not top league. For tennis, you can win a Challenger (men) or top Futures (women) and never compete on the ATP/WTA tour and be presumed notable. And as other have said, lots of team sports do not require top level participation. I think the "highest level" means the quality and therefore coverage of the competition. The Commonwealth Games and European Athletics Championships are at the highest level because of the prestige, coverage, success of nations involved, nations send top athletes, etc. Does not matter if it limits competition to certain nations. Similarly, fighting for the EBU or commonwealth title (and many other similar titles) would make someone presumed notable. RonSigPi (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – At European level, I believe notability should be granted for any boxer who has fought for at least the European Union (EBU-EU) title, as well as the Commonwealth title. BBBofC English title I'm a bit unsure on, but then that would be the equivalent of the EBU-EU title which is a regional title of the full European (EBU) one. BBBofC Southern Area title (and others similar)—no. I also disagree with notability being granted for a boxer who has only fought for a regional-level title of the Big Four sanctioning bodies; e.g. Fedalatin, Asia-Pacific, Inter-Continental, International, etc. Interim titles I'm fine with, as they often get upgraded to full world titles anyway. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mac, I think we broadly are in agreement. I also wouldn’t consider a holder of the BBBoC’s English, Welsh, Celtic, Southern Area, Central Area title etc. as a notable title holder but I would consider the British title holder automatically notable. My new proposal HERE would give the national titles of the established boxing nations automatically notability. I agree with you on the EU is a notable title but I am not sure about the Commonwealth anymore. Historically, yes, but now? Not so sure. I would consider Inter-Continental and International titles more notable than the Commonwealth these days. I would consider an EBU title holder automatically notable and I would also consider a EBU-EU title holder notable, but I’d be less wed to the EBU-EU title holder. I’d be interested on your further thoughts.

I do understand your point about regional-level titles like the Native American, Youth, Oriental, Latino, Fedalatin, Asia-Pacific etc. These are often relatively spurious and they don’t even guarantee you a Top 15 ranking with the sanctioning body that you have been awarded it by. What I think we need to be aiming at it is an easily verifiable way of demonstrating that a boxer is in ‘world class’. I think that a criteria whereby a boxer must be ranked in one of the majority bodies Top 15’s is extremely useful.

If you are in the Top 15 you are qualified to fight for that organisations world title. I would consider that to get you over the line of being ‘world class’. Winning one of the Asia-Pacific type titles will not automatically get you a Top 15 rankings. An Inter-Continental or International title would however. Rankings can be looked upon with suspicion at times but actually they are a very useful tool for proving notability and my reply above stamped ‘11:09, 2 February 2016’ outlines my thoughts on this. I would be happy to strip out all reference to Fedalatin, Asia-Pacific etc. if we all agreed on Top 15 instead.--Donniediamond (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm feeling you on the rankings idea, at least as far as International/Inter-Continental titles. They do seem to catapult titleholders to bigger things. I would, however, be quite disappointed to see Commonwealth titleholders demoted in terms of notability—they often go onto bigger things after winning it. Also, will the new criteria still grant notability for boxers who have fought for e.g. a British title, but not won it? Yesterday I made articles for Tony Hill and Damon Jones, based on their having fought for Nick Blackwell's British middleweight title. Will that still be OK to do? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Jones would become would become automatically notable under the new proposal having fought for an established national title. Hill would fail and you would have to prove your case going down the GNG route if the article was contested at AfD. The problem I have with the Commonwealth title these days is that is has been largely devalued over the course of the last 15 to 20 years mainly due to the cost of Visas and flights but also because promoters are more interested in Intercontinental titles. Historically you would generally have had to win a National title (Canadian, Aussie, British, SA, NZ etc) to have gone on and fought for the Commonwealth title. All those boxers will be automatically notable under the new Criteria #2. These days it is less well regarded and pretty much a filler until you get a British title fight and is almost exclusively fought for by British fighters. I think having the National title criteria and having the Top 15 criteria covers the need to include these titles specifically in the new proposal. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)--Donniediamond (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem I have with the existing guidelines and the proposals is that they are really only describing boxers that are 'highly notable'. It doesn't follow that everyone else is not notable, but that is very often the interpretation of such guidelines. I'm not sure we are going to be able to come up with a broad statement that applies in every country. In the UK, for example, anyone ranked top 10 in their weight class is pretty much guaranteed to be notable enough to have an article, and it would be fairly easy to show that they satisfy the GNG. Historically boxing was probably even more popular in Britain than it is today, and domestic contests even more significant, so the same should apply to historical boxers for which coverage can be harder to find. Many outside the top 10 in the UK will also have received enough coverage to justify an article. Every other country will be different. The Commonwealth (and previously British Empire) title is prestigious enough that anyone who has fought for it is pretty much guaranteed to be notable. In terms of World ranking organizations, generally the top 30-50 (at least) in the world in any weight class will be notable enough, but because this may not *always* be true we end up with a guideline that people will use (and have used) to get articles deleted when someone is outside the top 10/15 and the article is under-sourced. As Donniediamond noted above, when talking about the top 10-15, these are not just notable boxers, these are world class boxers - we shouldn't limit Wikipedia to only world class boxers - we don't do that for any other major sport. BBBofC Area titles were discussed above - my feeling is that many Area title holders will be notable enough but it's not enough to make notability a certainty - in some weight classes there have been area champions who were pretty much novices who have never gone any higher and haven't received much beyond a bit of local coverage. English title - probably notable. --Michig (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Its rare that the WBA, WBC, WBO, and IBF rate the same 15 fighters (I think only the WBC goes beyond 15 and ranks 40). Collectively we are talking 40-50 fighters ranked per weight class. Add in the regional title contenders and the like (as Donniediamond proposes and that probably adds another 40-50 or so fighters. The accounting for national titles, we can add another 20 or so. Over 17 weight classes, that puts it at about 2000 notable fighters with a fair amount of movement (new fighters added and old fighters removed). I think that is equal in number to other similarly situated sports (historically significant, individual sport, worldwide coverage/appeal). I agree that many editors use these as stone guidelines, where an athlete failing = no article. That is unfortunate, but nothing these guidelines can magically fix. However, with the fractured nature of boxing I think what Donniediamond proposes is as good as we can get. RonSigPi (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My proposal is to set a bar where guys are "automatically" notable. There will be plenty of other boxers, or those in boxing, that will be notable but surely they would pass via WP:GNG etc?

I left it a month before taking any action because I wanted to hear as many opinions as possible on the subject and I respect the opinion of you guys. I am looking to bring forward my proposal within the weekend. So if any of you have any further input please pipe up. Once again here is the most recent version HERE. --Donniediamond (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you should create a new header and submit in the body and not via link. A long time has passed since people looked at this and it would probably get the most accurate feedback just being considered a new proposal and leaving this one for dead.RonSigPi (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ron, yeah I will start a new discussion and paste the most recent revision there. I will also give a heads up to everyone who has engaged in this discussion. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Necessary - I too was confused to just which proposal you were referring too.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Option 1, Draft 4. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So notability for having fought for a Commonwealth title will definitely not be included, then? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mac, no its not included for "automatic notability". I actually thought of you when leaving it out and realized 'that's one !vote I've likely lost' because I know you support the CBC title, but I just don't think these days it is a notable title anymore. I believe that most will qualify through GNG but I wanted to keep the criteria as clear and uncluttered as possible so I left it out, along with the more notable EBU title. I just thought 'if they are notable titles then one of the Big 4 will give them a ranking off the back of it.' I hope you can understand my rationale and that you are still able to support the revision.--Donniediamond (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely—fully supported on my end. I only wanted clarification on the CBC, so that I know not to create articles in the future where a boxer's only achievement of note was fighting for/winning that title. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That's really good to hear Mac. For the record I would probably support any CBC title winner pre-95 at AfD but I thought it we add all these anomalies then the criteria would become too fractured and messy. I am going to formalize the proposal today and see if its got wings. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Revision of Boxing Notability Criteria

Proposal

Boxers are presumed notable if they;

   1. Have fought for a World title for one of the following current or historical major sanctioning bodies or predecessor : International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Association (WBA) (and its predecessor the NBA), World Boxing Council (WBC), World Boxing Organization (WBO), or NYSAC; or
   2. Have fought for the national title of any country which has produced four (or more) individual World title holders of any of the above sanctioning bodies; or 
   3. Have been ranked in the world Top 15 of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, The Ring, BoxRec, or TBRB; or 
   4. Have competed in AIBA’s APB or WSB competitions or fought in the final of an AIBA affiliated and World Amateur Boxing Championship medal winning country (for Men see Medal table (1974 - present), for Women see Medal table (2001 - present)), or have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament.

Boxing Discussion

As you may have seen above, there has been a three month long discussion with regards streamlining the current WP:BOX which many regular boxing editors have argued are confusing and inconsistent. It has been a very productive, if slow, discussion and I think we have fairly thrashed out many of the issues presented. I have gone through a number of potential Draft proposals here and I think we have come to a wording that most are agreeable with. Therefore I am proposing that the below Notability Criteria replaces the current version of WP:BOX. I hope it gets your support. --Donniediamond (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I have no objection, as long as something is added to the effect that not satisfying these criteria does not necessarily mean a boxer is not notable, and that many other boxers will also be notable. --Michig (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Then why have the guidelines at all.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

To indicate criteria which would indicate that notability is highly likely. Pretty obvious really. --Michig (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not so obvious or I wouldn't point it out - guidelines indicate presumption of notability with GNG being the fallback. In any case I was grumbling a bit about dropping ranking to 15 but after re-reading the reasoning (getting rid of all the regional possibilities) I can agree to that. Simplicity is better. I am still bothered by what is meant by affiliates - could that be clarified? Also I notice that the Women's titles are no longer part of the whole (would these be the affiliates?).Peter Rehse (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The proposed guideline sets a high bar to only include clearly notable boxers. It therefore does not follow that anyone else is not notable. This is in contrast to other sports guidelines where the bar is set very low (e.g. 1 appearance in a professional league, 1 top class cricket appearance, etc.). The distinction would mean that anyone arguing for or against notability for boxers falling below this guideline would need to present an argument beyond 'satisfies/fails NBOX', also taking into account the GNG, historically significant belts, etc.. It may seem obvious that GNG is an alternative route to notability yet we still keep getting boxers taken to AfD based purely on 'failing' a much disputed guideline. --Michig (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some editors treat failing SNG as automatically having someone fail GNG as opposed to just not giving the presumption, but that is a much broader issue than can be realistically handled here. That being said, the top of the guideline states "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." Therefore, I don't think we need a specific call out of that idea here. RonSigPi (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support, but with some minor copyediting if that block of text is to be added verbatim: The Ring needs italicising; curly apostrophe " ’ " needs to be straight apostrophe " ' "; and "World" should be in lower case. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Mac, feel free to amend the proposal to ensure it is grammatically more acceptable. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I generally support. However, I worry this is not properly structured. It says "Have fought for a World title for one of the following current or historical major sanctioning bodies, its predecessor or recognized affiliate." What affiliate sanctions a world title fight? Most affiliates would be considered regional bodies and thus give regional belts. So I think it would need to be something like "Have fought for a World title (full or interim) or regional title (full only) for one of the following current or historical major sanctioning bodies, its predecessor or recognized affiliate..." That is accurate with what titles regional bodies grant (note: the world full or interim or regional full only is consistent with what is out there. Also, speaking of titles, could duration and colored titles be added. They are historical relics and were removed from the old guidelines with no real reason given. Considering how some use the SNGs as a hard pass/fail, I think those are useful to add. RonSigPi (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Would be happy to remove or recognized affiliate if it is considered ambiguous as it is probably superfluous.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Update, I have removed the term or recognized affiliate. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with what Peter Rehse is saying (although my guess it we will come out in the debate on entirely different levels). Its not clear what a recognized affiliate is. Basically, a recognized affiliate falls in one of two categories - either a structured entity such as the BBBofC or the OPBF or a inherent entity such as the WBO International or the IBF Intercontinental. It needs to be addressed clearly what is included and what is not - otherwise we are in the same ambiguous spot as before. With my last comment, are we really only talking world titles or do we want some regional? It would seem odd to me that the winner of the WBA NABA title would not be be considered passing, but the winner of the lesser WBA NABA-USA title would under criterion No. 2 since the lesser is national and the greater is regional. Do we need an actual list such as WP:NHOCKEY uses? Should we make a new criterion saying "Has won a full regional title for any structured affiliate (for example OPBF) or inherent affiliate (for example WBO International) of one of the above sanctioning bodies"? That way we have three tiers - tier I: fought for a world title, tier II: won a regional title, or tier III: won a national title for a major boxing nation. I think this clarification needs to take place or otherwise we keep having articles go up for AfD without a useful guideline.RonSigPi (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I like what appears to be a simpler criteria, although I am still confused by the "affiliations". I also would like to see criteria number 4 tightened up. Just because a country had one fighter in some division medal during the past 40+ years does not make all that country's champions and runners-up notable forever. As someone who comments frequently at AFD discussions I think the GNG trumps everything else, but I often see people trying to use NBOX as a way to circumvent GNG and I think that's wrong when you're talking about current fighters. Pre-internet fighters are different.Mdtemp (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to tamper much with 'Number 4', not because I think it is perfect, I don't, its a fudge, like almost everything on Wiki, but because it has served us pretty well thus far and we rarely get issues with fighters in Amateur Boxing.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Can I get confirmation that any boxer who has fought at least once for a European Union ("EBU-EU") title will be granted notability under this proposal? As some might know, it is one step below the full European ("EBU") title, but almost always leads to a shot at one; likely it could be considered the European equivalent to WBC Silver. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

my take is that it wouldn't consider that it conveys automatic notability. Obviously if they went on to fight for the EBU title or if one of the Big Four gave them a ranking out of it then they would cross the line. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't mess with number 4 - as a guideline it works pretty good - yes remove the word affiliate and that would solve the problem.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the term or recognized affiliate, as I said above it is probably superfluous anyway. I agree, the clearer and more simple we can keep this the better for the future. It's never going to be perfect but I am sure the new guides will cut out a lot of the nonsense.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I need to mention once again - the old guidelines had different organizations for women's boxing. Has that been considered in the new guidelines? Just observing - I have no preferences.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've not given it any consideration to be honest. Maybe it could be considered unisex?--Donniediamond (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment So now that recognized affiliates are removed, it means world titles give the presumption, regional titles do not, and yet national titles do. So winning the Irish title makes one presumed notable, but an Irish fighter winning the European Boxing Union isn't presumed notable? That seems illogical. What about No. 2 being something like "Have fought for the national title of any country, or regional title encompassing that country, which has produced four (or more) individual World title holders of any of the above sanctioning bodies"? One reason I like this is it gets away from if the title itself is notable and go more toward how big boxing is in a particular country an in turn how much coverage we can presume. That way, a fighter fighting for the OPBF title from Australia would have a presumption of coverage while a fighter fighting for the same title from Papua New Guinea would not. We are not addressing the merits of the OPBF title or any of the other regional titles (WBO Intercontinental, NABF, etc.), but instead in coverage of boxing in the respective nations much like you propose for the national titles. RonSigPi (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making when you say "winning the Irish title makes one presumed notable, but an Irish fighter winning the European Boxing Union isn't presumed notable", that is a very fair point. The new criteria does not explicitly state that winning an EBU title gets automatic notability. However, winning an EBU title gives you a Top 15 ranking with the WBA and that gives you automatic notability. The logic might go around the houses to get to its destination but it works, I hope.--Donniediamond (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right about EBU winner often getting a top 15 rating (not always, but enough to not argue it); however, we are talking about the whole world. For example, the WBC has 10 regional organization - see [5] so with the ten champions and ten challengers (the criteria says fought for), that means 20 fighters and not all can be in the top 10. A few other examples outside of my Irish example. A losing challenger for the Dominican Republic title is presumed notable, but a winner of the WBC recognized Caribbean title winner isn't. A losing challenger for the Nicaraguan title is presumed notable, but the FECARBOX title winner (a quite highly notable title, almost on the level of EBU) isn't. A losing challenger for the South Korean title is presumed notable, but the WBC Asian recognized title winner title isn't. A losing challenger for the Ghanaian title is presumed notable, but the African Boxing Union title winner isn't. I just don't think this makes sense or is constant with he guidelines of other sports. It's like saying those that have played a game in the top tier Major League Baseball/English Premier League/National Hockey League are presumed notable as are those that have played a game in the third tier Eastern League,Football League One,ECHL. However, those that have played in the second tier International League/Football League Championship/American Hockey League are not. RonSigPi (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Question about WP:NCOLLATH

Hello! I have a question about the notability criteria for college athletes at WP:NCOLLATH, specifically the part that defines a notable award as one which is listed at Template:College football award navbox. That template includes College Football All-America Team. Does that mean a person named to any college football All-American team is entitled to an article, or is it only certain All-American teams? (There are so many!) The person I am wondering about was third-team All-American in the 1930s for the NANA (North American Football Alliance), an organization which either no longer exists or has a new name now, but that may well have been a notable honor in the 1930s. Any advice appreciated. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN - My understanding is that it only refers to consensus all-Americans (not unanimous, simple consensus), as found at College Football All-America Team#Consensus All-Americans. I can't see how any other interpretation makes sense, since thousands of folks have gotten the nod from a single all-American naming entity. Oh, and it's definitely only first team, regardless. Perhaps we should make it more clear on the NCOLLATH guidelines? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Onel. That makes sense to me too - and I agree that the NCOLLATH guidelines are very unclear on this point. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This has come up a number of times in various sports. One main issue being that the template has changed from when first used (people have often complained that this makes too much of a moving target). While not definitive, from what I have seen in team sports consensus first team All Americans at the Division I level meet the mark. For individual sports, national champions I think are seen as being equivalent. Therefore, someone like Alan Fried is presumed notable due to being an individual national champion in Division I wrestling, but someone finishing 8th and earning All-American honors would not meet the SNG. RonSigPi (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

As mainly a basketball editor I can say that I have yet to come across a modern (NCAA tournament era: 1939-present) basketball All-American who made first, second or third team on a MAJOR All-American team (read as:the teams that contribute to the consensus selections) who did not also meet WP:GNG. I am not at all suggesting expanding the NCOLLATH guideline, just pointing it out that it varies by sport. Basketball may be a bit different in that the All-America teams are small - really a third-teamer is still considered a top 15 player in the country by a voting body with credibility. If I have question I usually research to see if the person meets GNG, which is the more important standard anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about basketball, but since the SNG is for all college sports I think it tends to be conservative. Certainly there is more coverage for college basketball than college tennis. RonSigPi (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree. But I'm not sure that a consensus first-team All-American in, say, cross-country, would meet GNG anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say cross country is an individual sport and that the only one to have a presumption of notability would be the national champion for each gender. Same could probably be said for sports like fencing and rifle. Only the national champions, of which there are 2-3 per gender, per year, would get the presumption. RonSigPi (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly, I've long wondered whether it wouldn't just be a better idea to eliminate NCOLLATH altogether -- which seems pretty much there to service the needs of American Division I basketball and football -- and roll issues of collegiate athletics into the individual sports criteria. All three NCOLLATH criteria are seriously flawed (#3 just echoes the GNG, for one). Ravenswing 21:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that perspective, but I also see a lot of instances where editors (almost always from outside of North America) who are pretty quick to PROD an article with an edit summary of something like "scholastic player - not notable." If you eliminate NCOLLATH altogether it doesn't give editors any guidance that many college players ARE notable because some sports are covered at the same level as professional sports. I'd almost just favor a tiered system that covers a couple of sports (maybe just football and men's basketball if we can be honest and apolitical), maybe there is another tier like college baseball, hockey and women's basketball which has a higher threshold, then maybe the rest are GNG. That would actually reflect reality more. Rikster2 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's rather because outside of a couple of sports in NCAA Division I action (because let's face it, university sport isn't particularly notable in Canada, Mexico or Central America either), worldwide scholastic sport isn't notable. If you read my comment completely, you can't have missed the "roll issues of collegiate athletics into the individual sports criteria" part. Criteria explicitly mentioning notable college sport, such as exists with WP:NHOCKEY, is considerably more accurate and gives editors guidance for those sports where collegiate action is genuinely notable.

Beyond that, we have to remember that the whole premise of NSPORTS' criteria is as guidance as to whether a subject will be able to meet the GNG. RonSigPi speaks of presumptive notability for national champions in obscure sports, but I question that much: can anyone demonstrate that the NCAA women's epee champion routinely meets the GNG, absent any notability she might have as a result of world championships or the Olympics? Ravenswing 03:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, I just think there is some value in calling out college athletics in general because there is a segment of editors who blanket assume (often with great confidence) that athletes below the pro level aren't notable. Having a separate notability standard helps bring that awareness. That said, I'm not hard over against rolling the standards into the sports. I was just adding to the discussion and there wasn't a need to be salty about it, as my comment was not. Rikster2 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• My experience is with college football. In that realm, it is pretty clear that first-team All-Americans designated by one or more of the official selectors recognized by the NCAA secure the type of coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG and that a presumption of notability is entirely appropriate for such players. As noted by Rikster, such a presumption may not be warranted in other college sports. Cbl62 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Ravenswing. The guideline should specify notability of college athletes by sport. Football and men's basketball should be easy to defend, the rest are not so clear. Any awards list used to presume notability should be a statically defined list and not based off a template that is used for primarily articles and not necessarily to demonstrate athlete notability.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Earlier discussion At Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_19#College_All-Americans, there seemed to a rough consensus that All-Americans were not presumed to be notable across all sports. However, the topic grew stale and no change was made.—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If we roll the college athlete notability standards into the sport then I think at some level All-American needs to factor in for football and basketball. It isone of the highest honors (only below major national POY awards IMO) and I think a reasonable cutoff concerning which teams, etc can easily be drafted if we only need to focus on one sport. Rikster2 (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, given the enormous media coverage United States college basketball and football receive. First Team All-Americans are already accorded presumptive notability in NHOCKEY, dealing with a sport with less coverage, and I expect a good case is there for college baseball to be added to the list. Ravenswing 18:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In view of the comments above, I have proposed new guidelines below. Fell free to comment. RonSigPi (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

MMA fighter notability proposal

I moved this discussion here from WT:MMA. Jakejr (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the notability criteria for MMA fighters be changed slightly--from having 3 top tier fights to having 2 top tier wins. This would require that to be notable fighters must have shown the ability to compete at the highest level instead of just being signed to fill up fight cards. Fighting for a top tier championship would still show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I like this change, but perhaps we could also add the criteria that any world top 10 fighter (say, by Sherdog) would also be considered notable. That would bring this criteria in line with the criteria for boxers and kickboxers. Papaursa (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with Papaursa's suggestion. It makes even more sense when you look at his comment at my proposal for the notability of MMA orgs. Here is the proposal as I now see it.

Proposed Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they

   1. Have won at least two (2) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or
   2. Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization; or 
   3. Have been ranked in the world top 10 by Sherdog (other rankings can be added after discussion at WT:MMA). 

Mdtemp (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse This means notability will go to those who have shown the ability to successfully compete at the highest level and brings the notability criteria more in line with other fighting sports. Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This is very exclusive and underepresents MMA when comparing to other sports such as the NFL, NBA or MLB where people are assumed notable if they played in just 1 game! CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

MMA is a minor sport compared to the ones you mention, so applying the same criteria doesn't make sense. Jakejr (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A big difference between MMA and the three sports mentioned is the coverage of "up and coming" athletes. If someone plays one game in the NFL or NBA, then that means they likely had extensive college careers that produced significant coverage. Same can be said for MLB players and their minor league systems/the towns they played AAA and AA ball in. Unless you can show otherwise, I have not seen that kind of up and coming coverage for MMA athletes before they reach the top tier. Therefore, I think you need a few fights to presume that such coverage exists. RonSigPi (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Actually the only sports to not have a "actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition" criteria listed are Boxing, Horse racing, Kickboxing, Mixed martial arts, and Triathlon. Every other sport listed has a criteria that does not require a victory or specific number of times they need to have participated, only that they have once meet the criteria. Kevlar (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse Showing an ability to compete at the highest level seems like a reasonable standard for notability and in keeping with the spirit of WP:NSPORTS. Jakejr (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Let's put it to the test - @Mdtemp and Jakejr: Can you provide four or five examples of MMA fighters who satisfy the minimum requirements of each of the three proposed criteria above, so we may compare the coverage for each of the examples under the WP:GNG criteria? Also, I would not support any language that permits a WikiProject to unilaterally change the NSPORTS SNG for its sport, such as the parenthetical language in criterion no. 3 above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse: Sounds quite reasonable, although I've no objection to Dirtlawyer's test. As far as Dirtlawyer's other suggestion goes, I see no merit at all in a restriction requiring editors with limited to no knowledge of MMA to pass judgment on the accuracy and sport-wide acceptance of MMA sources, and am entirely comfortable with the decision resting with those actually knowledgeable in the sport. Ravenswing 06:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose until we have a reasonable demonstration that the proposed SNG criteria render similar results to an analysis under the GNG criteria. WP:MMA has had repeated problems with attempting to gain acceptance for their project-level notability standards at AfD. As for the attempt to incorporate by reference any future change that the WP:MMA editors may come up with in the future, we would not accept any such future changes without review by any other sports WikiProjects, either. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not my proposal, but I have no problem with just using Sherdog. I assume Mdtemp was just laying the foundation in case Sherdog stops ranking fighters. The proposed criteria are more restrictive than the existing ones that were already approved here and are currently in use, so the GNG issue is already addressed. Anyone meeting the GNG is notable and doesn't need any SNG. Am I wrong about that? Jakejr (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this proposal takes into consideration the sort of fighters that some may be matched with. So you could have 1 fighter in Bellator or Pride who loses 3 times because his opponent was better and didn't win until his 5th fight also seems like the rule would not have any consistency as it would vary from fighter to fighter. I think the current rules are better because it makes it clear if a major organisation keeps someone for 3 fights, then they are notable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How does requiring two wins "vary from fighter to fighter"? Fighters new to an organization usually get paired against each other and are often signed for 3 to 5 fight contracts. Requiring two wins against their peers seems fair, consistent, and objective as well as showing the talent to compete at the highest level. Jakejr (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• endorse A toughening up of the MMA notability criteria would bring them more in line with other martial arts and would also seem to help bring this notability criteria more in line with WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I am not opposed to change but I would like to point out that the proposed guidelines are uniquie or different from the 26 other sports listed in 3 ways. The "this page in a nutshell" states that: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page... A: Right now of the 26 sports listed only 5 (Boxing, Horse racing, Kickboxing, Mixed martial arts, and Triathlon) require that you participate more than once at the highest level. B: Mixed Martial Arts would be the only sport that required you to win at the highest level, not just participate. C: Of the 26 sports listed only 6 (Athletics, Boxing, Cycling, Horse racing, Kickboxing, Sumo). Maybe one solution would be to create a sub group of "Combat Sports" within WP:NSPORT with it's own "this section in a nutshell" that reads something like: A combat sport athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has won 2 or more matches major professional competition, has been ranked in an appropriate "top 10" list, or won a significant honor, as listed on this page... On a side note, of the sports that have wikigroups Mixed Martial Arts already has the lowest total number of articles at 3625, the next lowest would be Figure skating with 4460 total articles. Kevlar (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, having the fewest articles out of that set makes sense given MMA is one of the youngest sports on the list, in most cases by a matter of decades or centuries. Resolute 17:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What was point C? RonSigPi (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Often times with sports 'notability' is equated to 'good.' One can be bad and notable. In MMA most fighters are not covered on their own, but in the context of their fights (previews, fight summaries, 'who will they fight next', etc.). The coverage focuses on both fighters - winner and loser. I don't see a fighters that win gaining that much more coverage than a fighter that loses. As the guidelines stand now, if you fight 3 times we presume enough coverage exists. I don't see how winning two fights would be that different from losing two - coverage is generated from two fights. Winning those fights may mean someone is better than someone that loses two, but I don't see them becoming more notable. If the guidelines need changed, then I am open to it. However, I don't think making the metric based on winning or losing for a sport with the structure of MMA makes sense. RonSigPi (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that if someone is bad, then notability needs to be achieved through WP:GNG not any SNG. There are boxers who were found notable because they became notable for being little more than a warm punching bag, but that was through GNG not WP:NBOX. I would also disagree with your statement that winning doesn't make someone more notable than losing--winners will almost always receive more coverage, especially in the long run. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment If this proposal is defeated, then the current SNG will still be in use. Those who oppose the new criteria range from CrazyAces489 who has proposed multiple times that MMA fighters can become notable without fighting at the highest level (something I see as definitely contradicting the basic premise of WP:NSPORT) to Dirtlawyer1 who wants proof that the new criteria would be essentially equivalent to WP:GNG. I appreciate this view, although I suspect that SNGs came into being because it was difficult for certain fields to show the GNG was met. However, it seems to me that the new standards for MMA fighters would be more likely to align the GNG and SNG, than using the current standards. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know if it counts for anything, but the majority of editors involved with MMA topics who voted endorsed this change.Mdtemp (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse I also think 'Holds, or has previously held, a belt in a second-tier organisation.' would be make a mixed martial artist notable. Zaostao (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said earlier, claiming notability for success at a second tier organization has never been accepted for MMA fighters and seems directly at odds with the basic criteria at WP:NSPORT which says "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". BY definition competing in second tier events is not competing at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Papaursa: Reaching the pinnacle of a second-tier organisation makes a mixed martial artist more notable than being a nobody who went 1-2 or even 0-3 in a top-tier organisation considering MMA is an individual sport. For example, this will obviously seem biased since I am using a draft I have created as an example but, compare Eric Reynolds and Draft:Justin Gaethje. It is clear which athlete is of greater notability outside of some arbitrary notability guidelines. Zaostao (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe you've made my point as to why the new criteria are better. Under them, Reynolds would not be notable because he hasn't won two top tier fights but Gaethje would be as a top 10 ranked fighter. Papaursa (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's been a month since anyone commented on this proposal. Personally, I think this can be closed as Endorsed because I think both the votes and arguments lean that way, but my opinion is already on record. Would a neutral party care to close this and modify the existing SNG if that is the perceived consensus? Papaursa (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse Jumbotron5000 (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I was asked by Papaursa at User talk:Mkdw#Discussion question to look at the discussion. While I do not necessarily personally agree with some of the oppose comments as they're outlying outlining problems with both the current notability guideline as well as the proposal. For example if an identical proposal to the current wording were to be proposed, it would also be opposed based some of the arguments. It's clear there's a wider discord between of the editors involved here as to what the notability requirements should be for MMA. I do not believe there is a consensus here as outlined by WP:CONSENSUS to implement these changes. Considering the controversy around MMA, I think an RFC should have been held for a wider discussion. Mkdw^talk 23:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Mkdw, thanks for the response. I agree that the arguments of many of those opposed would also rule out the existing standards. My view was that the new proposal was better than the old, not necessarily flawless. I looked at the RFC criteria and am not sure this fits, especially since it says to include the most interested groups. I think that's been done with this being posted (and redirected) for the MMA and sports projects. I'm not sure who else needs to be included. I'll also admit I don't know how to start an RFC discussion. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Papaursa: Sorry, I didn't see this reply since I wasn't pinged in it. WP:RFC is simply an easy way to generate a lot of participation on any number of given topics on Wikipedia. A proposal to change a notability guideline is absolutely an appropriate thing to list at RFC and it occurs all the time. In fact, there's an entire corner of RFC just for policy and guideline discussions: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That being said, there isn't really a participation problem here, but since it's a change that would have far reaching consequences to the project, it may require wider input than simply those that watch this talk page. In any case it was merely a recommendation, and after reviewing the current discussion, there isn't a consensus to implement this change. Mkdw^talk 01:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse This is a better standard than the previous. I do not see any disagreement between this one an the GNG. I think is good to go. Osplace 15:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for WP:NCOLLATH

Proposal

College athletes are notable if:

1. They are a Division I (NCAA) All-American in FBS football or basketball by an NCAA recognized selecting body (honorable mention or higher).
2. They are a first team NCAA Division I All-American in baseball, FCS football, ice hockey (east or west), lacrosse, soccer, or softball by an NCAA recognized selecting body.
3. They are an NCAA Division I individual national champion in cross country, golf, swimming and diving, track and field (indoor and outdoor), tennis, or wrestling.
4. Have won the Harlon Hill Trophy, Gagliardi Trophy, or the NABC Player of the Year in any division.

Note 1: sports are gender neutral, so a men's or women's first-team All-American in soccer would meet criterion 2.
Note 2: this guideline, when applicable, broaden and do not narrow sports specific guidelines (e.g., does not narrow WP:NHOCKEY if WP:NHOCKEY still addresses college players).
-RonSigPi (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Rationale Division I football and basketball are heavily covered, so that is the basis of no. 1. The sports in no. 2 receive a good amount of coverage generally and have strong sport specific followings. For No. 3, those are the individual sports that receive good amount of coverage generally and have strong sport specific followings and the national champions can be considered equivalent of first team All-Americans. For No. 4, since football and basketball are covered so much at the college level in the U.S., major award winners of the lower divisions also should have notability. For the second note, as some have said, non-Americans don't understand how much college sports are followed in the U.S. This can carve them out while still letting the sports specific projects function on their own sport as they see fit (e.g., if WP:NTRACK is motivated to include top-8 at the NCAA in the future, then they can do so and this won't prevent that). Also, this isn't perfect (e.g., the Walter Payton Award winner may not be a first-team FCS All-American), but it should be manageable and take care of 99% of the situation that arise. Figured this was a good stab at it in view of the discussion above and other discussions on college athletics. Comment away and if there is strong opinion, I am free for change.RonSigPi (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, two thoughts. The first thing is that while sports may theoretically be gender-neutral, media coverage is most certainly not. Since all NSPORTS criteria should reflect a likelihood that those who meet them will pass the GNG, declaring equality between men's and women's collegiate sport just doesn't work. With the exception of college basketball, media notice just doesn't clear beyond the routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE.

  For a second, have you tested the presumptions? Does (for instance) the average NCAA wrestling 157-lb national champion meet the GNG, sufficiently that an article about him would survive an AfD? Ravenswing 09:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  • When we drafted the original NTRACK I considered a criterion like this and eventually purposely omitted it, since I wasn't sure that all NCAA champions would meet GNG; although to be perfectly honest, it would be a more valid criterion than some that NTRACK currently has, and I'm not completely opposed to introducing it now. Most NCAA track champions (and many lower-placed athletes) do get more than sufficient coverage through their collegiate exploits alone, and the rest would likely be at least borderline; but back then, I wasn't sure that it was something we could rely on.

    (I'm pretty sure track gets more media coverage than some of the other sports mentioned, and it certainly did so in the deep past; so if this is an iffy guideline for track, I have serious doubts about how well it works with other sports. Admittedly, NTRACK has so many other criteria that many NCAA champions will pass it anyhow - which is not the case for some other sports - so NTRACK has less use for a criterion like this.) Sideways713 (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Regarding your first point, you are correct the media is not gender neutral. However, some women's sports are well covered in the media. Women's basketball is featured on ESPN and many local papers cover women's athletics at the college level. That is why I was selective in the sports I picked - softball gets a lot of coverage; rifle not so much. Regarding your second point, I think you made a valid point about women's fencing in the earlier discussion. Therefore, I selected only sports that I have had success with regard to establishing GNG. See the test case below for wrestling 157 lbs. champions. Wrestling, track, etc. are well covered. Again, something like beach volleyball, at this point not so much so I didn't include it. RonSigPi (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Seems to be little momentum here. As a start, I'd suggest pushing forward with just football and men's basketball, which I hope would have consensus, and later discuss other sports piecemeal.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Very little momentum - surprising considering the earlier discussion by multiple members. I would hesitate just to add football and men's basketball. First, I don't even think enough has spoken to have consensus on that. Second, one can read the current guideline as already covering those. The goal of this was to get a much more clear and defined picture. Adding these to what is already out there only muddles the water more. To replace what is already there needs a lot more commentary as that would expressly exclude a lot of sports some already feel are covered. I dont even think the gender is that much of an issue as only one editor raised a question on how notable something like woman's soccer is. I would be willing to make more narrow (e.g., only the men's sports listed above and maybe 1st team AA woman's basketball), but we don't really have much comment on even that issue. Again, considering the discussion on the boxing and MMA proposals, I would have thought more would have something to say about this. RonSigPi (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd think we'd need more testing, but honestly, I think it should all be devolved to the individual sports. Eliminate NCOLLATH completely, and have those sports Wikiprojects that don't address collegiate play in their own subordinate criteria to do so. I know my take on a number of those sports, but I'm no expert on college baseball (for instance), and I wouldn't consider my POV on its notability all that expert. Ravenswing 16:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Ravenswing, each sport should be up to the individual sports to determine. There should not be an overarching college guideline beyond what we have now. Some already do address college sports. The whole purpose of NSPORTS was to get away from generalized guidelines that covered multiple sports. -DJSasso (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Test case

Per suggestion of Ravenswing , here is a test case of last 10 157 lbs. NCAA wrestling champions (stopped after five references for each):

• 2016 - Isaiah Martinez - see [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
• 2015 - Isaiah Martinez - (see 2016)
• 2014 - Alex Dieringer - see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].
• 2013 - Derek St. John - see [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]
• 2012 - Kyle Dake - clearly meets GNG and already has article.
• 2011 - Bubba Jenkins - see [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] (note: already has page, but that focuses on MMA career so wanted to find sources that at least partially focused on his wrestling).
• 2010 - J.P. O'Connor - see [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]
• 2009 - Jordan Burroughs - Olympic gold medalist, meets GNG.
• 2008 - Jordan Leen - see [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]
• 2007 - Trent Paulson - see [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]

I also found a number of links from examiner.com, but wikipedia won't let me include those.

One thing I noticed is that it was harder to find sources for J.P. O'Connor, Jordan Leen, and Trent Paulson, but I think that is because of the time passed since their titles (6+ years). Was harder to find the national title articles similar to those of Isaiah Martinez and Alex Dieringer (e.g., could not find a Boston Herald or Boston Globe article on O'Connor's title, but I cannot imagine they did not have an article of a local wrestler winning a national title). If you notice, for example, most sources for Paulson are actually pretty recent on his post-college career.

All that being said, I think this test case shows that the NCAA wrestling champs can be presumed to meet GNG. I picked sports that I know gain coverage. To a point raised earlier, maybe fencing is not covered very much. But wrestling, track, and the other sports listed are fairly substantially covered. RonSigPi (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed WP:NROWING

I've made a proposal for rowing-specific notability guidelines over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rowing; would appreciate some feedback before adding. Cheers, --Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:NHOCKEY criterion #4

The wording of this has been tweaked a dismaying number of times over the years, as editors have demonstrated themselves bound and determined to stretch the original intent to cover NN players. Some recent AfDs have pointed this out, and I think it's time we put this to rest. I'm proposing the following changes to the criteria, to read:

"#4: Achieved preeminent honors in a lower minor or major junior league (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star), or in an NCAA Division I collegiate hockey league (all-time top ten career scorer or First or Second Team All-American). (Note: merely playing in one of these leagues is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements)"

This will, hopefully -- although I've said this before -- end further misinterpretations. Ravenswing 16:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support - this re-wording. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support-ish The wording is good. Two small things that I have seen come up. First, expressly stating if the list of preeminent honors is exclusive or not. I have seen some debate on that. Also, could we define 'top ten career scorer' since that could mean points, goals, or either. Both these issues came up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luc Beausoleil and that resulted in a no consensus. In other words, I am fine with the language, but would like to see clarity on those two issues. RonSigPi (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm pretty comfortable with a top-ten career scorer in either goals or points getting a pass. Ravenswing 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

One more concern. This has never come up, but having seen people that are more pro deletion I think at some point it will. The "all-time top ten career scorer" is a moving target. Let's say in 2016 a player ends his career 10th in scoring (both points and goals). In the next season, that player is passed and now sits 11th in both. In 2017, does the article get deleted because the presumption is no longer valid? Or is it that if at any point the player is in the top ten? With that, some could take this the other way and say all the top ten scorers after the first season would be considered notable - technically meets the guideline, but that logic isn't really with the spirit of the guideline. I would say its more like someone that at one point was in the top ten at any point after the league's tenth season. That gets at what I think we all mean. Again, not that the proposed language is wrong, but I worry about clarity going forward. RonSigPi (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

If it hasn't come up, it's likely to sooner or later. My response is that notability isn't temporary. The premise behind a top-ten all-time scorer getting a notability pass isn't that we think that's important, but that a player who's done that is likely to have a career strong enough to be able to meet the GNG, and there have been cases in the last couple years where a player who nominally meets NHOCKEY has still failed at AfD because no evidence of GNG-qualifying sources had been found. If you were able to meet the GNG before as a top-ten scorer, then you'd be able to make it even when your career totals are surpassed. That, I think, covered your hypothetical of a league only a season or two old: we'd demand evidence that those players pass the GNG, all the same. Ravenswing 14:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I 100% agree that notability isn't temporary. My concern is with a presumption being temporary. In the case above, in 2016 the person has a presumption and in 2017 they do not. I think presumptions should be as fixed as possible. It's one thing to have guidelines change, but another to have a guideline that moves. To give a more clear example, under the guideline, would Steve Climo be given a presumption of meeting SNG (see [41])? In the first season of the ECHL he was in the top ten in points and goals (see [42]). However, that was the only year he played and now is nowhere near the top ten. So at one point he was top ten, but now isn't. Would the presumption change - in 1989 he was presumed notable but now isn't? I think that is just messy that presumptions change and gives little use to the guidelines. I would prefer something like "all-time top ten career scorer at any point after the league's tenth season." This way players like Climo are not given a presumption they should not, yet as more players score and move up lists older players do not have their presumption changed. RonSigPi (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Remember these are just rules of thumb to help with deciding if an articles are likely to meet GNG, so when they no longer meet these rules of thumb they will just have to meet another one or GNG directly. Meeting these isn't a permanent pass for notability. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Climo wouldn't pass this criterion anyway, as it is top-ten scorer all-time, not just for one season. However, as far as presumption being a moving target, I don't have any concern with that. We are, after all, presuming that a person who has achieved X has enough actual coverage to write an article. At some point that presumption must be justified. If we give an ECHLer an article for being 10th all-time in scoring, he is passed, and someone AFD's this player's article on the basis that they are now 11th, then honestly, someone needs to find the sources that demonstrates notability (which is not temporary) as the presumption (which is) is no longer valid. Resolute 16:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you missed that he was Top-10 in the ECHL's first season, thus he was Top-10 all-time at that point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - can some text be added to confirm which leagues are 'lower minor', 'major junior' etc, or at least add a link to an article already setting that out? Eldumpo (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • That is noted in the full page for NHOCKEY: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. Resolute 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Personally, I would like to remove "first team all-star" from the criteria. I do not believe that this award has consistently generated enough non-trivial coverage for the players so awarded that we can make the assumption that being named to an all-star list at a lower level league makes for a GNG pass. Resolute 15:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • On a side note: to help dispel long-held misconceptions about this guidance page, can we avoid using the term "pass"? In a non-hockey sense, of course. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support I am fine with this, I don't really think it makes much of a difference either way. Except for a few rareish situations they say the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment My apologies for joining the conversation a little late, but while we are on this subject, would it be a good idea to include some type of criteria for career goaltending records? Deadman137 (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Paralympics

I think given the upcoming extravaganza now is a pertinent time to raise WP:NOLYMPICS. I believe once, long ago, I was involved in drafting this guideline, and it was not worded to distinguish between Olympians and Paralympians but somewhere along the line that changed. If the idea is to establish articles of athletes who are "likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" then such a distinction should not be made. I move to change the rule to "they have competed at the modern Olympic OR PARALYMPIC Games" and remove the need to be a medallist at te Paralympic Games. Thoughts? - Basement12 (T.C) 00:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 20#Paralympics for a list of the most recent discussions on this topic. isaacl (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Thanks for directing me to a list of at best 3 year old discussions most of which I'd already seen, none of which actually present any reasons and if anything make me think there is an inherent bias against the Pacific Islands. It's almost as if I'm not familar with the topic and didn't help draft the guidelines. As many of the contibutors state the idea is to give a temporary reprieve to athletes who would then be needed to pass GNG etc. I see no reason there should be a distinction between Olympians and Paralympians. It seems, looking at those older discussions, anyone that has actually followed and worked on Paralympic and Olympic articles was convinced that there should be no distinction and only those that had little to no idea argued the alternative. I raise this afresh as there will be many stubs created about 2016 Paralympians in the coming months and they will all easily pass GNG if anyone give sthem the time and I really can't be bothered to go through multiple deletion debates for the sake of it - Basement12 (T.C) 00:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, the biggest takeaway from those older conversations seems to be that those advocating for a looser standard for Paralympic competitors have no facts to back up their belief that each and every Paralympian could pass the GNG, and little interest in doing the work to prove their case. (You can understand, I hope, that we can't just take their anecdotal word for it.) That being said, claiming "none of which actually present any reasons" is an odd way to convince us you reread them at all. You might not like the reasons proffered to maintain the status quo, but that doesn't mean that none were given. In any event, subordinate notability criteria are there to reflect the odds that subjects will meet the GNG, not to spare us the bother of going through multiple deletion debates. Ravenswing 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
• My apologies for eliding the purpose of the link: I provided it for the benefit of anyone wishing to participate in this discussion thread, so that it can be picked up from that point (such as the comment below). isaacl (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Test Case - lets start here Basement12. Can you establish WP:GNG being met by finding appropriate sources for the following athletes?

• George Portelli - Malta, snooker, 1960 Summer, bronze
• Sandra Coppard - Rhodesia, swimming, 1968 Summer, gold
• Brigitte Rajchl - Canada, alpine skiing, 1976 Winter, bronze
• Clause Stevens - Ireland, athletics, 1976 Summer, silver
• Ken Robertson - Great Britain, ice sledge racing, 1984 Winter, bronze
• Sik Lau - Hong Kong, wheelchair fencing, 1988 Summer, bronze
• Jeff Pagels - United States, cross-country skiing, 1994 Winter, silver [43] [44] [45]
• David Taylor - Barbados, swimming, 2008 Summer, 13th and 23rd [46] [47] [48] [49]
• Sandra Khumalo - South Africa, rowing, 2012 Summer, 8th [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]
• Carl Murphy - New Zealand, alpine skiing, 2014 Winter, 4th [55] [56] [57] [58]

I tried to select a cross section of athletes from different games, different continents, different sports, and different success levels. The only thing I kept consistent was that all are from English speaking nations. That way if GNG can be passed it shouldn't be that hard to establish. If GNG is not met for these, then I think the current standard clearly stands (and frankly since pre-2000 only lists medalists, if you cannot find sources to meet GNG for the above, I think it calls into question the notability of medalists). If these do meet GNG, then a more in depth test can be done for non-English nations, more depth, etc. RonSigPi (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ravenswing: The idea of having these guidelines is of course to judge who would be expected to pass GNG but short of actually demonstrating this for every single athlete I'm not sure how you'd like those arguing in favour of a change to show a suitable level of "interest in doing the work to prove their case". The difficulty of course in taking on a list like that above is that I don't have access to the complete past editions of national newspapers, especially difficult for the older Games and smaller nations (e.g. Times of Malta for Portelli), - but in my experience it is fair to assume that suitable sources would exist. I don't have time to tackle that full list right now (and even if I did I'm sure another list would be produced) but certainly for the most recent ones it wasn't at all difficult to stick the name into Google and find the sources above. I think a part of the idea behind these guidelines is to allow for those editors familiar with a subject to judge what should be "presumed" (that's the key word, notability still has to be established on a case by case basis) notable and I don't believe there is a distinction to be made between Paralympians and Olympians, particularly in the modern era. I'd also point out that a number of sports already presume notability for all Paralympians in their guidelines - Basement12 (T.C) 09:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Note AfD: See related to this discussion this AfD of a paralympic volleyball player: Junko Fujii. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 08:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Basement12, if you're unwilling to do any work to demonstrate that Paralympians are likely to meet the GNG -- even to tackling a very modest representative list such as RonSigPi presented -- then there's no reasonable response other than to oppose changing the current guideline. Devolving the sports SNGs to the various WikiProjects was certainly a sensible reform, but you're badly mistaken if you believe that they were thereby immunized against review or approval by the community, or that the unsupported judgment of their proponents was not to be questioned. Let's also not pretend that a "number" of sports presume notability for all Paralympians. Two do: curling and equestrian sports, and I'd be very interested in seeing the evidence of the associated projects for the same.

  Beyond that, c'mon. Look at that list. You don't think you're able to find sources for an American athlete? For a Canadian athlete? For a British athlete? South Africa, Hong Kong, Ireland, these countries all have vibrant and large English-language presses; these aren't all Malta or Rhodesia. And while we're talking experience, my experience (having participated in several hundred AfDs) is that in the great number of cases, sources for a notable subject can be smoked out in five minutes, if not in twenty seconds. If you've had the time to bring over 130 articles to DYK, and you've had the time this week to make more than 200 edits, then it's not unreasonable to ask that you put in a half-hour or so to convince us to change Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Ravenswing 09:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: It would perhaps be nice if you assumed a little good faith and let the discussion run before jumping in with a big bold oppose. Not immediately having time to tackle an arbitrary list in its entirety is not the same as being "unwilling to do any work". I've made what I think are reasonable points regarding press coverage and why it would be difficult to find in some cases while demonstrating how easy it is to find in many. Yes those countries have large English language press coverage but I don't have newspapers from the 70s to hand. So perhaps you'd like to counter those "unsupported judgment"s as part of a review by the community rather than replying in a tone and manner that might be interpreted as you thinking I'm a moron. Also last I checked One is the loneliest number and Three Is a Magic Number but two is also a number, I only mentioned those as examples of other projects treatment of the issue. Perhaps the answer here is to presume notability for Paralympics who competed after say 2004, as demonstrated above sourcing those isn't too difficult. The main argument in the past against change seems to be the Paralympics don't get as much press coverage as the Olympics, which remains true, but that doesn't mean they don't get a huge amount especially over the last 10 years. My main aim here is to allow time for 2016 competitors to have articles developed without them immediately being rushed to AfD. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 10:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

With your first response to this thread containing such sentiments as "none of which actually present any reasons and if anything make me think there is an inherent bias against the Pacific Islands" and "only those that had little to no idea argued the alternative," I'm somewhat surprised at a demand for good faith that you don't yourself seem prepared to accord to those whose stance you disparage. Since the sourcing given above -- so far -- is dominated by links that wouldn't pass the GNG (by way of casual mentions, press releases, routine sports coverage of the type explicitly debarred from supporting notability by WP:ROUTINE and unreliable sources), I'm quite comfortable with my position unless I see some serious proof to the contrary. You made a proposal; I stated my opposition to it. There's no statutory time limit that needs to tick off before I'm permitted to do so.

That being said, the best way to avoid articles from being taken to AfD is to write well-sourced articles, and to avoid taking articles to mainspace unless they are. Ravenswing 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are of course permitted to do what you like but dismissing those sources as routine shows you didn't really look at them. You've also chosen to ignore my suggestion about more recent competitors. As I've said all the older discussions seem to oppose with the underlying theory that Paralympics=less famous than Olympics=needs different rules, overall there was a lack of knowledge/awareness/understanding about the Paralympics from some of those involved hence the "little to no idea" comment. 20 or even 10 years ago that argument would have been solid but it no longer is. I'll choose to assume you aren't insinuating that I personally don't write well sourced articles but the fact is that lots of short, stubby articles will get written in the coming months with citations to results where the athletes are mentioned in passing (i.e. routine coverage). As a bare minimum each athlete will have a profile on the Games website (that alone might allow them to pass GNG depending on how they are written this time around) and plenty of coverage elsewhere, so to me going through a separate AfD every time isn't a productive use of time and resources but hey ho, I'm confident all will be able to be proven notable in the end and can see opinion here isn't likely to change - Basement12 (T.C) 15:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Very simple solution for the 2016 games. When the articles are created, make sure they are will sourced and they will not be rushed to AfD. For examples of articles I have created recently that have not been rushed to AfD see Tom Green (runner) and Sierra Schmidt. No presumption of notability is present for either, but GNG always trumps and I provided independent sources. I have no idea if they would pass an AfD, but they were not rushed there because of the sources provided. Regarding your presumption for 2004 and beyond, could you find sources for Taylor, Khumalo, and Murphy above? RonSigPi (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Some sources were already added above next to the list of names but I've now added some more, all with just a few minutes searching on Google. Not particularly difficult in these cases - Basement12 (T.C) 16:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Note Great database with information regarding to all athletes: See here. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think those that write Paralympic articles are aware of the IPC databases, but the issue lies in what is seen in the disparity between able and disabled athletes. We can cite these athletes as much as we like, but there are many in specific sports that state that Paralympic athletes must be deleted unless they reach certain guidelines attached to their professional able-bodied counterparts. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am lead to believe that an able bodied athlete who attends the Olympics is notable, regardless of GAN. A Paralympic athlete must win a medal at the Games to be notable. That feels unfair and discriminatory. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This pops up every time the pro-Paralympic editors want to make a change. The world is ableist - Wikipedia reflects that reality. Disabled athletes do not gain the coverage of able-bodied athletes - that is an issue with the media, not Wikipedia. This is no different than the NHL male players gaining a presumption and NWHL female players not - its about general notability. The NHL has a tremendous amount of coverage, the NWHL does not. In the NBL white players are given a presumption while black players of the Black Fives are not. Is this discriminatory? Yes, but not from Wikipedia - from the media and society in general. You should note that Wikipedia is not blatantly discriminatory. For example, before the television area, in the United States baseball was tremendously popular. So much so that athletes from the Negro Leagues are presumed notable - enough newspapers of the day covered the games and players can have this presumption. If a subject, in this case person, is notable, then they will have an article. RonSigPi (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I completely understand this point, but I still believe that the argument you raise is not applied to early Olympic athletes; hundreds of them fail to meet the standards expected of Paralympic athletes. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Reply it's not a must to have won a medal to have a WP page for a paralympic athlete. See for instance Tom Egberink, but many more examples. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note The Dutch Wikipedia is known for there much stricter policies for keeping WP pages. However almost all 2012 Dutch paralympic athletes have a page, see nl:Nederland op de Paralympische Zomerspelen 2012. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 19:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Since there aren't any sources that meet the GNG cited in the Egberink article, the article doesn't exist through any particular merit, but because no one's yet taken it to AfD; it's hardly the example I'd use to prove the merit of paralympic articles. As far as the Dutch Wikipedia goes, I'm quite content with leaving their notability standards to their own discretion. This is the English Wikipedia, however, and I don't see the relevance of your statement. We're governed by our own standards, our own policies and our own consensus. Ravenswing 12:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

A less than arbitrary break

I'm concerned we are getting off topic from the original case I was attempting to make so I've attempted to write a summary of my thoughts here in the form of an open letter to the community as a whole which I now copy to this page. I note that if this were merely a WP:Vote as one editor tried to make it then it currently stands 3 to 2 in favour of my suggestion as a whole, rather than the less wide ranging proposal I have made to limit it to more recent athletes.

I'm well aware Wikipedia is ableist, because that is a reflection of society as a whole even if it isn't a nice thing to think about. Whilst the motto of the Olympic movement is “'Citius, Altius, Fortius” (Faster, Higher, Stronger) the public as a whole will always care more about “Celerrimus , Altissima, Fortissimus” (Fastest, Highest, Strongest (citius doesn't translate well in this contect but perhaps someone with a bettre knowledge of Latin will hook me up)) and despite the concerns from the able bodied, Oscar or someone less caught up in legal issues isn't likely to beat Usain anytime soon. The discrimination argument won't ever fly in this arena and honestly it probably shouldn't.

However, I've done my best to make the case that in the modern age any Paralympian will recieve enough press coverage to justify having an article at our humble encyclopaedia. As it stands the points I've raised have not been addressed with anything more advanced than (I'm paraphrasing) “Prove It” or “we discussed this years ago and the Olympics are more popular”. The concept behind these guidelines, as best as I can tell, is to allow a little wriggle room so that articles with limited sourcing aren't immedietly comdemmed to the AfD scrapheap; they merely state in each case that a person is “presumed notable”. I'm fully aware that notability isn't confirmed by meeting any guideline at WP:ATHLETE and does still need to be proven. I've accepted the fact that we probably wont ever have an article on Archery at the 1960 Summer Paralympics silver medallist “Delapietra” and have tried to propose that we include only post 2000 (or 2004 etc.) competitors in the guideline; given a random list of redlink competitors from the last three Games I think I have shown the sources exist and given a current AfD debate I think there is evidence to show that athletes from outside the English speaking world also have relevant sources on which to base an article. This isn't a ploy to ruin the sanctity of the 5.1 million articles we have with an extra few thousand, just a plea not to have to go through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junko Fujii every single time. I remain confident any such request for deletion can be rebuffed with some effort even, as seems likely, guidelines stay as they are. I've had my say and don't intend to weigh in again.

For those that read this far, thank you, I hope I've at least made you think even if I've not changed your mind - Basement12 (T.C) 22:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Gymnastics

At the moment I'm almost finished with creating pages of all the artistic gymnast who competed at the world championships. I'm willing to do the same for the other gymnastics disciplines (rythmic, trompoline, acrobatic and aerobic), however the notabiliby guideliss are only about artistic gymnasts. Can the guideliness be expanded with the other gymnastic disciplines. As rythmic gymnastics and trampoline are also Olympic disciplines, I assume that almost the same rules apply for those gymnasts. Thanks Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

While I don't personally agree with the outcome, articles about athletes that compete in world championships are at times not found notable. One example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirngulbai Misech. In a more indirect example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Bisek was ruled a keep, but he was a medalist - there was an attitude that his medal pushed him over and just competing is not enough. In view of this, I would not assume that the same rules apply for trampoline and rythmic gymnastics. RonSigPi (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Careful the deletion monkeys don't see that one. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

At least in the USA, rhythmic and trampoline do not receive as much WP:GNG coverage as artistic gymnastics. So while sports specific guidelines would be welcome, they would have to be more restrictive than artistic gymnastics guidelines, and evidence should be provided that such new guidelines are a good proxy for GNG coverage. MATThematical (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I did a quick search on the gymnasts at the 2009 World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships (picked year randomly). I did a Google search of the bottom ranked nations, and on all the gymnasts of the World championships I searched, I could find secondary sources. As it was a quick search, of course better and more sources will be found with a better search.

• 16th: Slovenian Mojca Rode 1
• 22nd: Australian Chloe Hayes 2, 3
• 21st: Finnish Julia Huuhtanen, 4
• 14th: Austrian Selina Poestinger, 5, 6
• 25th: Swedish Mikaela Lindholm, 7, 8
• 26th: Canadian Alexandra Martincek, 9
• 28th Mexican Yeraldine Alarcon, 10, 11
• 29th Brazilian Rafaela Pedral Costa, 12, 13
• 31st Norwegian Josefine Hustoft, 14, 15, 16
• 32nd South African Sibongile Mjekula, 17 Julene van Rooyen, 18
• 33rd Indian Pooja Surve, 19

So I would propose:

Proposal for gymnastics

Rhytmic gymnasts are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. competed at the Summer Olympics or senior World Championships
2. won a senior medal at an elite international competition

Trampolinists are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. competed at the Summer Olympics
2. competed after 1997 in the individual event at an Trampoline World Championships
3. won a senior medal at an elite international competition

Acrobatic gymnasts are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Finished top-8 at the World Sports Acrobatics Championships
2. won a senior medal at an elite international competition

Aerobic gymnasts are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. won a senior medal at an elite international competition

*An elite international competition is

any competition with considerable international WP:GNG coverage between at least eight notable athletes (examples of such competitions include: Pan American Games, European Games, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games, European Championships, Mediterranean Games and Pacific Rim Championships).

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the Rhythmic proposal based on the evidence provided. Can you show evidence that top 5 and 8 marks for the other ones and the medlaists at say the "Mediterranean Games" and "Pacific Rim" meets as case studies. Not super sure about those.MATThematical (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@MATThematical:, I digged into the trampolinist. I found out that mainly the trampolinest who competes in the event that is also Olympic (the individual event) are the notable persons. So I changed the proposal above. I picked the results of the individual event at the 2011 championship (see here), and did a quick search on a random few bottom clasified athletes.

• 50th Fanny Chilo, 1
• 57th Taissa Garcia, [59]
• 61st Lara Hüninghake, Lara Hueninghake, (de:Lara Hüninghake), 1, 2
• 65th Jessica Alysse Shaw, Jessica Shaw, 1
• 62nd Beatriz Martins 1, 2
• 71st Katarina Prokesova, Katarína Prokešová, Katka Prokešová 1, 2
• Hanna Harchonak 1
• 76th Tara Fokke 1,2
• 74th Kirsten Boersma 1, 2, 3, 4

For the medalists at the Mediterranean Games there are only a few who did not compete at the World Championships. For Artistic gymnastics at the 2013 Mediterranean Games only 3 men and 3 women. For instance Christian Bazan 1, Giulia Leni it:Giulia Leni, and [[]] 1, 2

I didn't look at the Pacific Rim Championships, but I see many red links at for instance the 2014 Pacific Rim Gymnastics Championships. I'm fine removing these championships from the list.

I will look a bit later at the aerobic and acrobatic gymnasts. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

For the Acrobatic gymnasts, all the finalists (top-8) of the 2014 championships have a page. Most of them have a page with secondary sources. See: 2014 Acrobatic Gymnastics World Championships. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

for the Aerobic gymnasts I can't find good sources for the athletes who did not win a medal. I changed the proposal above. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

One article on several athletes' performances at one competition is bordering on WP:ROUTINE (for each individual athlete at least, although the article may constitute non-routine coverage of the event or the team because they are the focus of the article) and the first article above doesn't seem to solely focus on that one athlete (perhaps my English translation was poor). I don't think those sources can be utilized as the *sole* sources to establish notability, although I'm not 100% sure on that. Could others chime in? --MATThematical (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)