Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 23

Weightlifting

I would like to establish the notability guideliness for weightlifting. Weightlifting is the oldest Olympic sport (since 1986). I would like to propose the standard guideliness that are also for the other Olympic sports.

Weightlifters are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships,
2. Medalist at an elite international championship / Games (for instance: continental championships, continental Games, Commonwealth Games, Mediterranean Games)

For the competitors at World Championships, I looked into the bottom athletes in the 2015 World Weightlifting Championships – Men's 105 kg event.

• 14th Gyurkovics Ferenc, (hu:Ferenc Gyurkovics)
• 16th Robby Behm (de:Robby Behm)
• 19th Vasil Gospodinov 2014 European Weightlifting Championships
• 21st Nailkhan Nabiyev 1
• 22nd Arnas Šidiškis 1, 2
• 23rd Resul Elvan 1, 2
• 26th Kévin Bouly (fr:Kévin Bouly) 1, 2
• 29th Patrik Krywult (, 1
• DNF Sargis Martirosyan , 1
• DNF Mateus Gregório , 1

If you want to see more examples, please ask :) Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• I had actually thought there may be a benefit to doing some sort of pan-Olympic guideline. Include wrestling, judo, and Taekwondo. I know this does not include all the sports without guidelines, like archery and swimming, but from my experience these sports are pretty similarly situated as they have coverage mostly focusing on the Olympics or world championships (NCAA wrestling champions are the only others I would see being notable). Thoughts? RonSigPi (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason why 24, 25, 27, 28 are skipped? For example is it because you couldn't find articles or because you chose a random sample? If so did you use a random number generator? Could you do the same for example for a womens 2001 event?--MATThematical (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I did it randomly. For red links at the 2001 it's harder because not relatively less news from 2001 is online. But I did a search on all the red links of the 2001 World Weightlifting Championships – Women's +75 kg, and yes, that appear all te be notable:

• Albina Khomich (Gold medal winner)
• Chen Hsiao-lien (Bronze medal winner)
• Viktória Varga (2004 Summer Olympics)
• Helen Idahosa (2000 Summer Olympics)
• Derya Açikgöz (bronze medal winner 1994)
• Vasiliki Kasapi (2004 Summer Olympics)
• Moon Kyung-ae (Bronze medalist at the Asian Games)
• Susanne Dandenault 1

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk)

Revision of Athletics Criteria

I would argue that the notability criteria for masters athletes should be extended to any who have achieved a medal place at the World Championships, rather than just a gold. Masters athletics is a growing sport and the athletes winning medals at the World Championships are, an overwhelming majority of the time, as exemplary athletes (factoring in their age) as any elite level competitor on the Diamond League. To exclude them purely on age seems unfair to me.JDWFC (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Masters athletes should of course be commended for their endeavours, however, the question is whether they get GNG coverage. The problem is that masters competitions are broken into age grades of 5 years which dilutes the fields (For example there is a race for 35-39 year olds). In addition, the world championships often don't contain all the best masters athletes because most masters athletes have to pay their own way to travel to these meets (they tend not to have lucrative endorsements). In the lower age groups such as the women over 35, 5000m, the winner last year ran over 18 minutes. There are several 35+ year old women who can run sub 17 minute 5ks, but because they are still reasonably competitive elite runners, they don't enter masters events. In fact, I think the masters clause might be best removed in its entirety [except for the records part], based on the athletes listed in the 2015 results. I don't think in its current form that winning even a gold medal is a defensible guideline, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_World_Masters_Athletics_Championships#W35_5000_metres. MATThematical (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the challenge. The specific person you pointed to in your example as not being "defensible" proves to be an Olympian in addition to being the Masters World Champion. As I suggest below, there is more to the story of all of these world champions. Like every other notable athlete, you just have to look for it. Trackinfo (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Fatiha Idmhand is not an olympian as far as I can tell (my example was the women's 5000 not the 100) I have fixed the link so that it doesn't just go to the top of the women's results. The issue isn't about whether some of the winners (even a sizeable majority) are notable. If less than say 95% of gold medallists don't receive GNG coverage here, then it doesn't belong in NSPORT.MATThematical (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• The notion of "unfairness" comes up frequently in discussions of notability criteria, not only here but in many other fields. It's a common misconception that such criteria are supposed to be "fair," but they're nothing of the sort. The measure of notability is whether a subject meets the provisions of WP:V, WP:GNG and the various subordinate notability criteria, not out of any sense of "balance." Men's sports receive more coverage on Wikipedia not because it's of more inherent worth, but because it receives a great deal more media coverage than women's sport. Basketball receives a lot more attention than curling not out of any sense that it's a "better" sport, but because it receives a great deal more media coverage. And across the board in the various sports that feature "masters" competitions (track, golf, tennis), you really do only see coverage when the competitions are won by names long recognizable to the public in those sports. Ravenswing 08:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• The inclusion of masters athletes in the guideline in the first place was entirely Trackinfo's baby; he got it in because he was the only one who really cared either way. Trackinfo is undoubtedly more familiar with masters athletics than pretty much anyone else here, and I'd like to see if he can defend the inclusion of masters gold medalists. Sideways713 (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Defend? As if there is a problem? That is a negative premise to start with. My work has used this standard as a leaping off point. I've written many articles abut the substance of individuals who have achieved this standard. I'm not leaving a strew of stubs only mentioning this one fact. Quite frankly, googling any of these names does find more of a history behind the accomplishment of the gold medal, though the contrary also proves to be an interesting story. There could be a Kathy Bergen story, of no athletic effort until well into masters ages, followed by success. As for the 5 year age groups being limiting or self-diluting, actually that is not the case any more than it is in other divisions. A high school athlete has essentially a 4-5 year age range, 13 year olds and 19 year olds being a rarity. American collegiate athletes have a specified 5 year eligibility range, the start of which is only occasionally offset by things like religious or military service. Even at the highest level, until more recent professionalism, not many had a shelf life that extended beyond two Olympics. In masters, it is a fairly obvious pattern that most records and medals go to the younger members of even the 5 year age group. Age, proximity and financial resources all affect who shows up to compete at the world championship level. But the medalists, particularly the gold medalists (initially I didn't push beyond that point) are not surprises. From the standard of WP:N, WP:RS etc., an article can be written, sources are there to be found about all of these medalists. The accomplishment of achieving the medal is just the point to begin to find the notable story. Or in terms of NSPORT, there is a likelihood to meet the general notability guideline. That's our standard. Are the sources going to be mainstream? Probably not. These days, what news can you get from mainstream media that isn't related to a Kardashian or Trump? But I have not had to fend off any challenges to any article I've written about a masters world champion on notability grounds. Trackinfo (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

While it's true that there are several other 5 year age groups, we don't guaranteed notability to high school champs or NCAA champs. What I want to see is a random sampling of masters gold medallist athletes (say 10 or 20) and you showing that 90+% pass GNG. If this is true I'm sure we will all be satisfied. In terms of the world youth champs, generally countries field strong teams, because the athletes don't pay their own way. This is not true for the Masters WC, many of the top masters athletes don't go because they don't have the money to go every year. Secondly, the fact that the competition is held more frequently (every year) than the youth/junior/elite version also further dilutes the fields. The 35 year old divisions are especially full of non-notable medal winning athletes. Of course many are notable, but that isn't what GNG is about, it needs to be 90+ % notability minimum -MATThematical (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• • Agree I second Trackinfo's point. I have only received one challenge on an article about a masters athlete that I have made. All of the athletes I made pages about had been multiple medallists at WMA Championships and were British, assuring them coverage in AW. JDWFC (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment (and speaking as someone in "masters" territory, though in my case "athlete" is questionable, LOL), I think it depends a lot on the sport and the criteria for a "masters" level; is this discussion confined to track and field, or all sports? Are we talking about a 70-year old competing, versus 50 year olds versus 35 year olds (sorry, but really? 35? "Masters?" WTF? No sympathy here, go play with the big boys, young 'uns, ya don't get my sympathy until at least 40!  ;-) ). Is a competition winnowed down from hundreds of participants or dozens? Golf? Probably. Track and field? Possibly. Curling? Meh, probably not. Montanabw^(talk) 14:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I will grant that the best competitors at the 35 year old level are probably not present at the World Championships because they are still trying to compete at the open level. The world records show most of those marks were set in open competition. However, that is the age the official governing body World Masters Athletics has chosen as the bottom age. Some athletes make the transition earlier than others, many elite open athletes never move into masters, some that do excel, others get beaten at the masters level. Essentially, each competition is a different circumstance. Just like the Olympics, who can show up on that day and deliver the goods. We can, and many sports writers do write Shoulda Woulda Coulda articles, but results are the way sports competitions are scored. We need a definite line and I think the one drawn by the sports governing body is the best we can use. Trackinfo (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would argue that while some of the V35/V40 crossover (especially in longer distance events), may mean that often standards are lower, in other age groups gold medallists are the best in the world at what they do, to an extent. Often medallists at the championships are those who have competed as seniors on the international or elite stage in the past as well (see Irene Obera, Anthony Whiteman, Mattias Sunneborn, Lawrence Baird (I could go on) or they have significant notability due to being a masters athlete, such as Charles Eugster and Olga Kotelko, featured in national media (BBC - Charles Eugster and BBC - Olta Kotelko). JDWFC (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• No doubt the world record holder of a competition for 60-year-olds is, in his or her age group, the best in the world in that endeavor, but that's still not the point. It's not that you need to demonstrate the existence of medalists who meet the GNG; it's that you need to demonstrate that they all would be likely to meet the GNG. Has that work been done? Ravenswing 17:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• At a brief look (read instead 2 minute Google search), at least for British athletes, they receive coverage in Athletics Weekly such as this article. JDWFC (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• You might want to take a "brief look" at WP:ROUTINE, which holds that routine match coverage of the sort you highlight in that link is explicitly debarred from supporting notability, even if any one athlete had received the "significant coverage" in that article required to meet the GNG, which isn't the case. Ravenswing 19:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

JDWFC is perhaps a newbie to the wikipedia world, so he is suggesting a complacent approach to getting sources. Its only a starting point to give you guidance. So I looked at one of his suggested articles and googled Charles Eugster. There are a ton of sources, including the Telegraph and Daily Mail, plus the BBC and already included Ted Talk. These are NOT routine mentions of him, full articles written about his accomplishments. Someone could build an extensive wikipedia article from just the sources I found and there are a lot more to follow up on. Earlier MATThematical mentioned an example which I suggested was a poor example. I went down to the next name on the list Alisha Natasha Fortune, on an athlete from Guyana, a country so obscure from the track world that it does not have a track, its championship track meets are held on a grass field. At least for me, they speak English. I would expect trouble finding media coverage there. Nope, a bunch of sources popped up and a significantly more extensive story can be written well beyond the one off win at the World Masters Athletics Championships. The point being, similar to our discussions about covering every Olympian, these people do not come from nowhere. By the time they get the the point that they can win a World Championship, they have a more developed background, stories will be written about them that are well beyond ROUTINE coverage. Hometown newspapers will write about the local hero who made good on the world scene. There may be cases where such material can't be found, though I haven't failed in a challenge yet. I will suggest the vast majority of cases where sources cannot be readily found will have mitigating circumstances; an obscure country, with difficult to find media, possibly with language issues, or offline paper archives, even tracing people (mostly married women) who change their name is an issue. I remember American record holder Patricia Porter turned out to be Trish King when she made it to the Olympics. Its not always simple, you definitely need to do some work to find sources for ANY subject. But do not be dismissive on an assumption Do the work and then say there are no sources. Trackinfo (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you mentioned hometown papers I do have to point out that hometown papers writing about a local hero who made good is generally considered routine coverage. To be used for notability generally the articles should come from non-local sources. -DJSasso (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

TrackInfo is going to do a search for 10 randomly chosen masters WC gold medalists. The criteria of the search is that he looks up the following ahtletes "1.6.1 Fatiha Idmhand 1.7.15 Ihar Dolbik 1.7.1 Maria Jose De Toro Saiz 1.10.2 Thomas Oberhofer 1.15.15 David Carr 1.20.6 Sue Yeomans 1.21.23 Gerhard Windolf 1.22.7 Terhi Kokkonen 1.23.10 Galina Kovalenskaya 1.32.2 Bianca Schenker" which were generated using a random number generator. He is allowed for any athlete from a non-english speaking nation to take the nearest English speaking champion (for ease of his search). Alternatively I'd be ok if he just looked up UK, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand champions (all of them, there isn't that many I don't think), but lets go with the list for now. If he shows the list is all notable, I'm sure we'd all be happy adding the gold medalist criteria back the notability page. -MATThematical (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about this particular event, but to make it truly valid I would like to see it also done for people from 1975 as well not just 2015, because it would apply to people from then as well. And as we all know because of the internet articles get written more for newer athletes than father back. -DJSasso (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The internet didn't even really exist then, so I think that is a bit unfair burden in terms of asking him to do all that work. He'd have to search so many in print sources from the 70s? Plus no one is really creating pages for 1970s masters athletes anyways. If you'd like to produce a list of 10 athletes across several years feel free [to replace the ones I proposed - maybe same age division and event and gender but with random dates as well] MATThematical (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That is my point, we can't just assume in such a borderline situation that every masters gold medalist would meet the criteria. If he wants to change the criteria, he is going to have to do the work to prove that 99.9% of athletes would meet the new criteria. I have a very hard time believing that pre-internet era masters athletes got coverage. Newspapers wouldn't have wasted space on such a low level competition. The internet era has created a need for content to fill sites, so its very possible current masters athletes could meet it (though would still like to see those examples proven), while pre-Internet I would have a hard time believing it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If you showed me someone who's page had been created based on their masters accomplishments before the internet era then I'd agree with you. That is very very unlikely to ever happen for anyone who doesn't also meet WP:GNG. If you want to add some athletes from another era to the list be my guest, but I don't think that is necessary (my personal opinion). --MATThematical (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Well since this discussion was brought up in the Afd. People here may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ihar Dolbik. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability of UCI teams

Why are UCI teams considered notable? Looking at Domin Sport and such, I see nothing but a primary-reference based entry that has little encyclopedic use. I cannot find any discussion in archives discussing this criteria. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be surprised if UCI Continental teams were not the subject of a reasonable amount of coverage in the media, thus meeting WP:GNG. I don't speak Polish, but this looks like a good source that would contribute to establishing the notability of this particular team. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

For info, the top level of teams in cycling are the UCI WorldTeams. The Continental teams are a division below. Using the crass comparison, the former is the Premier League of cycling, while the latter is the Championship. Long story short, they're notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Visual comparison of sports notability

Working on this for something else. I wouldn't trust it to be anywhere near accurate unless someone else would be willing to double check it. Thought other people might find it useful. Kevlar (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sport	Amateur Participation	Professional Participation	Non-Athletes	Won a Significant Professional Honor	Won a Significant Amateur Honor	Competed for Professional Championship	Competed for Amateur Championship	# of Participation	# of Leagues	Top 10	League Notability Temporary
American football/Canadian football	No	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	—	—	6+	—	—
Association football	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	—	—	hundreds?	—	—
Athletics/track & field and long-distance running	Yes	—	Yes	—	Yes	—	—	up to 8	7	—	—
Australian rules football	—	Yes	Yes	—	Yes	—	—	—	1	—	—
Badminton	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	Yes	—	—	—	6	—	—
Baseball	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	—	12	—	—
Basketball	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	—	8	—	—
Boxing	—	—	—	—	—	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes	—
Cricket	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	2?	—	—
Curling	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes	—	Yes	—	5?	—	—
Cycling	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes	—	Yes	—	4	—	—
Equestrian sport	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	—
Figure skating	Yes	—	Yes	—	Yes	—	—	—	6+	—	—
Golf	Yes	Yes	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	17	—	—
Gymnastics	Yes	—	Yes	—	Yes	—	—	—	8?	—	—
Horse racing	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No* Except historic	Yes	No* Except historic	—	—	—	—
Ice hockey	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	?	—	—
Kickboxing	No	—	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	10	Yes	Yes
Mixed martial arts	No	No	—	—	—	Yes	—	3	2+	Yes	Yes
Motorsports	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	?	—	—
Rodeo	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	—
Rugby league	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes	Yes	—	?	—	—
Rugby union	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	—	—	?	—	—
Sumo	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—	—	2?	—	—
Tennis	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	18?	—	—
Triathlon	—	—	—	—	—	Yes	Yes	—	6?	—	—
College athletes	—	—	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	?	—	—
Gaelic games	—	—	—	—	Yes	—	Yes	—	?	—	—
High school and pre-high school athletes	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	?	—	—
Olympic and Paralympic Games	Yes	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	—	—

Double-checking

I tried to double-check the athletics/track and field criteria, but I'm not sure what many of those fields even mean in the context of that sport, and because of the long history and complicated and changing structure of the sport most of them don't have neat yes/no answers.
1) NTRACK covers amateur athletes;
2) NTRACK covers professional athletes;
3) NTRACK covers non-athletes... although the relevant criteria are very seldom applied, and they date back to the dark days when the purpose of SNGs wasn't yet clear.
4) NTRACK covers significant professional honors... today, but not all the way back to the early days of professional running.
5) NTRACK covers significant amateur honors... sort of. It covers championship meets that were amateur-only in the past but are open to both professionals and amateurs today; and while they technically remain significant amateur honors today, winning a top amateur-only meet does not automatically confer notability today, though it did for past athletes. (There is a discussion above about adding NCAA champions to the guideline; that would be a top amateur-only meet today.)
6) NTRACK covers competing for the professional championship... mostly. It covers the Olympics and World Championships, which are the professional championships of today; but non-IAAF professional championships (relevant in the deep past, especially in the pre-WWI era) are not covered. (See answer #4.)
7) NTRACK covers competing for the amateur championship... technically, since the biggest championships available for amateurs are the Olympics and World Championships, which were amateur-only in the past; see points 5 and 6 above.
8) # of participation... I have no idea what this means.
9) # of leagues... nebulous. There are multiple organized tiers or groups of meetings, some of which are vaguely league-like and/or self-identify as leagues (most prominently the IAAF Diamond League and its predecessor, the IAAF Golden League); but not really anything like the various team sport leagues. When I think of a league in the context of track and field, I think of something like the International Track Association, which folded in 1976. So I'm tempted to say the number of leagues covered by NTRACK is zero, though this is obviously up to debate since it does cover the IAAF Diamond League/Golden League and the World Marathon Majors.
10) Top 10... yes, mostly, under NTRACK criterion #8 which covers the top 12 on the world list in Olympic non-relay events. NTRACK does not currently explicitly cover the international top 10 rankings of Track & Field News or Athletics Weekly, which would perhaps be a better equivalent to boxing's criterion #3; but making those rankings is still a very good notability indicator.
11) League notability temporary... see answer to #9. In this context, this should probably be construed as "meeting notability temporary"; in which case, the answer would strictly speaking be "yes" since meetings can jump from level to level (or league to league, if you will). But it would be very unclear to any reader of the table what such an answer was supposed to mean. Sideways713 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow that's a lot of feedback, thank you so much. I think part of the problem is that each of the sports guidelines come from a group of people that use different wording. With the "# of participation" one i knew that was going to be a problem. I was going to at least move that column to the left a bit but didn't. What i wanted to show there was that many sports only require that you participate at all but a few require that you participate 3 or however many times at a minimum. There is a discussion about altering the MMA guidelines to require not participation but 2 victories in competition. I am in opposition to the view that this change will make the MMA guidelines more in line with the other sports listed here, i feel that it would make them even less similar. I think i'll put this in my userspace and also work on some constructive suggestions on re-wording the various guidelines so they are easily compared to each other. Kevlar (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You are aware however, that NSPORTS was created to replace ATHLETE specifically so those differences would happen right? It is completely intended that in some sports the bar is at one level and in others it is higher because one guideline doesn't fit all. It comes down to in some sports media coverage is higher at a lower level than others. Things are working exactly as planned. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, 100%. I'm not suggesting that the guildlines from one sport need to be the same as every other sport. But there are some things in these guidelines that could be made more clear. For example the last sentence of the first paragraph of this page is "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." keep in mind that i changed the bolding but not any of the words. Then in the FAQ which is collapsed by default says that the article needs to meet GNG and Notablility (sports). It's not for me to decide which is worded more correctly, but i think it's something that should be discussed. I worked through American football/Canadian football, Association football, and Australian rules football in my userspace. My goal isn't to change the spirit of any of the guidelines, it's to make the language more uniform so a person familiar with one sport and that sports guidelines would have an easier time understanding the guidelines form a sport they don't understand as well. Kevlar (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The GNG/NSPORT relationship and those wordings have been discussed here many times already, and unfortunately, none of those discussions has yet led to a better wording. Long-term NSPORT editors know what the meaning is, viz. that sports articles need to meet WP:GNG and sport-specific criteria do not provide an alternative to that (nor are they an additional set of criteria that must also met); but that an article meeting the sport-specific criteria can generally be presumed to also meet the GNG, even if the sources in it aren't good enough to demonstrate that directly, and the sport-specific criteria should be tuned so that this presumption is correct much more often than not. Sideways713 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I view NSPORT at AFD as moving the burden of proof from the keep side to the delete side. To delete an article for someone who satisfies NSPORT, considerable effort (beyond basic internet searches) needs to demonstrate no observed WP:GNG coverage. This is why its crucial that our guidelines here correlate strongly with GNG, and why we are often so finicky when voting on proposed new NSPORT guidelines. --MATThematical (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The FAQ doesn't say that two sets of criteria must be met. Sideways713 restates it well. isaacl (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kevlar: For association football, amateur participation does not grant players notability. Only playing in a fully-professional league or playing for their country. The latter doesn't seem to be included so perhaps should. Cheers, Number 57 17:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I just tweaked the Equestrian Sport, Horse racing and Rodeo. The equestrian sport changes reflect the presence of Equestrian competition at the Olympics (which is still, technically, amateur) as well as professionally. Also, there are so many professional organizations, I'm not sure how to count them all... one big international one (the FEI) but then multiple national groups in every country. On Horse racing, I removed the amateur award bit though noted that back in the day, (pre-1900s) many riders WERE amateur, as a social requirement of sorts; we could restore those to yes if that makes a difference. Rodeo has high school and collegiate-level as well as professional competition, and like all college sports, there is that inevitable crossover. Holler if I did something too confusing. Montanabw^(talk) 05:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Ice hockey leagues notability

After participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Elsner I'm a little confused about the ice hockey notability guidelines. Criteria 1 refers to existing or defunct top professional leagues which I presumed to mean the top level professional league of any country, with emphasis on professional as only a limited number of countries have fully professional ice hockey leagues. Criteria 2 refers to amateur leagues and Criteria 3 covers, among others, second tier national leagues. According to a user participating in the above discussion top level leagues criteria 1 is applied to are only the ones listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment as top level. This seems to leave leagues like the DEL, the Swiss Nationalliga A and the Slovak Extraliga in limbo as they are neither criteria 1 (not listed as a top level leagues) nor criteria 2 (not amateur) nor criteria 3 (second tier national league). What notability criteria applies to these leagues? Could somebody please clarify? Calistemon (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

All three leagues satisfy Criterion #3: Played at least 200 games or achieved preeminent honors in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues. All three are classed as top-level minor leagues by the league assessment. Salavat (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Minor leagues is a term I have always associated with leagues in North America below top level (below MLB, NHL, etc). I have never seen it used in the context of top level European leagues I have to say. The Wikipedia article on Minor league (I know Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source) mentions only North America in the context of Minor leagues. From a non-North American view the use of minor leagues as a term for leagues in Europe in whatever sport seems incorrect and misleading. Calistemon (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Which is why we're happy to have explained it to you, the way it already had been in the Elsner AfD. None of the leagues you mention are in "limbo" -- they're all listed in NHOCKEY/LA, to which I directed you, and which you've plainly reviewed. We've no control over what terms you yourself find familiar, but I'm sure you can understand that we need a set of common nomenclature, and that the common nomenclature the hockey WikiProject employs is that employed by the North American-based editors who make up the overwhelming number of our active editors.

The reason why we have this ranking for leagues (a practice shared by several other sports WikiProjects, most notably the football project) is basic: we're supposed to be setting criteria which reflect the likelihood of a subject meeting that meeting the GNG. A league deemed to meet criterion #1 ("criteria" is plural) sets forth the premise that every player who has ever played so much in a game in it can meet the GNG. For the DEL, a league with average attendance on par with the mid-minor league ECHL, where even Eisbaren Berlin's attendance is well below NHL standards, and in a country where the popularity of ice hockey is dwarfed by that of football, that's just not a credible claim. Truth be told, this seems less a situation where you're confused by our assessment than that you disagree with it. Ravenswing 02:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Your mistaken in your accusation, I genuinely never had heard of European leagues being referred to as minor leagues. Europe operates on a tier system rather then minor and major leagues, like North America. Criteria 3 mentioned second tier national leagues, that is a term I'm familiar with but I could not find tier one national leagues mentioned. There is the reason for my confusion. In regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment and your comparison to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, it is a very interesting one. The latter one has 191 references and clear inclusion criteria set, the former has none and is quite clearly original reserch with no indication as to why leagues are grouped in different categories. What criterias were taken into account when compiling it? Playing strength, financial revenue, media attention, spectators? I don't think the list, in its current form, is up to standard. There are sources for league rankings out there, like this one or one. As to DEL, attendance in Germany and status of the league, yes, it is dwarfed by football, you are absolutely correct, but it is still has the highest financial turnover of any sports league in the country after the first three divisions of football. And, without having being an expert, I would say that the NHL is dwarfed by the crazy money spend in the NFL (another code of football after all), but that doesn't make it a "minor league". As to attendance in Europe, SC Bern has just been crowned best supported club in Europe for the 15th time running, followed by Berlin and Cologne. My question in regards to notability is, does the list currently provided to determined notability really correctly reflect notability of leagues when it comes to European leagues? I have my doubts. Calistemon (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

... best supported after the first three divisions of German football? Err ... given that there's no actual national league after that step (which is quite low indeed), that's not saying a great deal. In any event, the DEL is well back on IIHF tables of league strength -- you understand we prefer official sources to the blogposts you just cited -- and nowhere near comparable to such leagues as the KHL, the sm-Liiga or the Swedish league. If you would like to argue on the appropriate talk page for the DEL's ranking to be higher, you're welcome to do so, and I'm sure you bring a good level of hockey expertise to the table. Ravenswing 03:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not about the notability of the leagues, this list is about the notability of the players in the league and the media coverage the individual players receive. -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It could very well be a difference of culture. In North America pretty much all of the hockey leagues in Europe are considered minor leagues in the media as none of them are on the level of the NHL. Not even the KHL. And all of them feed players into the NHL. It is the highest league in the world. Thus compared to it, all other leagues are considered minor. So it is very likely a context thing. Yes the DEL for example is the top in Germany, but the top in a small pond, one whose media does not cover every player that ever steps on the ice, which is the point of NHOCKEY, to show when a player can be pretty much assumed to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Don't get me wrong, I mean no disrespect to you guys on the project and I'm certainly not interested in arguing for the point of arguing about this. The point I would like to make is that ice hockey in Switzerland and Germany, the two countries I'm most familiar with, is quite well supported and enjoys a high level of media attention, which is what defines Wikipedias notability criteria after all. The level of play in those countries is another matter but, for the sake of notability, really irrelevant. The IIHF source above makes it pretty clear that Swiss and German clubs are among the best supported clubs in Europe. The Deloitte report makes it pretty clear that ice hockey is the no 2 sport in Germany, after football, and ahead of basketball, unlike North America. I could not find any financial figures for the Swiss league unfortunatly but the fact that this years no 1 NHL draft pick played for the ZSC Lions speaks for itself as to the status of the league. I think your current notability list could do with some tweaking and some improving as to what criterias define the ranking and what the sources for the ranking are. I have no intention of being desruptive and will leave it at this. The much better place for this discussion would have been Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment for the last few posts of this conversation. If you are interested feel free to continue there and, maybe, get some more input from other hockey project members. If not and you think I'm just talking bollocks, that's fine, we can leave it at that. Keep well, Calistemon (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Calistemon, perhaps I'm not making things clear enough. It is not that we gauge leagues based on how much money they make. It's not that we gauge leagues based on how popular they are compared to other sports in any given nation-state. (If NSPORTS did that as a matter of course, we'd be handing out presumptive notability to third-tier archers in Bhutan.) It's not that a 17-year-old amateur played in the Swiss league this past season. It's not even whether leagues generate media attention. (NCAA basketball, for instance, generates insane media attention.) It is -- by way of example -- whether the Swiss league generates enough media attention that every single player who's played so much as a minute over the 36 year history of the league can be declared notable. Those of us familiar with Eurohockey are satisfied that it hasn't. Ravenswing 04:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Ravenswing sums it up pretty well. The idea is that unless every single player who has ever stepped on the ice for even a minute will have multiple sources written about him then its not considered a top level league. And it is not at all true that a player who played 1 minute in Switzerland or Germany will have had multiple articles written about him. Like not even remotely close. There are players who have played a decade and we have been unable to find sources for. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are searching for sources on German hockey, especially before the internet-age, here is your best bets, but you need to speak German and they will be hard to come by:

• Old Sportkurier editions, published twice weekly from 1945 to 1995 in Augsburg. It was the no. 1 sports magazine for ice hockey in Germany, the equivalent to what kicker was and is for football. After its demise Eishockey News filled the vacuum left by the former.
• The Eishockey-Jahrbuch (Ice Hockey Yearbook) was originally published by the Sportkurier (Picture of the 1993–94 edition) and, later, by Eishockey News (Picture of the 1996–97 edition). I never owned one so I can't say much about its content or quality.
• Sportkurier published an annual end-of-season magazine, much smaller then the yearbook but still informative.
• The Augsburger Allgemeine is a great source as its founder, Curt Frenzel, was also a main figure at the Augsburger Panther club and ice hockey has been and is extremely popular but unsuccessful in the town. With the rise of ERC Ingolstadt the paper now has two DEL clubs in its circulation area.
• 30 Jahre Eishockey-Bundesliga (30 years of ice hockey Bundesliga) is a great book on the history of the league published in 1988. Its the only ice hockey book I took with me to Australia and I used it when I rewrote the Eishockey-Bundesliga article some years ago. The author, Günter Klein, was also chief editor of the Sportkurier at the time, I believe.
• As far as Switzerland goes, I don't know quite as much, was just watching league matches on TV back 25 years ago, but an annual Swiss Yearbook was published (Picture here) and I do still own some from the late 80s-early 90s but, again, I don't have access to them at this stage.

Like I said, all these sources are in German only and hard to come by but if you are truly looking for information on past players, clubs and leagues in German ice hockey they are your best sources I know of. Hope this helps, regards, Calistemon (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This issue all comes down to likely coverage of individual players. If you can demonstrate that with these and other German sources, hockey players who have only played one or even just a few games in the DEL are likely to have significant coverage from multiple sources per GNG, I would be happy to support treating DEL as a league consistent with the top leagues in Sweden or Russia. But right now the issue at hand is the AfD for David Elsner, and you have provided one source that I would agree has provided significant coverage, but one source doesn't meet the GNG criteria. And Elsner has played almost 100 DEL games, so if he doesn't have coverage to meet GNG, I don't see how I could support giving presumptive notability to any DEL player, even those with only a single DEL game. Rlendog (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, I have moved on from that, I'm not trying to prove anything. Djsass mentioned "There are players who have played a decade and we have been unable to find sources for" so I just pointed out a few (admitandly difficult to get to) sources where information on German or Swiss players could be found. Its all good otherwise. Calistemon (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Village pump proposal - notability additions for eSports

We don't currently have guidance on eSports, which as a growing field is leading to quite a lot of discussions at AFD. I feel it might be a good idea for us to consider guidelines on it. I've raised this as an issue at the village pump, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports. KaisaL (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Umpires in American Football

First of all, I know nothing of sports so please excuse what is probably a very stupid question. Reading through the guideline, it seems that referees and umpires are listed as presumed to be notable for some sports and not others. Is this deliberate or just a result of different sections being written at different times? I'm not proposing anything, just want to know. Specifically, this came up in patrolling Fred Bryan who is a NFL umpire. Thank you! Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is by design, NSPORTS is tailored in a way so that each sport is different. You can't assume that because they are in one sport they are in another. In some sports referees/umpires are much more recognized. In some cases it is because there are less of them. In some cases it might be because they impact the game more than they do in other sports as well. This guideline is an attempted to fix the situation that used to be the case where one shoe did not fit all. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Judo Notability

There seems to be some issues in terms of notability in sports. There also seems to be some notability issues specifically concerning Judo. WP:MANOTE does not address the specific nature of Judo as many people would qualify based on "Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)," but do not. This makes things quite ambiguous. So I am proposing the following guidelines:

1. Participation at the Maccabiah Games, Pan American Games, Goodwill Games, World Police and Fire Games, the Commonwealth Games, Olympic Games, World Championships, IJF Grand Prix Series, or other major international tournament. - Since Judo doesn't have professional leagues.

2. Has fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an IFJ affiliated and for Women see Medal table or have represented their IJF affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament. (from boxing)

3. Have participated at the Olympic as a player or official team coach Have participated at the Paralympics as a player, driver or official team coach Have participated at the Pan American Games as a player, driver or official team coach (from equestrian)

4. Junior Judoka are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below won an individual gold medal at the junior national championships for any of the following countries: won an individual gold medal, in the junior division, at an elite international competition* won an individual medal at the Youth Olympic Games (from gymnastics)

(From Track and Field) To non-athletes associated with the sport (or athletes whose main claim to notability is non-athletic activity) the following criteria of notability apply:

Coaches that have coached many notable athletes, including at least one (non-relay) Olympic medalist, World champion or senior World Record holder during the time of the athletes' notable accomplishments. Coaches that have been the official head coach of an Olympic track and field team for a country with multiple medalists. Coaches that introduced a notable technique or training method, and is widely credited as the originator. Clubs that have received major international coverage for its successes and has a résumé composed of many successful Olympians over a long period of time (e.g. Irish American Athletic Club). If a club's success is mainly due to one coach, then only the coach is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.99.208 (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: First off, there's a basic principle at hand when coming up with an entirely new set of notability criteria: have you tested various examples for each criterion to see whether the great number of people who meet it can reliably meet the GNG? A pitfall most proponents of new criteria fall into is in substituting their personal opinion of "what's important?" in their sport for this.

  This seems to be the case here. I find it far fetched, for instance, that just about any "driver" from Paralympics judo competitions could meet the GNG, never mind the great majority of them. We also have pretty stringent standards about youth competitions, because outside of certain sports such as figure skating or gymnastics where teenage performers at the highest level are common, not many participants could meet the GNG. Ravenswing 13:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

comment Well the problem is that there isn't any real criteria at the moment for Judo. Basically just GNG. MANOTE is an essay and very ambiguous. It states "Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)" but this is often ignored. I am open to editing my proposals. There is so much ambiguity in terms of definition of highest level from NMMA to Track that I believe that some thing needs to be done in terms of Judo. 173.52.99.208 19:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• User 173.52.99.208 has been blocked for block evasion. Papaursa (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Seems reasonable to implement these as a policy.2607:FB90:5486:EDD7:96FA:D789:E002:1060 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

— 2607:FB90:5486:EDD7:96FA:D789:E002:1060 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would think it is easy to agree with yourself, isn't it CrazyAces? Users notice the IP is just another block evasion by CrazyAces.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Strange that a new IP user would make their first and only edit here. Papaursa (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Criteria for notability already exist for Olympic sports like judo. There are also notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. This proposal was an attempt to change the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Andrianov. The proposed standards are clearly too broad, in that many people would pass them and yet fail to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Golf criteria for minor professional tours?

There seems to be a conflict or ambiguity in the golf criteria:

Compare item 3: "They have won at least one professional golf tournament (ex: PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, European Tour, Champions Tour)" with item 6: "They have competed as a professional on the PGA, LPGA, European, or Champions Tour for at least one full year"

Are there any full-year PGA or LPGA pros who haven't won a professional golf tournament at any level in the past? Surely they've won minor-tour tournaments in order to make it to the big tour, no?

So I'm wondering if criterion 3 should be explicitly restricted to the parenthetical tours rather than just any professional tournament.

-- Powers ^T 17:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Many golfers (especially young ones) haven't won as a pro but compete on a top tour. I don't think any change is needed. Tewapack (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I always think more clarification the better and I agree the ex adds needless ambiguity. I think change would be good, but not for the reason you list. Many PGA or LPGA pros are on tour, but never won as a pro. The problem is, as with many of the guidelines, is what is professional. Clearly the four tours listed are professional. I think few would argue that a win on the third tier Alps Tour or Gateway Tour would allow for a presumption of notability. Many golfers win on those tours, but never compete at the next highest tier. One could easily argue that those are more semi-pro tours. The question becomes what to do with second tier tours and women's tours. To me, I think the four men's big second tier tours (Challenge Tour, Korean Tour, OneAsia Tour, and Web.com Tour) are pro for the guideline and should be counted. I think the harder one is what to do with the women. I would think Ladies European Tour would meet WP:NGOLF (and should be added to criterion 6 as well). Harder to decide what to do with the others. This includes top tier foreign tours (ALPG Tour, China LPGA Tour, LPGA of Japan Tour, and LPGA of Korea Tour) as well as second tier tours of the major markets (Symetra Tour and LET Access Series). I would say yes to the top tier foreign tours, but no to the second tier based on the coverage I have seen. That being said, good luck getting any changes these days. Seems like lots of editors like to comment, but no one wants to actually decide what to do (BTW, I commend Tewapack for at least weighing in with a real answer even if not agreeing with me - at least its a clear answer). RonSigPi (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My personal criteria is if a male golfer wins a tournament that earns him 12 or more OWGR points, I'll create an article for him (PGA, European, Japan, Asian, Web.com, Challenge, and upper-level Sunshine and Australasian, even some Korean and OneAsia) and an article for the tournament. For women golfers, LPGA win gets an article from me and LET maybe. For KLPGA and JLPGA they are probably many notable golfers without articles due to the sources being primarily in Korean and Japanese. (It would be easier if the Women's World Golf Ranking provided more details on tournament strength.) Seniors: Champions - yes, EST - maybe. I've also created articles for golfers for being ranked in the top-200 of the OWGR (and therefore contributing to tournament strengths by their presence or absence). I almost never create an article for a pro who hasn't won but plays a top pro tour, but I'd never AFD such an article - they'll meet GNG. Even though you may (rightly) consider the Alps Tour and its ilk as semi-pro they are now part of the OWGR and are getting more press. Again, just my personal criteria for deciding when and where to spend my time creating articles. Tewapack (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I bristle at different standards for women and men. If Web.com Tour grants presumptive notability, Symetra should too. Powers ^T 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of gender inequality, its a matter of general notability - see other discussions on this page (and its archives). Tewapack (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the justification, but I feel it's insufficient. It's gender bias hiding behind existing gender bias as an excuse, and it rankles. Powers ^T 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Current criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are all gender neutral. Current criteria 3 and 6 are only different in recognition of the European competition and that is a function of coverage. I think for the proposed changes, it is for how to characterize lower level tours and that is done all the time in WP:NSPORT. The common standard is professional. Most players make a livable wage on the Web.com Tour, but that is not on the case with the Symetra Tour. Look at other sports. In Association Football/soccer, the English Football League Two is given a presumption over the League of Ireland. That is not a case of ethno-nationalism, but of league status. Same thing in rugby league. The Super League has an associated presumption, but not the USA Rugby League. Not Eurocentrism, but the fact that Super League is covered much more. The issue of how to handle minor league is addressed differently across sports. For example, the minor league American Hockey League has a number of games played for a presumption, but the same is not given for the equivalent baseball International League. I would understand your case if we were talking PGA Tour vs. LPGA Tour or U.S. Open vs. U.S. Women's Open, but once you get away from the top tier drops in quality in sports leagues can change differently. That is why the third tier Italian football/soccer Lega Pro has a presumption but the third tier Italian basketball Serie B Basket does not. RonSigPi (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm aware of the justifications. But those drops in quality and popularity have different causes. In the case of different-gender leagues, it's due largely to a systemic gender bias in sports. The difference between Football League Two and the League of Ireland is not. Powers ^T 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Changes to athletics (track and field) notability regarding IPC Athletics World Championships

I propose changing the athletics notability guidelines by inserting the following line in the appropriate place:

• Has finished in the top 3 at the Paralympics or the IPC Athletics World Championships.

At the moment, all athletes participating in the Olympics and medallists at the Paralympics are notable. However for the world championships, all athletes participating at the IAAF World Championships are notable but medallists at the IPC Athletics World Championships are NOT notable. This change would bring the two in line.

Questions/feedback? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 05:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Seems logical. Lourdes 06:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. The question is not whether our rules are in line, but whether they correctly represent notability. It isn't clear to me that all (or at least nearly all) medalists at the IPC Athletics World Championships are notable. I'm not even able to find the results from the 2006 Assen championships (the fourth championships, this probably is even worse for the first three). Fram (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: No part of any notability criteria should be enacted because of fairness, equity or any other consideration ... excepting only whether they reflect whether or not a subject will meet the GNG. What tests have been made to confirm the universal notability of IPC medalists? Lacking extensive testing, I must oppose. Ravenswing 08:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support This makes perfect sense, although Paralympic medallists are already presumed notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose World championships are not inherently on par with world championships. As an example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Bisek where it was forwarded that competing in the wrestling world championships was not enough even though competing in the Olympics counted (that was a keep, but for another reason). I have seen that position elsewhere, such as in swimming with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirngulbai Misech. Unless evidence is shown that we can move forward with a high certainty that those medalist are presumed notable, then I say oppose. RonSigPi (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment There is already a lot of overlap between the Paralympic athletics medalists - if an athlete medals at the IPC World Championships, then there is a high chance they will also medal at the Paralympics, and vice versa. Besides, notability rule 3 is currently broad enough in scope it could be interpreted as to include the IPC Athletics World Championships - this change is to make it de jure rather than de facto. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 23:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Rule 3 is for professional athletes only. How many paralympic athletes are professional athletes though? Fram (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Rule 3 states "Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g. IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less prestigious large scale meets, e.g. Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)." There is no mention of the word "professional". Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
      • No, rule 3.3 states what you said here: rule 3.3 is part of section 3, Professional sports people. Fram (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
        • NTRACK criteria were always intended to apply equally to professional and non-professional athletes, which is necessary because 1) track and field has a long and very convoluted history when it comes to professionalism and amateurism and 2) professional, semi-professional and amateur athletes continue to mingle today and receive similar coverage for similar accomplishments; but none of the criteria were ever intended to apply to Paralympic athletics at all. Sideways713 (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
        • In New Zealand, there are no professional track and field athletes; there are however 35 carded semi-professional athletes, of which five are para-athletes. In fact, para-sportspeople make up 32 of the 470 carded semi-professional sportspeople in New Zealand. That hopefully rebutes the whole "there are no/very few professional para-athletes" argument. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 12:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NHOCKEY: wording should be improved

Apparently the words "top professional league" mean something different in the world of hockey than in usual English; instead they are defined by WP:NHOCKEY/LA. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Hinterstocker (ice hockey b. 1983), I repeatedly fell into the trap of following the words used in WP:NHOCKEY instead of their apparently intended meaning. Surely this can be improved? (As an aside, it is weird to see that one game in the Swedish top pro league is considered more notable than 199 in the German top pro league). —Kusma (t·c) 13:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Top professional means just that, the number one league in the world. (or in this case a couple leagues). We don't say anywhere in that line national. What does top mean in your English? It is all about media attention. The Swedish league players are covered extensively around the world in the media, that is not the case in Germany where there is certainly some media coverage of the players, but not of every player that plays a single game in the league. These listings were determined through many years of following Afds and when sources for players could and could not be found. If we used top professional to mean the top league in a given country than all the players in the pro league in Israel would included, and they certainly do not get the media coverage to meet GNG. It actually did at one point indicate the top league in any country, and we started finding we were deleting a lot of players from leagues like the DEL because they did not meet the GNG and we also had problems where editors would try to add all the players from some very minor league in topical non-traditional hockey countries like the UAE or Israel. So a few years ago we decided to spell out exactly what leagues did and did not meet the different levels to make it clear and avoid the exact confusion you are having and to avoid the gaming of the system that some editors were trying to do with the various criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the phrasing is well defined when editors remember that the entire NSPORTS is meant as an easy tool for what is likely to meet the general notability guidelines (from the lead to page itself). The only improvement I might recommend is moving the note that is currently at the end defining what a "top professional league" is to the top of the section so when an editor does read the NHOCKEY criteria they already know what the definitions are. For example, under the initial Ice Hockey header have Note: the words "top professional league" and "second tier national league" do not mean "the top league in a given country" and "the second tier league in a given country". Please see NHOCKEY/LA for full definitions or something to that extent. (Also perhaps stating something about top professional leagues based on coverage to GNG even though that should be implied by the NSPORTS definition itself.) Yosemiter (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, if any improvement might be made, I think adding the NHOCKEY/LA directly in criterion #1 might work if stated Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league per the League Assessment; The note at the bottom seems a bit cumbersome as currently phrased. Yosemiter (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Reading WP:NHOCKEY #1 in conjunction with #2 and #3, I find it difficult to come to an interpretation that does not mean "the top professional league in a country" in #1, "the top amateur league in countries that do not have a professional league" in #2 and "the second tier national league in countries that have a professional league" in #3. Please explain to me (without using WP:NHOCKEY/LA what #2 and #3 mean if #1 means something other than "top professional league in a country". Please make the guideline so clear that I can understand it, and make it explicit what the words used mean, and do not hide the most important definitions in the line about coaches and managers. Is that so much to ask? —Kusma (t·c) 20:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do without using the list.

1. applies to the top league(s) in the world see Big Six (ice hockey) for an idea why those countries have considerably more media coverage than any others.
2. applies to 100+ years ago when there was no such thing as a professional league anywhere in the world and all the major leagues were filled with amateur players, it doesn't apply to current day.
3. are leagues that are still professional but are not one of the top leagues above, they could be a top level minor league like the American Hockey League or they could be a second-tier national league like the DEL, second tier meaning not one of the top leagues featured in #1. The wording is clumsy in third one because of the different terminology in North America and Europe. We don't have relegation in North America so its easy for us to call a league a major league or a minor league, but because in Europe they use tier's in most countries I can see how the word tier can be confused to mean that countries tier system, when in reality we are trying to say the next group down from the top leagues in the world. People also objected to calling the top leagues in some countries minor leagues which is what the DEL for example is known as in North America. Hence the mishmash of awkward terminology on this line.
4. is a for even lower level leagues where almost no one is likely to get GNG coverage and the only people likely to be covered are the exceptional standouts (ie only the 6 people chosen the First Team All-Star).

To be honest, yes it is a lot to ask. We used to list a lot of that in line and not on a separate page. We had a number of editors, one in particular who would use every single loophole in wording he could find to skirt us until it got to the point that we had to create a list like the footy one that was 100% explicit, if it isn't one of these leagues it does't meet that criteria. It took us years of debates to be able to get to a point to where we had to be extremely specific with a list as we do. Anytime we tried to rely even slightly on peoples common sense it came back to bite us. We have spent the last couple years deleting the mess of articles created because of it and still probably have a few hundred to go if not a few thousand. -DJSasso (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Kusma, look. As DJSasso correctly says, this happens a bit too often. We tighten up the language, and then we do it again, and then we do it again. The NHOCKEY/LA list is the direct result of editors who just had to have an explicit list of which leagues counted where before they'd stop arguing that what we meant by "top professional league" wasn't really what we meant by "top professional league." Ultimately, we can't idiot-proof the language; sooner or later, someone will decide that the new language means what they want it to say, rather than what we intend it to mean. At some point -- and I believe we've reached it -- we're just going to have to rely on the language and hope that people actually read the entire guideline instead of the parts they feel like reading, and in cases when people just can't wrap their heads around it, we're going to have to rely on the hope that people will ask either here or over on the project talk page for a clarification, and that they'll actually believe us when we say what we meant by it. Rather than telling us what you think the interpretation means, why not take our word for it when we tell you what it really does mean? Rather than being unhappy that the clarifying sentence wasn't where you wanted it to be, why not recognize that it's already in there, and that you've already read and understood it? Ravenswing 09:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand why the link to the definitions is not given more prominence. I still believe that my interpretation is reasonable, especially if the reader skims over the line about managers, which contains a link to the definitions you need to understand the notability criteria for players. Why is this link not in a prominent position that makes it more obvious it is about players? —Kusma (t·c) 19:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Because it was placed where it is, and because we believe that the great majority of editors not only read the criteria but comprehend the plain English in which they're written. For those who insist on favoring the criteria with only the briefest of casual glances, I'm quite sure that even if we put every possible link in highlighted 48-pt flashing green and purple type, someone would nevertheless complain about it being insufficiently prominent, or complain that it isn't worded they way they would have worded it if they'd been the ones to create the criteria. Ravenswing 01:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"Because it was placed where it is" has little value on a wiki, if any. I have now placed it elsewhere. —Kusma (t·c) 08:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Secure consensus before you rewrite notability criteria. I've now reverted it. Ravenswing 09:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I made a change clarifying that the league assessment contains a definitive list. Given that the changes are just copy-editing and do not alter the guidelines in any way, I just boldly implemented the change. If there are any objections, please feel free to revert and we can discuss further. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Howdy Kusma. Perhaps a complete list of leagues would be best, to remove any doubts. Though, who'd want to figure out which leagues qualify & which don't. GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe the language used to be adequate. I find it rather puzzling that there are numerous olympians and players from world championships who do not have pages and there is so much energy exerted on arguing about marginal players. To what end?18abruce (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

NHOCKEY/LA is already a complete list of leagues. It specifies, explicitly, that any league not mentioned confers no presumptive notability. Ravenswing 07:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Rugby league notability

The Rugby league notability states; "3. …Super League (see Note 1) including Challenge Cup appearances." Does this mean any appearance in the Challenge Cup, or only an appearance in the Challenge Cup whilst playing for a Super League (or earlier iteration) club? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the intent is to restrict it to appearances while playing for a "fully professional club". It could be interpreted in other ways, but this makes the most sense to me. I certainly don't think the intent was to create biographies of all the players in the York Acorn v Sharlston Rovers match in the 2016 first round, for example! Mattlore (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

We have a divergence of what is the rationale here at sports and at the project. I believe that we should be tying up the loose ends on CC games when we overlay the WPRL standards here.Fleets (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A long time ago projects used to maintain their own notability advice and when this page was created it was made an actual guideline whereas the project ones were just project recommendations. In the time since then it would have evolved as discussions happened here at the official guideline and were likely never moved back to the unofficial wikiproject recommendation. In otherwords, the project page is out of date and no longer used. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Then I would seek from you as an admin, to find out how we go about bringing this page in line with 2016 rugby league and the rationale that we have at the project. What wording do we need. What guidelines should we be laying down. What loopholes should we be closing. And so on.Fleets (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Have captured the existing rationale at the WPRL that was divergent from notability (sports).Fleets (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, its not really up to me or any other admin, its up to the community in general here on this page and any Rugby editors that are interested. Basically what happens when someone wants to change something they post on this page what they think the problem is and they maybe invite the Rugby editors here via a link on the Rugby Wikiproject talk page and then both general community editors and rugby specialists discuss how they think the change/fix/problem should be handled. I am not super familiar with Rugby so I would probably not comment on anything until someone had a specific proposal to do. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, so its a consensus from grass-roots rather than top down, that info is greatly appreciated. Having looked into it looks like it has been a series of discussions, with a significant one in 2015 that led to the rationale changing here, but the WPRL rationale remaining in place.Fleets (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, basically no one has bothered to update the old project page - perhaps the easiest thing is to just redirect it to here. Mattlore (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

NBASKETBALL needs a change

Having been involved in three separate AfD conversations in the last week where participants have argued for keeping articles based on the "similar leagues" line in NBASKETBALL, I propose removing the line "or a similar major professional sports league" from the end of the guideline as it is not defined and is being invoked in lieu of providing evidence that a subject meets GNG. You can't definitively say that a subject meets NBASKETBALL if they haven't played in one of the leagues listed, and while it is true that there are some leagues that probably receive an equivalent level of coverage (the Greek League comes to mind), many country's top-level leagues do not receive that publicity (and, by extension, independent, reliable source material). Better for WP:BASKETBALL to create an expanded list of eligible leagues. I have been a proponent of keeping the "similar leagues" wording to make it clear to AfD nominators that other players can be notable, but this could just as easily be left up to a GNG review. Rikster2 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. We tightened up to an exact list for the NHOCKEY criteria precisely on that point: that every guy wanting desperately to save his pet NN article argued that playing a single game in the Bulgarian hockey league in 1979 mattered just as much as if he'd played in the NHL, because the Bulgarian league was a Top Level League, doncha know. Ravenswing 16:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
• I am all for tightening it up, but I am not ok with just removing the line. I think we need to look at what leagues should be on the list and which ones shouldn't. I think the NHOCKEY situation is ideal - keep a running list. However, I am not ok with simply removing the language because there may be leagues intended to be covered by that language that were not listed for the sake of brevity or other reason. As an example, in European basketball you always hear about the big three leagues, but if you remove that league Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto and Serie A are in while Greek Basket League would not carry the weight. Greece is on par with Spain and Italy regarding the quality of play in the league and in turn the coverage. I believe that the current language would consider the Greek Basket League as a similar major league without question.

So I think the task is to better define the list so as to make sure all the appropriate leagues are included. As I said above, no question Greece should be included. I also would say the major pan-national/historic leagues need to be included. Those are the Adriatic League (and its predecessor the Yugoslav Basketball League) and the VTB United League (and its predecessors USSR Premier Basketball League and the Russian Professional Basketball Championship). Other leagues I would think to consider are Israel, Turkey, and France. I would include those, but feel less strongly than Greece and the two pan-national leagues. That is my take - drop the language once we create an accurate list, but not until then. RonSigPi (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It's funny, you have the stance now that I had three years ago. But since then I have realized that the phrase doesn't actually offer any protection and that the misuse of it is worse than the protection that it provides. Tell you what, Ron. If you feel that strongly about it, I propose that you start a discussion on WP:BASKETBALL and start the process of determining the list of leagues. I will chime in and I will be happy to drum up discussion with the regulars. How does that sound? Rikster2 (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. We will see how it goes (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Revised_WP:NHOOPS_guideline). RonSigPi (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a ton of input, but the input seems to form consensus to make the change as articulated on the project page. I will give 24-hours to see if anyone thinks my interpretation is incorrect (also will post this on the project page). RonSigPi (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Women's Basketball

Is this a notable league? Baltic Women's Basketball League . I am wondering because I saw a few players I wanted to make articles on. Also what are notable leagues for women's basketball? This isn't helpful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Basketball/Women%27s_basketball. BlackAmerican (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• According to NHOOPS, no. Unquestionably some of that league's players would pass the GNG, but for a league to be notable in that respect, we have to be able to presume that each and every player who's ever played in the league will pass the GNG, which is a very tall order. Ravenswing 06:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability Hoops seems highly biased against Women's basketball.
"Basketball figures are presumed notable if they Have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league. Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA Development League."
It doesn't take into consideration the Women's National Basketball Association , American Basketball League, Russian Women's Basketball Premier League, Women's National Basketball League, EuroLeague Women, CREFF Madrid their respective drafts, and more. I would like to find or establish a notability for womens hoops. BlackAmerican (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Right now, the standard for women's basketball is WNBA (all players who appear at least one game), meeting WP:NCOLLATH as a college player, meeting WP:OLYMPICS or meeting WP:GNG. It is a fact of life that women's basketball is not covered as fully as men's, so sources are harder to come by and the notability standard is therefore higher. That said, any women's player who meets GNG can have an article, so I am not in favor of adding more women's leagues unless it can be demonstrated that the coverage is great enough that EVERY player who gets plays a game gets enough coverage to meet GNG. That includes the 12th player on the most poorly-covered team in the league for every year of its existence. Rikster2 (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say that NHOOPS is biased against women's basketball, I think it is more accurate to make the neutral observation that men's basketball is much better covered by reliable sources and there are far more editors interested in men's basketball teams than women's basketball teams, so this guideline reflects that disparate level of interest. One important nitpick, you state that the guideline doesn't take into consideration the WNBA but the WNBA is specifically included in the list.

I do believe that the statement by @Ravenswing: - we have to be able to presume that each and every player who's ever played in the league will pass the GNG is far too strong. There are many players in the WNBA without articles, and some who may never have an article because they do not pass GNG but there is no question that the league is notable. That said, despite my interest in women's basketball I know next to nothing about the Baltic league, so don't have a useful opinion at this time about whether it should be considered notable. (Addendum, my edit was not technically a cross post, I composed it before seeing the response by Rikster2. I am aware of Richter's extensive experience in this area but I do not agree that every player in every year of existence must meet GNG for the lead to be notable.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

well, that's what the sport-specific guidelines are meant to denote - leagues for which we can reasonably presume notability for all players. In the case of the WNBA, I do think this is true. I have yet to run across a WNBA player who didn't meet GNG either as a result of the league (which is fueled by the NBA marketing machine and has a national TV contract and press in just about every major media outlet), their college career, or their career in other professional leagues. Just my take on it. Rikster2 (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

There was women's basketball outside of the WNBA including [[ American Basketball League and many leagues pay players considerably more for top talent . Top players such as Diana Taurasi and Brittney Griner play in other nations for money rather than America.

right, but notability doesn't rest on salary, it rests on ongoing coverage by reliable sources. Some of those leagues may meet the same standard, but that'd need to be tested out. Rikster2 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Notability criteria on Wikipedia aren't required to be "unbiased" towards women's basketball, men's beauty pageants, co-ed tiddlywinks or much of anything, except towards subjects with a likelihood of meeting the GNG. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance or of original thought, and social engineering is not in our remit. The WNBA has a large and proven media footprint. No evidence has been put forth to demonstrate that each and every player in other women's leagues can meet the GNG. Ravenswing 18:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think all Women's of the FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup are notable. Most of these players at the world championships are already created. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 20:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Basketball notability

Why a player needs to play in the NBA to be considered notable? The NBA isn't the only professional basketball league in the world. Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 06:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• What makes you say that they need to do so?

;Basketball figures are presumed notable if they:

1. Have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league.
2. Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft.
3. Have won an award, or led the league in a major statistical category of the Continental Basketball Association or NBA Development League.

Beyond anything else, NSPORTS' notability criteria aren't designed around whether or not any given player's important, but seek to define the level at which every player who meets them is notable. Using basketball as an example, however much NCAA basketball gets massive media coverage, are we prepared to stipulate that every player who's played so much as a minute of action in collegiate basketball, over the 125 years of organized collegiate hoop, is notable? I am not, and neither were the drafters of NHOOPS. Further, failure to meet the criteria just means the player needs to rely on the GNG for an article. Ravenswing 10:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a college athlete and former professional basketball player. I would like to create a page about myself to help further with exposure. I'm a two time national champion and the import for my Canadian college team. An elite shooting guard. How do I make this page? Creation2 (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Honestly? You don't. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, and it's highly discouraged to create or edit an article about yourself. It's something of a rule of thumb that if you're notable enough to warrant having a Wikipedia article, someone will get around to creating it in good time. Ravenswing 11:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Olympics & Paralympics

Why the different notability standards for competitors at the Olympics and the Paralympics? Furius (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 22#Paralympics for the most recent discussion on this topic, so that it can resume from this point. Regarding your specific question, no one has presented sufficient evidence yet to demonstrate that the guidance for Olympic competitors is suitable to nearly guarantee that there is significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources for Paralympians. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but that seems to be being ignored recently. I have had to Afd and Pfd multiple Paralympic athletes recently with some suggesting that things have changed and most entrants are notable. I don't buy it and most seem to fail GNG while having a few minor blips on the press radar. Especially coming to my attention are tennis articles. They certainly fail WikiProject Tennis guidelines, and they fail WikiProject Olympic Guidelines as they stand. The thing is those who edit paralympic athletes stand by each other and might make it difficult to delete. I realize that GNG trumps all, but that should usually be the exception. All these articles can't be the exception. Mackenzie Soldan, Adam Kellerman, Heath Davidson, Henriett Koósz, Kgothatso Montjane, Takashi Sanada... and that's just tennis. Two of these have been shown to squeak by GNG. That's good as we can always use more legit articles. What many of us need to know is if the bar has moved on these article creations. These don't come close to passing for tennis bios, but perhaps Olympic bios has changed? I don't want to keep putting these up for deletion if no one in the Olympic community here cares whether they exist or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

They haven't changed; it's just the usual deal that when an athletic competition is about to happen or is ongoing, the fanboys come out of the woodwork. If you're running into pileons, you can always hit the NSPORTS talk page and ask for comment on particular AfDs. Ravenswing 17:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that there have been a large number of biographical articles created for Paralympians. Note that Adam Kellerman snd Heath Davidson had widespread coverage in RS even prior to winning gold medals, which has resulted in considerable coverage. For maximum benefit to readers, bios should be prepared in advance. I note that Paralympic articles have dominated edit effort over the last week. (Basement12 might want to comment) Hawkeye7 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Many Paralympians from the early Paralympics (and a lesser number of the current crop) are not notable. Including them in NSPORTS to avoid this issue would be wrong. Fram (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not being avoided. Far from it. A lot of work is being done on the early Paralympics. Several books have already been published, and more are in the works, and will appear over the course of the next few years. Recently a mention in a Wikipedia article on an early Paralympian of film being taken of early Paralympic games sparked a search for the film, which was discovered in Adelaide. The film has now been deposited in the National Film and Sound Archive, and uploaded under a Creative Commons licence. For the current crop of Paralympians, sources are invariably available; the bottleneck is manpower to write them. A number of countries have organised efforts to work on articles related to their Paralympians. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

But at the moment, many Paralympians from the older Paralympics are not notable (not even many of the medalists, to be fair, but let's leave that aside for the moment: at the early Paralympics, countries could e.g. bring 55 competitors and go home with 94 medals). Take for example Francine Billiet, Belgian Paralympian in 1980. No evidence that she is notable could be found. Or Franco Cassamassa, Nettie van Krieken, ... or the competitors in the Belgian Paralympic basketball team who competed at the 1980 Paralympics. I can't even find their names... Fram (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I personally find this staggeringly incomprehensible. Why should someone who finishes 57th and last and 20 seconds behind the overall winner in a minute-long race (Maryan Nuh Muse) be entitled to an article yet any given Paralympic athlete who finishes fourth is not notable enough for an article? WTF? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

In the real world, notability is based on accomplishments, but this requires weighing the relative value of different accomplishments, and English Wikipedia's version of consensus is not well-suited for this. So instead the community has deferred judgment to independent, reliable sources, in the hope that it can more easily reach agreement on the quality of source coverage. Wikipedia's current decision-making process does not scale well and is further hampered by a structure that often results in overly verbose, repetitive discussions. Until this is resolved, it seems unlikely that Wikipedia's standards for inclusion will shift to an accomplishment-based system. isaacl (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

TRM, two problems. First, our sports notability guidelines are often already too inclusive (not just the example you give, but also e.g. some 18th century cricketer where we only know the surname and the facts that he played one intercounty game, and absolutely nothing else, like Allen (Kent cricketer), Baker (Hampshire cricketer), Blake (Surrey cricketer) and quite a few others). Second, many Paralympians finishing fourth or fifth are notable enough for an article under WP:ANYBIO: NSPORTS only indicates the level at which someone is supposed to be automatically notable, not an exclusion level below which you are automatically deemed non-notable. Fram (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

While in theory you are right in mentioning WP:ANYBIO, in practice rules like this are used as an exclusion criteria. Agathoclea (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Fram is absolutely correct. NSPORTS is not an exclusion criterion. It only notes a threshold at which a person is presumed to be notable. Per WP:NSPORTS, failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. The idea that notability is based on accomplishments takes battering in the real world. Those of us in Rio were frequently astonished at the saturation coverage accorded to certain athletes. Very often a medal winner would walk away without media interest, while a Japanese competitor who ran fifth goes live on television. Closer to home, we have the case of Michelle Jenneke.[1] Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It might not officially be, but in practice it gets applied as such. Recent NFOOTY example is Johannes Eggestein who got deleted despite having quite some non-trivial (i.E articles about him) in varied but mostly non-english sources. Now the article is recreated because he appeared in one third league game without any mention of those achievements. Agathoclea (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

By broad consensus, repeated in discussions multiple times over the years on this talk page and its predecessor, the guidelines on this page do not set a higher bar than the general notability guideline for having an article included in English Wikipedia. If discussions where the participants agree that the general notability guideline has been met are being closed in contradiction to this, they are going against long-held consensus, and I suggest the decisions should be reviewed. isaacl (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The trouble is, it seems like the threshold of notability is somewhere between "everyone at every Paralympics" and "only the medal winners, even at more recent Paralymics", but there's no clear way to draw that line. The advantage to having a notability threshold is that it helps a lot with systemic bias issues, which is very useful for a national sporting event where many athletes are from countries where any coverage of them will be in a non-English language and can't necessarily be easily found by editors trying to determine notability at AfD. (It also doesn't help that many editors are American and will have an easier time finding US-based sources, given that the US pays comparatively less attention to the Paralympics than even other large English-speaking nations.) On the other hand, previous discussions of this criteria have shown that not even all Paralympic athletes from large English-speaking countries meet the GNG, so as much as I'd like to be able to have articles for all competitors, the coverage just doesn't seem to be there. Relaxing the criteria from medalists to finalists/top 8/etc. might help, though that still doesn't deal with the discrepancy between historical and modern coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I strongly believe that any Paralympian can have an article as these days they are similarly selected and ranked as Olympians. Paralympians like the Olympians need to qualify through regions or times. To make a Paralympic team for many athletes is just as hard an an Olympian. If we allow any Olympian to have an article but restrict it Paralympians to those medals, I think this is discrimination against people with a disability. They already encounter a great deal of discrimination in their day to day life. Wikipedia articles on Paralympians are often more important as they show their journey in international sport and how they have overcome many obstacles. Their articles can help others with a disability qualify for the Paralympics. The Paralympics is now one of the largest and high profile sporting events in the world. Wikipedia should update its policy to allow any Paralympian to have an article as these athletes are now just as notable as Olympians in their own country. I know in Australia this is definetely the case if you look at the coverage of the Paralympics since 2000. Failure to update this policy will be seen to be discriminatory in the eyes of many. User:Aussiesportlibrarian (talk) 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your reasoning is off in the first line already, as if you haven't read any part of the above discussion. "Any Paralympian" means "from the very first Paralympics", while "these days" only refers to the last few Paralympics. We are not here to fight discrimination. If Paralympians get less attention elsewhere, then they will get less attention here. Paralympians now may be just as notable as Olympians in Australia and some other countries, but in most countries this is not the case at all, and in the past this was even less so. And I doubt that your claim is actually true: Australia at the 2016 Summer Paralympics got about 1,000 to 2,000 pageviews a day during the Paralympics, while Australia at the 2016 Summer Olympics got about 5,000 pageviews a day. Ellie Cole, the most successful Austalian athlete at the Paralympics 2016, got nearly 1,000 pageviews at her busiest day. Kyle Chalmers, gold medalist at the olympics for Australia, got 53,000 pageveiws on one day during the olympics. I also note that at the Paralympics, you got 81 medals for 176 competitors, while at the Olympics you got 29 medals for 421 competitors. This is not typical Australian, at the Paralympics you had 4,342 competitors and more than 1,500 medals, so a better than 1-in-3 chance of medaling. At the olympics, you had 11,303 participants and 909 medals, so less than a 1-in-10 chance of medaling (I'm ignoring team sports, and medals for guides and the like, in both cases). Discrimination! A Paralympian, once selected, has a much bigger chance of medaling than an Olympian. Our rule that every Paralympic medalist (even those from the early Paralympics which got next to no coverage) is notable is already a form of positive discrimination. Fram (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not following your math Fram. How does 29% of Paralympians exceed 100% of Olympians? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Also: Lakeisha Patterson got over 6,000 page views on 8 September. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible compromise: How about altering the notability criterion to include all Paralympians from the 2000 games on? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking discrimination in the real world, not here. We don't award medals to Olympians or Paralympians. Thanks for the link to Patterson, I took two random Australian competitors who seemed to be likely candidates for most pageviews, I didn't check for more popular ones. Still, 1/7th of the pageviews doesn't indicate that they are just as notable (in the Aussiesportlibrarian way, not the Wikipedia way). As for your compromise, looking at e.g. Jamaica at the 2000 Summer Paralympics, I note that they had 5 competitors. So far, I have not even been able to find their names or sports. Declaring them automatically notable seems unwarranted. The same goes for the 30 Belgians there. That obviously doesn't mean that none of them are notable, but I don't believe that all athletes at the 2000 Paralympics are notable, and I'm not certain that all athletes at the 2016 Paralympics are notable either (does Maryna Gabeda meet the WP:ANYBIO requirements? I can't seem to find a lot about her in any case). Fram (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Milly Tapper, who is both an Olympian and a Paralympian, she peaked at 298 page views per diem during the Olympics, and 294 during the Paralympics. So I'm not seeing much difference when like is compared to like. Our Olympic team performed poorly compared to its Paralympic counterpart (although the absence of Russia at the Paralympics helped.) The discrepancy between athletes and medals between the two is caused by the mix of sports. The team sports only count as one medal on the medal table. In fact, the 11,000 Olympians in Rio received about 2,500 medals. (Australia's eight Olympic gold medals on the table represent 23 medals issued.) FIBA has put forward a proposal that the medal table be changed to reflect this, so that when a basketball team wins (for example), it counts as 12 gold medals toward the national tally, not just one. This would not only have considerable impact on the medal tables, but would impact funding in many countries, which is probably why it is not going anywhere. The five Jamaican Paralympians at Sydney 2000 were Anthony Bryan (table tennis), Shane Chambers (swimming), Sylvia Grant (athletics), Coleen Morrison (athletics), and Neville Sinclair (athletics). There is a fair bit of material on them all! Sylvia Grant is "the most decorated Jamaican female paralympian in recent history." [2] (@Aussiesportlibrarian: Chambers became paraplegic as a result of a polio outbreak in 1982.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

For equity, the New Zealand sporting authorties consider a Paralympic podium as the equivalent of a Olympic top eight, and a Paralympic gold medal as the equivalent of an Olympic podium. I don't have a problem with that - how many Olympians outside the top eight places do you consider inherently notable? Lcmortensen (mailbox) 04:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Does HPSNZ pay bonuses for medals? I consider all New Zealand Olympians notable! Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Not exactly bonuses, but they do pay "performance enhancement grants" to medallists; how much each athlete depends on their best medal, whether it's Olympic, Paralympic or non-Olympic, and wheter it's in an individual or team sport. Olympic medallists gets $60k for individual gold, $55k for individual silver/bronze, $35k per player for team gold and $30k per player for team silver/bronze. Paralympic medallists get $50-60k for gold and $15-35k for silver/bronze.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 07:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: in accordance with Wikipedia's bold, revert, and discuss cycle and consensus policy, it would be helpful if the longstanding text of this guidance is not altered until a consensus has been reached in this discussion. (Note this has been pointed out previously.) Your cooperation is appreciated. isaacl (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

But we have clearly established that many early Paralympians (and a significant number of recent ones) have not received such "significant coverage" at all. There was no consensus for your change, which I have reverted again. The early Paralympics were not major competitions in the Wikipedia sense, as they (and certainly the individual participants) hardly received any coverage at all. You can't change an individual entry on this page based on the nutshell, it works the other way around, that's why it says "as listed on this page". Fram (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Athletes who are a part of, but don't actually compete in, the Olympics

While it's abundantly clear that athletes who compete at the Olympics are notable, the policy seems less clear on athletes who qualify for the Olympics and are scheduled to compete but don't actually end up competing. This refers to cases such as last-minute injury scratches, last-minute disqualifications, members of team sports who never got off the bench, extra members of four-person relay teams that were eliminated after one race, athletes who didn't show up on time... the list goes on. My inclination is that these athletes are still notable, as (a) they're still likely to receive much of the same pre-Olympic (and possibly post-Olympic) coverage as athletes who do compete and (b) athletes are still high-level competitors if they're able to qualify for and set to compete in the Olympics. I'm not sure that everyone will see this the same way though, and since I've been creating articles for all of the 2016 Olympic athletes, I'd like some clarification on this before I start any for these athletes. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• The NSPORTS criteria, generally, requires match participation to meet a standard, and there are thousands of cases of players who are on top-flight rosters but never see action. As with those who never make a top-flight roster in the first place, they need to meet other criteria, or failing that the GNG. My take is that we shouldn't be creating articles on players simply because we're on a tear to make stub articles for (say) every athlete in the Burundian 2016 Olympic delegation, but because we genuinely feel -- having researched it in each and every such case -- that they'd meet the GNG. Ravenswing 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• In addition to agreeing with Ravenswing , I think a major issue is what is intended by "qualify." In the most liberal stance, 427 Kenyans "qualified" for the Olympics, so I don't think that term works. I think crafting a better term is going to be more hassle than its worth. The other thing to remember is that these are just guidelines (some treat them as iron rules where failure to meet the guidelines means delete, but that is another issue for another day). Many of the examples you suggest already meet GNG. Someone with a fun story like Michalis Kalomiris has more human interest coverage and meets GNG. A tragedy for an athlete is usually well covered, such as Nodar Kumaritashvili. I think the guideline should stand and GNG be relied upon when needed. RonSigPi (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Success, meaning achieving the threshold for selection as a national representative, should still produce the sources to reach the threshold of GNG coverage, which is our true standard. Of those 427 Kenyans, only 3 can be selected in one event (possibly 6 if you extend out to relay team alternates). Many of those 427 do achieve notability by their other achievements, placing in a major marathon for example. My contention all along for any Olympic athlete is: in order to get selected there must be a history of success. Even in obscure countries and obscure events, you do not get selected out of the blue. If you are not arguably the best the country has to offer, if you achieved the selection through some corrupt means, there is still a story, meaning notability. Our key problem, when challenged to prove it is not all places have the same standards of journalism. Let's take an extreme example: North Korean athletes. What are the reports about these athletes before they show up at a major competition. Check the North Korean press. What press? The absence of their coverage is the result of the absence of a free media due to the political system. We have to assume that under normal circumstances the athlete would get appropriate coverage. That is why we have this standard. So we don't need to go find it, sometimes under impossible conditions. Trackinfo (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)