Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 40

Baseball assistant coaches

This arose out of a current AfD discussion. Right now the Baseball SN criteria #4 reads, "Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the above-mentioned leagues." At some point in recent years (I'm not sure of the exact year, but on the New York Mets season articles, they first appear in 2014) assistant coaches began to appear. In other SN's, particularly WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GRIDIRON, assistant coaches are not included. I can't find any info on assistant coaches in Ice Hockey. Should assistant coaches be included in WP:NBASEBALL? If so, shouldn't they be added to provide more specificity? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

They all don't necessarily receive coverage. Some may qualify via WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Handball

When will handball be recognized as a sport in this section? Chartah (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

When someone gets consensus for a handball-specific guideline on which people/teams are likely to be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

... which would have as a prerequisite, to many who might vote on such a proposal, some solid research indicating that 90-95%+ of those who could meet its criteria can reliably meet the GNG. We're not "dissing" any sport that lacks specific NSPORTS criteria (and any athlete, no matter how obscure the sport, can get an article by meeting the GNG). It's just simply the case that in the many years that Wikipedia's had sports-specific notability criteria, demonstrably no one's cared enough about these sports to bother. Ravenswing 19:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability in darts

Hi, I've been creating loads of articles for darts players who haven't got their own articles yet, and for some reason you don't even seem to have a section for darts on your main page at the front...

The problem is that unless they're massive names, then they seem to be getting deleted almost as soon as they're being put up, even with articles being attached to them.

There needs to be parameters made to make sure that they're notable enough to avoid being deleted, cos that doesn't seem to be the case on here for some unknown reason....

Ones I've been doing recently are players who have gone through Q-School and won a Tour Card or participated in PDC European Tour events. To me, they're all noteworthy and should have articles, cos they're players who have played in professional tournaments, many of them broadcast in one way or another, so in that aspect, they're all noteworthy.

It seems silly that players who have played in majors such as the UK Open are not being allowed, when football players who have played in lower division football (soccer) teams are allowed, even though they'll nowhere near be at the same level in comparison to some of these darts players.

Does anyone know how this can be done so that guidelines are made, so that these articles can't ever be deleted again?? JRRobinson (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Instead of "creating loads of articles" all at once (roughly 20 darts bios today alone), a good solution might be to slow down and take the time to include sourcing demonstrating that each individual passes WP:GNG. Most of the articles you created today are supported solely by comprehensive databases. Ideally, the articles would include examples of significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like at least 5 have been nominated for deletion, as no evidence of passing WP:GNG. We only need sports-specific criteria if most people meeting the criteria are notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite. What you term "massive" dart players 99% of the rest of the world would refer to as "Who?" My ongoing bar for voting "Yes" on new blanket criteria is legwork demonstrating that 90-95% or so of those who meet it can also meet the GNG. Merely playing in a "professional tournament" is a bar that can be cleared by every local beer league that tosses $250 on the table for the champions to split between them. Cbl62's advice is good; do the legwork to prove that individual players meet the GNG, and articles created for them are in good shape. Ravenswing 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

YOUNGATH

Back in December, User:SportingFlyer opened a discussion of the WP:YOUNGATH standard. That discussion focused on high school athletics. A further issue has arisen as to whether and under what circumstances we should have articles on sports teams for grammar school boys (ages 5-14). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minim football teams of the University of Notre Dame. Should we establish standards for articles on grammar school athletic teams? Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping - I've been taking a bit of a Wikibreak and would have missed this. I've never seen this as a particular problem which arises and I don't think we need a hard and fast rule for this at this point as almost all of these teams will fail the WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Good heavens, no. Why should there be? There's nothing wrong with letting those that can meet the GNG pass, and all others fail. Ravenswing 19:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you list a single grammar school athletic tam that should have a stand-alone article? Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, no. SportingFlyer T·C 14:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nor I, and I doubt there'd be. Ravenswing 18:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Klejvis Shiba

This footballer hasn't played any match in a professional Italian league, but he played two matches in Coppa Italia, a notable competition. Is this player a notable footballer? Dr_Salvus (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTINHERITED. Likely not, unless you can find multiple independent secondary reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth and not just trivially. Also, the better to post this would have been at WT:FOOTY. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: These are the sources. Dr_Salvus (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

The second and third one are just databases, not indepth sources (well, the second one doesn't work for me, but as far as I can see, it is just a database). It may be reliable, but it doesn't give notability. And the first one is just a reposted press release, not an actual journalistic article. If these are the best sources, then the player laks the necessary notability. Fram (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any chance this would survive a notability/deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 14:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No such thing as 'automatic pass'

I boldly added this (which seems a reasonable clarification, especially for newer users), but since well that is apparently a large change it might be better to discuss it, so let's see if there are any objections or improvements to be suggested. This comes, at least for me, indirectly, from a discussion at WT:MILHIST about deprecating WP:SOLDIER (which was not even an SNG, but nvm), where the overall sentiment was that such guidelines are too often misinterpreted as automatic passes. While a whole different context, I think the clarification I propose here would be a helpful improvement in a similar vein. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unnecessary: prior sections already set out, more than once, that the sports SNGs are not absolute. Ravenswing 17:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Except the page then goes on to use rather absolutist language "are presumed notable" (and this leads to the same unhelpful consequences as WP:SOLDIER, see the section above about NCRIC). A less redundant change, then, would be to change all instances of "are presumed notable if" to "are likely to be notable if". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is going to affect many of the criteria here, especially those that stated that they are 'presumed to be notable' or similar. I believe a RfC is necessary instead for such a wide ranging change. – robertsky (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• My own view is that the "presumed to be notable if" words are a much bigger problem. WP:NBAD says "likely to be notable if" instead, which is clearer. Or perhaps we could have "satisfies ... if" eg "satisfies WP:NGOLF if" (or something similarly blunt). Nigej (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Nigej: See my post above. The change can be easily implemented (search and replace using any off-wiki text editor) in any case, but I prefer the less blunt option, especially if we're trying to make this less prone to misinterpretation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  One issue with "likely to be notable if" wording, is whether it should be firmer. eg "highly likely to be notable if". Of course, this doesn't really work unless the criteria actually reflect the likely/highly likely wording, which in many cases they don't (but perhaps that a separate issue). Nigej (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Depends. I's say 'likely' since that seems the more prudent option. 'highly likely' could work with more selective criteria (but I don't think that is the case for much if any of the sports currently listed). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  For reference, using "highly likely" in the general text portions of this guideline (such as in this diff) was last discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 35 § Guidance for creating sports-specific notabiity guidelines. When closed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 36 § Guidance for creating sports-specific notabiity guidelines (reprise), the closer felt most of the discussion was related to the FAQ and so only altered the FAQ. isaacl (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

All-American for American football/Arena football/Canadian football

Why achieving All-American honors is no longer recognized for American football, but it is for Ice Hockey ? Tecmo (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Very likely because ever since WP:ATHLETE was deprecated, the various NSPORTS SNGs aren't in cookie-cutter lockstep. Which is a good thing, seeing as different sports have widely differing criteria for relative importance. Minor-league teams in baseball and hockey have as much as a century or more of history, and often in major metropolitan areas; minor leagues in football and basketball have been ephemeral at best. (Meanwhile, due to the relegation/promotion system, there is exactly ONE top-flight team in English football that hasn't spent at least one season in the minors in the last century.) American collegiate football and basketball are very noteworthy, less so in other sports, and not much at all in Canada. And so on: there are dozens of examples. By and large, the individual sports WikiProjects tend to their own knitting. Ravenswing 05:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• WP:NCOLLATH does encompass first-team All-Americans for college football. See prong 1 which encompasses Template:College football award navbox. Cbl62 (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That section mentions unanimous All-American only. What would happen for example for Football Championship Subdivision or National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics All-Americans.Tecmo (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

NCOLLATH plainly sets out Division I as the benchmark. A NAIA athlete would rise and fall on the GNG. Ravenswing 14:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually the college football template doesn't say just unanimous All-Americans - that is a separate, more targeted link sitting next to the generic All-American link that is also included in the navbox. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Don't miss the forest for the trees here. Deciding whether or not a subject of any sort (including, but not limited to, people) the only real decision point is am I able to write enough reliably sourced text to write a decent length, relatively complete article about this person. That requires more than meeting some arbitrary condition. There are a few conditions whereby we expect, without exception, every person on the planet who meets that condition to have enough reliable source text about them for us to draw from (like "Has been the head of state of a sovereign country" and that kind of stuff), however the meeting of a condition is not a substitute for actually having good source text to draw from. If a subject specific notability guide has a condition that does not indicate that there is highly likely to be enough source text, then it isn't a good criteria for notability. The ONLY thing you really NEED to care about is "where am I getting the information from to write an article" and "is there enough of that information to write the article from". If all the article can say is "So and so was named to an All-American team" and nothing else, then you don't have enough to write an article. --Jayron32 13:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that there are currently Wikipedia users making decisions about deleting or keeping articles based on arbitrary conditions. My suggestion is to keep this specific condition as it was before (I'm still not sure why it was removed) and how it currently appears in the Ice Hockey section, or as a community we will not be able to keep great college athletes articles any longer.Tecmo (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

And what makes your preference less "arbitrary?" In any event, our focus should not be on keeping "great college athlete" articles. Our focus should be on keeping articles that pass notability muster, and that are more than sub-stubs such as Jayron32 cites. If you believe, and can demonstrate, that all college football All-Americans can pass the GNG, then make that case. Ravenswing 14:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't talk in generalities. Talk in specifics. What article, which was deleted recently, had sufficient well-referenced text, or at minimum had sources to use to write sufficient well-referenced text and such was deleted incorrectly. Please, let us know which article or articles we lost that has information we need to save in some way. What specifically have we lost that needs to be recovered? --Jayron32 15:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the article that is being considered for deletion: Drane Scrivener, when before there wasn't an issue because this player was an All-American.Tecmo (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ummm. That wouldn't be the example I'd choose of a worthy article being canned by wikilawyers. That's a barebones stub of a player declared an "All-American" by ONE outfit, sourced solely through primary sources and stat aggregators. Ravenswing 22:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Per Ravenswing, that article is not worth saving. Where is there evidence of any reliable, independent prose written about his life or career? If Wikipedia didn't exist, where would I learn about this person? If you can't answer that, the subject isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the article should be deleted. --Jayron32 17:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

To be candid, If Wikipedia didn't exist, we wouldn't learn of a lot of persons or subjects. I think you want to focus on the most popular athletes in the world of sports and leave the others out.Tecmo (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• The consensus has long been that first-team All-Americans in Division I FBS football and basketball are notable. See, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 19#College All-Americans. However, there has been resistance to extending the presumption to All-Americans in other sports. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 11#College baseball All-Americans. Cbl62 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In reality it is hard to justify first-team All-Americans for every sport. My friends' daughter was a first-team sailing All-American. She is a consultant now and nobody knows who she is. Is she notable as an athlete? No. Rikster2 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

My request is just for american colleges in American football. I undertsand the point that this will not apply to all sports.Tecmo (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That's contrary to your OP. Have you changed your mind on that, then? Ravenswing 22:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that I have been consistent the whole time, when have I talked about another sport ?Tecmo (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

New notability criteria for MMA fighters

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

---

I am bringing forth a modification of the notability criteria for MMA fighters. It has been agreed to by the MMA project, which you longer term editors will agree is no mean feat. The first two criteria are unchanged from the current criteria. The third one is the addition. It stems from discussions about adding more organizations to the top-tier, but that was because editors wanted to include additional fighters. There is a growing list of fighters ranked in the world top 10 that are fighting for organizations that are not considered top tier, due to a lack of depth, and hence those fighters were not considered notable by WP:NMMA. This proposal puts more emphasis on the individual fighter and less on the organization/promotion. It also brings it more in line with the notability criteria for boxers and kickboxers, which both use top 10 rankings as indicators of notability. The participants in the discussions leading up to this proposal believe that Sherdog and Fight Matrix are the two best sources for rankings. I don't believe this proposal will add a large number of fighters, but it seems likely that a fighter ranked in the world top 10 is likely to have significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they:

1. Have fought at least three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or
2. Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization; or
3. Been ranked in the world top 10 in their division by either Sherdog (sherdog.com) or Fight Matrix (fightmatrix.com).

• Support as nom. Papaursa (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support in line with combat sports (boxing and kickboxing) notability criteria. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Easy, straight forward criteria and similar with regards to know other martial arts have their notability criteria. HeinzMaster (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. GameRCrom (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I've always got a slight anxiety when criteria are added, without tightening up other ones. It would be useful to have examples of people covered by the criteria 3, who fail 1 and 2. Are the historical top-10 rankings readily available for someone to check? (A quick look on petscan shows that we currently have 2889 "Mixed martial artists" biographies) Nigej (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nigej:Like Papaursa mentioned, the new proposal will only add a handful of new fighters, in my quick review off the top of my head, it would only apply to people like Juliana Velasquez, Jiří Procházka, Manel Kape, Larissa Pacheco. It would overall not lead to a huge addition of fighters, mostly only one or two each year. In regards to viewing the standings, fight matrix has easily accessible hisotrical rankings https://www.fightmatrix.com/historical-mma-rankings/ranking-snapshots/ and you can click on each fighters name to see what their highest ranking ever was. Sherdog has all their rankings arhcived as well. https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/list/1 HeinzMaster (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Per above. It's about time. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support.In support of it. Sounds easy enough. Powderkegg (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Good heavens, reform's failed to gain consensus for several years now. Well done. Ravenswing 23:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. If only to hopefully convince people that it actually is okay to add new criteria here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - simple and straightforward. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Natural I see don`t see Bellator as a top tier because of the way drug testing are done there wont really show their true self like UFC do. I do agree with some expansion in guidelines for new MMA fighters creation, but some guidelines can be removed and made clearer in future. Some guidelines might of been sneaked into the MMA wiki project needs to be removed. Oppose and reduce guidelines Even if this pass or not. Ask MMAProject to clear some guidelines that "quietly" added in before adopting or expanding more guidelines. This cant "let it go" any longer. Kent Bargo (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Genuinely confused what exactly you are talking about. You keep talking about some guidelines that were added in some nefarious way but the criteria haven't been changed in years. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. If this concerns only a handful of fighters, for whom there is likely to be significant coverage, then it would make sense to make a handful of source searches when making those articles rather than to bloat the criteria with WP:CREEP. SNGs should provide the most common categories of sportspeople and not be tailored to fit absolutely all of them. This is why we say that if the SNG criteria aren't met, you go with GNG, and there's nothing wrong with that. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Same with Gsfelipe94. Kosbit4 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The new prong (top 10) is quite narrow and appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Question There have been no additional comments in weeks and there appears to be consensus. How long does this discussion need to remain open? Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not another moment; there was near-unanimous consensus on this. I've just made the change. Ravenswing 02:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Wikiproject notability pages

I rewrote a couple of sentences to clarify that Wikiproject notability pages have WP:ADVICEPAGE, not guideline, status. I hoped this would be noncontroversial since it was correcting a small error and not changing the substance of the guideline, but I'm happy to discuss any concerns here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess WP:ADVICEPAGE is better and stronger than WP:ESSAY. Advicepage is more technical and instructional where Essay is more opinionated. But a project guideline based on WP:ADVICEPAGE is still quite powerful in handling situations. The tools they give are usually formed by meticulous input from many editors with consensus, and are based on NSPORT and GNG. Unlike Guidelines they are created by dozens of more specified editors like Geography editors or Physics editors consensus, rather than an encyclopedia wide consensus. Guidelines simply can't handle everything, being so general in nature, and wikiguidelines also get overridden by consensus. None of these Guideline/Advice/Essay articles are as strong as something that is Wiki Policy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not hugely concerned about whether to call it an advice page, project page or essay. My main concern was that before I made changes, the WP:CRIN project page opened with "This is the expanded detail of the agreed guidelines, that are summarised in the Cricket section of the Notability (sports) guidelines" and the WP:NCRIC section on this page stated "The criteria have been taken from WP:CRIN, which should be consulted for details.", implying that the project page was the "official" guideline. It's reasonable for the project to maintain a supplementary essay but we need to be clear and factual about which is which. –dlthewave ☎ 14:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree entirely with that - and I suspect the other people currently involved in trying to come to a consensus over a way forward on NCRIC at the cricket wiki project would likely be to agree as well. CRIN, as it stands, has significant issues associated with the way it was written and the lack of any discussion of much of its contents. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, CRIN is a mess and needs a massive sort out once notability discussions have finished. All CRIN really does to NCRIC now is just add a bit more details onto what's at NCRIC and likely it will be cut down so it's just that. A lot of what's there is an overkill of information or jargon that most readers wouldn't be able to understand without cricket knowledge. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what the project page opens with. ""This is the expanded detail of the agreed guidelines, that are summarised in the Cricket section of the Notability (sports) guidelines" is perfectly fine as long as at the top of the page or sections it has a template that says this is not a guideline, but rather an essay or advice page. In fact what you put on the project is overkill. The template is right at the top big as life. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NCRIC RfC

Hi all. If anyone is interested in WP:NCRIC RfC, please do share your views and help us build a clearer consensus. Thanks. Störm (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sailing proposal

Ok be nice I have always stay out of wikipedia policies but they are getting quoted at me so I thought I should address the issue. Sailing is a very diverse sport with many pinnacles some arguably greater than the Olympics. Other pinnacles that are equivalent include Round the World Race, Freestyle Windsurfing, Speed Sailing, World Record Passages. I note many significantly less global sports have individual policies here but sailing at present relies on the standard criteria for Olympic Sports. I have drafted with wiki sailing project which would be a good starting point for consideration and adoption. I have tried to keep this as closed as possible so things remain notable but open it up beyond the Olympics.

Sailors are presumed notable if they have

1) competed in the Olympic Games or Paralympic Games,

2) won a World Sailing recognized World Championship

3) competed in a World Sailing Special Events

4) competed in the Vendee Globe or Barcelona World Race or it predecessors

5) set a World Record recognised by World Sailing Speed Record Council (WSSRC)

Nations participating at an individual Summer Olympic or Paralympic Games

Classes/Disciplines at individual Summer Olympic or Paralympic Games

Events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games and Vendee Globe

Title Overview Pages for World Sailing recognised World, Continental, special events and WSSRC Records

I am looking forward to constructive comments and the wording and finding out if approval here is enough to change the notability requirements. Yachty4000 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In all honesty, all that should be done away with. Notability is not about achievement, but about significant coverage in secondary source. All the above only assures names appearing in result tables or starting lists which fall under WP:ROUTINE and do not attest notability at all.Tvx1 20:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Notability is not publicity or popularity. It IS about achievement and recognition within a field of endeavor. Yes, that achievement has to be covered in neutral third party sources, but niche sports don’t necessarily get extensive coverage by ESPN or something. If we went solely for amount of coverage, the only articles left on WP would be about the Kardashians. The SNG proposed here is perfectly in line with other SNGs for Olympic sports. Note the one for figure skating as an example. SNGs are guidelines, not policy, and they help reviewers understand what is or is not notable in a given area. Montanabw^(talk) 15:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

... is perfectly in line with other SNGs for Olympic sports: Given the reform discussions here at NSPORTS, WP:OTHERSTUFF might not be a viable argument anymore.—Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Montanabw, notability, as defined by Wikipedia, is significance as demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. That's how it's always been. The consistent attempts by communities of editors to create comprehensive directories with inclusion criteria that don't reference GNG, goes against WP:NOT. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• For the bigger boats, does this cover the whole crew? That's what, up to 10 people, maybe more. For 3 & 4 at least, I don't think that's appropriate. Most of these have no notability. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  T Notability and people's interpretation vary hugely. If I take an athlete from the 1970s who has achieved a lot I will struggle to prove notability in terms of coverage because it was printed reference back then. If I choose an athlete from last week I can find 20-30 websites that have republished the same press release this a lot of people seem to think meets the notability requirements. Personal I would prefer a good primary source to lots of secondary references. While I understand your position this viewpoint clearly hasn't been applied to all the other sports on this page. I would be happy to rely on notability for all sports for events today but it just wouldn't work for historic athletes.

  Johnbod When I drafted this proposal it was deliberately restrictive looking at winners only for World Championships as sailing has so many there are again. This is much less open than all other sports on this page (no national events, no continental events, no coaches, team managers, none competing team members, etc.) and that deliberate due to the number of titles sailing awards, I would also expect some degree of common sense to used by editors. In regards to point four this doesn't have any big crews this is the pinnacle single and two person round the World Race, so not an issue, there are pages and category linked purely to Solo Round the World Sailing this is actually what motived me to make this proposal. In regards to point three this is in place for events like the America Cup, Volvo Ocean Race and the Professional Windsurfing series there are very few events included but by referring to the sports governing body it will be maintained.

  The only part of this proposal that is more open than most other sports is in regards to the Paralympics and that is just to give parity which given the small number of athlete and events and now not even inclusion seems fair. Yachty4000 (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, I'm happy to vote for any criteria where it's been demonstrated that 90-95% of the athletes who meet it can also meet the GNG. (As far as relying on the "common sense" of editors, long experience indicates that doing so leads to grief.) I will point out, however, that we generally don't do carve outs for pre-Internet notability. Is it harder to source an athlete of 50 years ago? Yes. But that athlete doesn't get an exemption from meeting the GNG thereby. Ravenswing 13:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NCOLLATH

This refers to the United States' NCAA Division I. There are some other countries where college sports is popular, like Canada, the Philippines, the UK and Japan, and a great majority of the participants in their respective countries' leagues would no longer join the US NCAA. Does this apply to them or not? If it doesn't should the section specify that? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

University sport is not high profile in the UK except for maybe the boat race. Some university teams play in adult leagues (or for cricket, have first class status), but university-only leagues have very little profile and would definitively not confer notability on their participants. Number 57 20:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, agree with N57's comments about UK university sport - plenty of my peers when I was a student participated and they are (respectfully) nobodies. GiantSnowman 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Can concur, the Boat Race is the major exception where competitors can reasonably be presumed notable. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so can a reasonably notable rower from Cambridge, or a men's ice hockey coach of the University of New Brunswick be denied of an article because he did not play in NCAA Division I? (Assuming they do not anything else to stand on, except perhaps WP:GNG detailing their college sports exploits.) The policy is US-centric as it is, we'd need clarification if it only applies to participants in the US NCAA or for everyone. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: If the Cambridge rower or the hockey coach meet GNG, they should get an article (SNGs are never a ground for denying an article [rather, the real reason is if the article subjects fails GNG, which a well calibrated SNG should give a hint about] - they should be used as a "rule of thumb", as written). If someone who played in NCAA does not meet GNG, he should not get an article, even if he does technically pass the SNG. SNGs such as this one are likely US centric mostly because university level sports seem to get more coverage than their foreign equivalents (there's no foreign equivalent of March Madness that I can think of, for example). Due to that, I don't think there's much we can do to address this particular example of WP:BIAS, though - unless it turns out most of these NCAA athletes are not really notable (any examples at AfD recently?), in which case it might be wise to get rid of NCOLLATH. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian:, the reason I asked is when I was on an AFD patrol, I chanced upon Sherwin Meneses. This guy was the coach of the Adamson Falcons men's volleyball team in the Philippines. The Philippines has to be the country with most extensive media coverage of college sports outside North America: all men's basketball and women's basketball games from Manila leagues are on national TV; similar games elsewhere are on regional TV. Now, this guy coached a men's volleyball team, so the coverage isn't as extensive as someone coaching a women's team, and I actually voted to delete because most the sources on that article are routing coverage (him coaching, leaving the team, etc.), while what seems to be a source that will put him over the WP:GNG mark is dead.

With what you said though, I've seen Philippine sportspeople biographies indeed being deleted because of failing SNG such as WP:MMABIO (another US-centric SNG), but I've pointed out that it did pass WP:GNG, but the SNG folks won out. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It would depend on whether they agreed that it met GNG or not. If they thought it met GNG, but still thought SNG took precedence, that should be taken up with the closer. Usually with AfDs, someone !votes that it doesn't meet SNG, and either isn't monitoring when GNG arguments come up later or just doesn't acknowledge the new info, one way or another.—Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You know with how AFD works: You'd have to clean the article up first so that it becomes acceptable (I know AFDISNOTCLEANUP). I wasn't that interested in doing work with the article, and thought the adding in WP:RS that showed GNG should be good enough, but I guess for mixed martial artists, you'd have to appear in UFC or be adoringly loved by Sherdog. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There's not a single policy or guideline on Wikipedia that hasn't been misused, abused, misquoted, ignored or openly defied at AfD by cementheads with an agenda. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to hone SNGs to better support the GNG. Ravenswing 13:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Howard -- The Cambidge rower and the New Brunswick are not "denied of an article because he/she did not play in NCAA Division I." It's just that there is no presumption of notability. If such persons have received WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources, an article is still permitted per WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Check out my second paragraph above. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(second paragraph) In which case needs to be done what many in the RfC say which is either to fix/get rid of inappropriate and biased guidelines and/or actually enforce NSPORTS and GNG as written, which is that GNG takes precedence over SNG (and give a few pointers to those who persist in not applying the notability guideline correctly). If the deleted article you refer to is recently deleted it might be appropriate for DRV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This was either in 2020 or 2019. (FWIW, I don't think there's a time limit for DRV? Unless it was a decade ago or cannot be retrieved?) I don't want to work on it though so I'm not really interested, but probably later. We'll see. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no time limit AFAIK (though most DRVs are usually rather immediate - I might be wrong), but if it were from a long time ago, the way deletion discussions are handled has changed significantly and it might just be more effective to ask an admin to restore the article as a draft or send you the contents via email see if you can do anything about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Cambridge rower does have a presumption of notability though - under WP:SPORTSPERSON. Unless you're going to suggest that the Boat Race isn't a major amateur competition? And frankly to have this guideline apply only to US colleges sounds awfully like a systematic geographic bias to me. There is, btw, an argument that University cricketers from the past would easily qualify - if you look at coverage in The Times from the 1910s, for example, they generally gave much greater coverage to the University Match and even to major Public Schools matches (Eton v Harrow for example) than they did to professionals playing cricket. At that point this was a major amateur competition. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The bias is unfortunate, but fact is most university sports do not get as much coverage as in the US - even here in Canada it's nowhere near the same level. Please don't get the cricket into this, anyway, we all know how well most of these go at AfD... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

There really needs to be a recognition, though, that there are university athletes who can be notable from other parts of the world. Interestingly I don't recall an historic prolific university cricketer being put up for AfD at all recently. Maybe there have been and I've not noticed it - I'd be talking about pre-1970 certainly. The sources for these chaps are generally really good fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• For my part, going back to the OP, I'm all for amending NCOLLATH to specify from the top that it applies only to NCAA Division I competition. Ravenswing 13:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't work. NCAA Division I was not even established until 1973. Cbl62 (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not specifying it is for biographies that participated in American college sports system since 1973? I suppose it'll be hard to prove notability for biographies for college sports people pre-1973 unless you're a college football player. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Works just fine. That's nearly fifty years worth, and I doubt there's a problem anyway with people churning out sub-stubs of college players from the 1950s. I expect the problem comes from fanboys churning out sub-stubs of active second-stringers from the schools they attend. Ravenswing 06:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:N: stub articles discouragement

FYI - Partly based of the works of sports articles here, a discussion is taking place at WP:N to state that creation of many stub articles from database entries is discouraged: see here SportsOlympic (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding NBASKETBALL

Hi. Under this SNG, it lists specific leagues which qualify for notability, but one thing I noticed is that it does not include notability for players who may not have made one of their leagues, but have made their national team. Basketball is a pretty popular sport worldwide, and other sports have varying degrees of inclusion for playing on a national team (e.g. Baseball, Badminton, Ice Hockey, Women's Rugby Union). I'm usually not one for broadening sports SNG's, but this seems an oversight in this case. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of biographies (with articles or without) who would be affected by this change in the SNG? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

My guess is not all national teams receive coverage of a level which would guarantee the GNG to be passed. I wouldn't have any issue adding national team in a major tournament to the SNG under the assumption that the players in the tournament will likely pass GNG, but this is an assumption on my part. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, not all national team members are notable in my opinion. Olympic players are presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. Possibly World Cup and continental qualifying events (like EuroBasket) could be added if research concluded that players in these events were found to be highly likely notable. I have a hard time seeing anything below that being added. Rikster2 (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be about making a team or competing in one event at all. Leagues don't qualify for notability, sources do. Making a team roster falls under WP:ROUTINE and does not provide notability.Tvx1 20:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

力, sorry about my inattention to this thread. I honestly forgot I posted this question. In my NPP, there are 3 countries which come to mind, Philippines men's national basketball team, Iceland men's national basketball team, and Indonesia men's national basketball team. On my prod list, there are quite a few which have been deleted, but I am not sure which of them the only claim to fame was being on a national team. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Onel5969: The currently-listed Philippines roster is almost entirely people who do not have articles; I suspect that it may be a roster for a U-23 tournament. Basically everyone from Iceland has an article. Indonesia is mixed; I'm going to do more research into a few of those people to see if I should create an article now for them. I think "has participated in X Y or Z major international tournaments" would be a better-phrased rule than "has been on a country's national team". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

力, thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I should comment for the record, though it wasn't particularly interesting. Several of the Indonesian players who do not currently have articles but would meet this criteria ... do meet GNG as well. That suggests there probably is an appropriate rule. I don't know enough about international basketball to draft one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's by design. No evidence that a national team player regardless of actual event or player's country will have sufficient coverage to meet GNG. This has not been a big issue at AfD, nor do we need to green light stub factories for this. GNG is a sufficient fallback.—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd support certain tournaments or being a medalist in certain FIBA & Continental events (IE: winning silver at the Asian games) becoming part of the SNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q6.—Bagumba (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have the same opinion, that I think players at World Championships and European Championships are notable. Basketball is not very popular in the Netherlands, but I know where to search for newspaper articles from decades ago. I started doing some research, but I didn’t have time to continue yet. However, what I investigated, it turned out that all Dutch players I looked for had good coverage. Even the substitutes. See user:SportsOlympic/sandbox-bb. I assume that if these Dutch people are meeting notability, it’s likely the better performing Nations also meet notability. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  Use GNG to create those articles then. We cannot blindly assume a different country has the same level of coverage, and "better performing Nations" is too subjective to be a guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  SportsOlympic, on Wikipedia, notability means they are covered in reliable independent secondary sources. What special interest groups consider to be "notable" in the non-Wikipedia sense, causes huge tension. WP:GNG is the bar that must be cleared, especially for a living individuals. As a general rule, if we are the first place in the world to be writing what purports to be a biography of someone, then we're probably doing something we shouldn't. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  As if I were attacking you! woww. It's just a message that can be the basis of broadening WP:GNG. And "Use GNG to create those articles then.": what is that for an imperative. Who says I would start creating those articles? And the reply "notability means they are covered in reliable independent secondary sources.", I all showed reliable independent secondary sources(!). Please, also try to be a bit more constructive. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  And "Use GNG to create those articles then.": what is that for an imperative.: It's a given that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I'm unclear why you chose to not assume good faith and construed a general statement to instead be an order for you. It was not.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  SportsOlympic, eh? I am just pointing out that Wikipedia's definition of notability is specific and rooted in foundational policies, but that it is different from the meaning used elsewhere. Richard Kohnstam was a notable figure in the military and transport modelling community (he had the license to import Tamiya to the UK for many years and was owner of Beatties), but he's not Wikipedia-notable because the only sources about him are business directories and namechecks. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Dutch athletes

I create articles on notable Dutch athletes and expand articles of Dutch athletes. Both recent Dutch athletes and historic Dutch sportspeople. I noticed that the Netherlands has a good sports coverage and compared to most other countries almost all newspapers are online via several databases. I was able to find information of early Olympians in those newspapers that couldn't be found somewhere else and creating articles on Athletes from old newspapers. Most of the sports has coverage of national level athletes (and so also international). I did some research of Dutch athletes in Olympic Sports (among others: speed skating, short track speed skating, fencing, basketball, swimming, athletics, bobsleigh, volleyball) and I dare to say that:

• Dutch sportspeople are presumed notable if they have represented the Netherlands in an Olympic sports discipline at the hightest international level (e.g. World Championships, European Championships, World Cup circuits).

What is the best way to prove my above assumption. Should I list a bunch of sportspeople? I think it's better that someone give me a random list of sportspeople (or sports and years). SportsOlympic (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• While I support including information to help search for sources for these athletes online, I don't really support creating sports SNGs for people of specific nationalities. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with SF here. GiantSnowman 19:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oh hell no. There is absolutely nothing about nationalities that confer notability to athletes playing for them, except in so far as those from small, rich nations have an easier time making the Olympics or the various world championships. If reliable coverage exists for various Dutch athletes, then that should make it easier to find, well, reliable coverage for them. I guess I'm failing to see the problem requiring new rules to cover it. I certainly don't consider "I'd rather be able to create sports stubs without needing to provide such sources" one. Ravenswing 02:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• If there is a plethora of coverage, WP:GNG should be sufficient guidance for people being the topic of articles; there's no need to allow for more articles, fewer articles, or simply more confusion by having an SNG. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Level 2 header for Levivich (wider applicability of notability criteria etc.)

• I still think we get further by looking at tightening notability rules for all articles rather than focusing on any single SNG. The issues raised here could be resolved with some policy changes like:
  1. SIGCOV should be defined as something like 500 words directly about the article subject. (I would add that interview quotes shouldn't count towards the 500.)
  2. Every new article should have two GNG satisfying sources or else not make it through NPP.
  3. Any existing article that doesn't have two GNG-satisfying references should be PRODable. The PROD can be removed by anyone, so long as they point to what they claim to be the two GNG sources. That way, if the article gets listed at AFD, the discussion can focus on whether those two sources do in fact meet GNG (and whether there are other sources that do). This will focus every AFD discussion.
  4. If anyone decides to pursue any of these ideas, it should be done at the pump (not on any policy talk page, definitely not here), and listed at CENT.
  5. Can we please start a new lvl2 header for this discussion, as this thread is impossible to navigate on mobile. (Is it just me?) Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

     Levivich, no, SIGCOV shouldn't be defined by a word count. Any given number may be appropriate in some subject areas, while totally inappropriate in others. Within some limits, slightly different rules can still apply (classical antiquity and current tropical storms have very different source material to work with, and our rules should be fair to both). And as you said, this discussion should be at the pump. —Kusma (t·c) 17:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Without getting hung up on the specific criteria, I agree that requiring a certain level of sourcing at the time of article creation and deleting any article that doesn't meet the requirements (with no WP:BEFORE requirement) would put the burden of proof on those asserting notability and drastically reduce problematic stub creation. Even the most minimal definition of SIGCOV would require editors to slow down and search for sources instead rapidly mass-creating articles from a database. –dlthewave ☎ 18:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Removing any BEFORE requirement is perhaps one of the most dangerous/stupidest suggestions I have seen. GiantSnowman 18:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be more comfortable with better definitions of what is not typically considered biography SIGCOV (perhaps making a solid statement on whether coverage in small-circulation local newspapers should count at all towards GNG, clarification on "depth" and particularly how standard descriptions of routine events that include a person's role are rarely in-depth enough for GNG, getting rid of the "coverage that is non-SIGCOV but also non-trivial can add up to equal GNG" loophole (what led to that condition in the first place?)). JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Defining it by exclusion is not a bad idea. Presumably everyone could agree on something like, "One sentence is not SIGCOV". I'm also OK with requiring a BEFORE before PRODing an article, but I'm even more strongly in favor of requiring a BEFORE before creating an article. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  "Routine game coverage" is currently specified in the sports notability guideline as not an appropriate source for demonstrating that the general notability guideline has been met. There has been discussion in the past regarding local coverage (see a few comments under Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 38 § Rewrite attempt, for example). Some newspaper coverage is promotional of local people, businesses, and events, since that's what its audience wants, and sports journalism in particular often adopts promotional language and viewpoints. It is something that needs to be weighed when seeking significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources. isaacl (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Personally, I'm lukewarm about the idea of a numeric word count cutoff as a criterion for significant coverage. Regarding the need to provide sources upon article creation, I agree this needs to be discussed in a broader forum, as it would mean revisiting community consensus on the creation of stub articles. isaacl (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

An example of what this proposal is about

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdellatif Aboukoura. Apparently it wasn't clear to some people what the effect or purpose of this proposal was. Fram (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we know, don't you worry. GiantSnowman 09:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Some people don't agree with your proposal, or it's intentions.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I know, but the text used by GiantSnowman at the AfD seemed to suggest that it was somehow surprising that such an article would be up for deletion, and that my proposal tries to make this clearer, more obvious, for everyone involved. Apparently it was the worst fear, not only of GiantSnowman, but of multiple WikiProjects, that articles for subjects without a single indepth source at all, were what this proposal was about. I have no idea what else they could possibly think this proposal was about, I thought it was clear as water, but apparently that AfD was some big confirmation of what my secret plan was all along. Oh no, I've been found out, what I proposed was actually exactly what I meant. Fram (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• A few more examples [1][2][3] of cricket AfDs that were kept even though zero sources were found aside from the Cricinfo database. I had a similar experience with accusations of bad faith and editors who were surprised that such articles would be up for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 17:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  They should be kept in my opinion. It's hardly surprising that someone that actually watches sports would assume you are acting in bad faith since their is an obvious and fundamental difference in opinion. I, and I assume several others, have no problem with a well known and reliable database as a single source for notability. That is the status quo after all.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  That "status quo" is at odds with the guideline as it stands, even more so as proposed. Wikipedia is neither a fansite nor a database (interested people are far better off going directly to Cricinfo, no?), and although I do watch cricket occasionally, I don't think that having a one liner "X played Y matches for Z cricket club between 1950 and 1959" is helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree, I think that one liner would be helpful, and especially more so than nothing at all. The whole point of this site is to act as a catch-all repository for a variety of topics, else we can just start a Professorpedia, Sciencepedia, Mathpedia, and Historypedia to go along with a Cricketpedia. Stubs are incredibly important in providing the breadth and room for growth for the website, whether they are on topics you like or don't.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  However, that does not mean we should have standalone articles for everything. Stubs with realistic potential for expansion have value, and serve to encourage that expansion, but those with no such hope are a cumbersome and unhelpful way of presenting minimal basic information. In particular, one or two-liners that can only be sourced to stats databases are much better as list entries rather than standalone articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  The stub in question Abdellatif Aboukoura, is of an athlete at the beginning of his career who obviously has realistic potential for expansion, and is being proposed to be deleted all the same. This is not encouraging any sort of page, it severely constrains the kind of page that would be made. And no one has explained to me why lists are better than stubs in this case.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer's proposal

Withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. None of these proposals so far directly address the issue: Creation of stubs Sourced only to statistical directories (we're not talking movies or actors, but being sourced only to IMDB applies) Which, when challenged, fail WP:GNG at AfD. As Bagumba noted in the now-hatted discussion, there are three options: a) AfD the article; b) move the article to draftspace; c) TBAN the article creator. Therefore, I propose adding the following to WP:SPORTCRIT: When creating articles, users are strongly encouraged to use sources other than statistical databases to demonstrate notability. Users which continually create stub articles sourced only to database sources may be subject to topic bans, especially if the articles are about BLPs, or if the articles consistently fail WP:GNG after a WP:BEFORE search. The wording could be improved, but I think the general principle is clear. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC) This does happen in sports, but it also applies to actors, politicians, etc. If a statement is to be made, it should be generically about all stub topics, not limited to sports.—Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC) I generally agree, but the specific problem here is sports-related. I'd hate to see this fail to address the sports problem because we couldn't gain site-wide consensus for actors, et cetera... SportingFlyer T·C 12:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Topic-ban an article creator for creating articles which foster further editing? That's everyone's fault but the article creator. This will not help further article creation or improvement, and will turn away established users and potential article creators in the future.. Bobo. 12:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC) You're assuming that these articles actually foster further editing. A lot of the cricket stubs have been sourced to stats sites for over a decade, and when we look for additional sources, there aren't any. SportingFlyer T·C 12:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC) That's not the fault of the article creators that the articles haven't been edited in ten years or more, though, is it... if perpetual AfD nominators had anything to offer, they would do so. Bobo. 12:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) First, if the articles had passed WP:GNG on their face when they were created, or passed WP:GNG now, they wouldn't be at AfD now. Second (and I thought this was clear, but perhaps not,) this is intended to apply to future conduct, not past conduct. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, editors are free to volunteer in whatever way they see fit. We don't tell people what to do (though we occassionally might remind them what not to do).—Bagumba (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Does that include AfD nominators, and those of us who feel that this statistical data would be better presented if it were consolidated into larger lists? Or are we expected to listen to an endless stream of accusations that we can only be skeptical of these articles because we can't edit for shit and are up to no good? I'm getting a little sick of that scurrilous commentary, though not as much as if I thought anyone actually believed it. Reyk YO! 13:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC) It goes without saying that there first needs to be community consensus that creation of said articles is, in fact, disruptive.—Bagumba (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC) There's a lot of merit in this point. As I noted above, these stub articles are created as the rate of about 1 every 90 seconds, 40 and hour. The reality is that the mass AfDing of these is a near-impossible task, something that no sensible person would embark on. As such, the flaw in the system is nothing to do with NSPORT, although NSPORT is used as a sort of justification of the mass creation of these stubs. We have a system where the creation of the article is trivial, any moron can do it, but the removal of such a stub is 100 times more difficult, and that's where the problem lies. Nigej (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC) This is the best suggestion so far - but still not good enough. It needs to be clear that users who continually create non-notable stubs will be topic banned - not just stubs per se. GiantSnowman 19:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Even then, that isn't something that belongs in an SNG, it belongs in a policy on stubs. Which it would never get consensus to be included in. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose. It isn't your place to create guidelines to ban anyone from the cricket project for creating articles, which don't violate guidelines and are therefore not disruptive. StickyWicket (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Could potentially support if it read something like When creating articles, creators are strongly encouraged to use sources other than just statistical databases to demonstrate notability. Articles may also still may be deleted or merged if they fail WP:GNG after a WP:BEFORE search. I'm not sure guidelines here should be attacking users in such a way, and if it is a problem they should be included in a guideline relating to stubs or article creation and not sports SNGs or SNGs in general. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose TBans for creating legit stubs is ridiculous. Really quite a bad proposal. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC) The point is that they're not "legit stubs", they satisfy NCRIC but as to WP:N (which is what matters) 99% fail miserably. Nigej (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Can we stop saying they are 'just' cricket stubs please. Stubs are a problem in large number of other sports including Olympians and footballers. In terms of cricket passing GNG also i'd say its far less than 99% failing. Other sources just aren't being included because under current guidelines they don't have to be. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC) I agree that's it's not "just" cricket, but it seems to largely a sports issue. Some doctor could create doctor-articles for every doctor in the UK or some genealogist could start creating articles for everyone in the 1911 census (I could write an automated script myself) but somehow the creation of pointless stubs is something that particularly appeals to the statistically-minded sports fan. I'm inclined to think that creating an article on every doctor in the UK is likely to have a higher hit-rate (ie %age passing WP:N) than creating articles for every cricketer that passes NCRIC; they'd certainly be much more interesting. Nigej (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC) That's your opinion. I'm sure there are many readers who are interested in these sports statistics, and many who couldn't care less about articles about doctors. You have to remember that sports is highly statistical also. Using your doctors example we don't judge doctors on number of operation/operations per day etc but sports people are judged on statistics and times. Often a lot of the extended text in sportspeople articles are trivial information or just fancruft. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Main difference is here that sportspeople are known, because they are known because they entertain people, and there is a daily coverage in almost all media sources. This is not the case for doctors. Almost all people can name 3 sportspeople but not 3 doctors. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC) UTC) Note: I can’t find that an article of every doctor can be created. See also Wikipedia:Notability (doctors). SportsOlympic (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC) You're missing the point, which is that I could create such articles very easily, but deleting them via AfD would be very time-consuming for you. Nigej (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Except that they are legit stubs, BLP policy only requires one source back up something in the article to avoid deletion by BLPPROD, it doesn't even have to be an in depth article. Therefore, a reference from a stats site is enough to make a stub legitimate. That isn't to say its notable. A creation of a stub can be legitimate and later be found to not be notable. There is no policy that allows for banning an editor for creating a stub in good faith. -DJSasso (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC) We will have to disagree about the "legit" aspect. Indeed I could easily create a stub about myself, or my father, with a suitable reference from a local newspaper (or similar) which would ensure that BLDPROD would not apply. However I'm not a complete idiot (and thankfully not many other people are complete idiots either) so such creations are rare outside the sports area. Nigej (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Very clearly a difference between good faith and being disruptive. But even in your example we wouldn't topic ban you from creating articles on whatever subject it was that you or your father would fall into unless you kept recreating it over and over (at which case the block would be for being disruptive, not specifically cause you created a stub). We would delete the article which is what Afd/Prod are for. -DJSasso (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC) However one person's good faith is another person's disruptive. Nigej (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Which sums up exactly why something like this shouldn't be in an SNG. Incredibly hostile for something that people can easily disagree on. -DJSasso (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC) The specific point of this proposal is to specifically address non-notable stubs being created en masse because the community didn't agree mass non-notable stub creation was disruptive at an ANI last week. No one should be topic banned for creating a poorly sourced stub, it's doing it over and over and over again, and the fact a good portion of the stubs fail discussions at AfD, which is the problem that's trying to be addressed here. This consensus appears to have changed since I made the proposal, albeit not in this particular discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 00:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I will repeat what I've said from elsewhere. People are suggesting topic bans for article creation? It's not the fault of the article creators that articles have gone unedited for 12 years, 15 years or more. Are you really suggesting topic bans based on content created over a decade ago? And now that it's genuinely been suggested that we start getting rid of Test cricketers (yes, I know what you're going to say, it just happens to be the area I'm most familiar with on the project), it makes me think that perhaps it's not the article creators who are to blame... Bobo. 03:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Rugbyfan22, Fram, please let me repeat what I said without using that example, so that you understand I mean it independently of that area, I believe retroactive topic bans based on article creation are greatly harmful and are only going to inhibit article creation in any circumstance. Replace the topic I use with any other topic which receives a great mix of coverage/scrutiny. People will become nervous with regard to creating further articles on any given topic. Bobo. 03:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Oppose requirement creep. A source is either reliable or not. Comparisons to IMDB are unhelpful as IMDB is widely accepted here as unreliable. Threats of bans in guidelines is also incredibly hostile and unhelpful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Oppose. IMDB lists everyone who has had a role in making films, however significant or otherwise. It's not comparable to websites that allow verification that a subject's career meets inclusion criteria. Creation of stubs that comply with existing guidelines (whether those guidelines need to change is a separate issue) is not really a great problem unless they fail WP:V. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Oppose What specific problem is this aimed at solving? Do we have a vast array of stubs of relatively obscure Olympians that are subject to constant vandalism? I would suggest that if not, a record of someone's participation in something at a notable level is more "encylopaedic" than it is "random information". Secondly, GNG is bedrock but has its own problems such as it tends heavily towards recentism. Authoritative SNGs help balance this by recognising that a notable life can be reflected by a recorded statistic or an achievement, and that basing our framework of notability entirely on the narratives a news and publishing industry decides will sell copies is unencyclopaedic. Sport is very stats-focused and simply being in a top x% of a sport can be notable in itself, it's just a question of what % that is. A better interrogation of specific SNGs is more appropriate than a deprecation. Battleofalma (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to tighten WP:NGRIDIRON

Recent discussions demonstrate the need for all sports projects to look closely at their notability guidelines to determine whether the bar for presumed notability is properly calibrated to WP:GNG. Much focus has been given to the cricket standard which clearly needs fixing. In the spirit of good faith, and in hopes that other projects will be encouraged to do the same, I have also looked at WP:NGRIDIRON (the sport that I follow most closely) to see where it should be tightened. Accordingly, I propose two modifications to NGRIDIRON:

• (1) Remove Arena Football League. Some have argued in the past that "arena football" is a "different" sport than normal gridiron football. The reality is that arena football is a minor league version of American football for players who simply can't make it in the NFL. If an Arena Football League player is truly notable, including from his collegiate career, that can be demonstrated by presenting WP:SIGCOV establishing such notability.
• (2) Double the threshold from 1 game to 2 games played. I have worked on several hundred biography articles on pro football players. There are many, many one-game wonders on whom I've conducted in-depth searches to find SIGCOV. Sometimes I find SIGCOV. Other times I don't. My experience shows that a presumption of notability is not appropriate for these one-game players. If a one-game player is truly notable, that can be demonstrated with SIGCOV. (Frankly, I'd be OK with a slightly higher threshold than two games played, but incremental progress is better than no progress.) Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1; weak support for 2. I think I have mentioned several times that it appears Arena only gets minor coverage on players, with the possible exception from players in the post-Warner to pre-first bankruptcy years (so about 2000–2009). I have seen very little, if any, coverage of non-skill position players in the relaunch years, and that sort of kills the one appearance argument for that league in my mind. I would think one "modern" NFL game would get a fair amount of coverage (would meet SIGCOV anyways as you point out), but I would understand if pre-Super Bowl era leagues (and possibly USFL) one-timers were less than GNG-worthy covered. Are there any specific examples you had in mind for #2? Yosemiter (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  As far as examples, I haven't created a list, but I've been going though AAFC players and have decided not to create articles on a number of one-game players where I simply couldn't find any SIGCOV. In general, there's tremendous variation based on position played. A QB, RB, or WR with one game is much more likely to receive SIGCOV than a lineman. Cbl62 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Comment/Proposal If Arena is removed from Criterion 1, I propose Note 2 be changed from Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not presumed notable unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days. to Players and coaches in minor or semi-professional leagues are not presumed notable unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days or the General Notability Guideline. Yosemiter (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  That sounds quite sensible to me. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm, I don't think juxtaposing GNG and "notability arising from their college football days" like that is quite right as it implies the SSG is ultimately an alternative to GNG (which would go against NSPORT). What about Players and coaches in minor or semi-professional leagues are not presumed notable unless they meet another criterion for predicting general notability, such as notability arising from their college football days. Or Players and coaches in minor or semi-professional leagues are not presumed to satisfy the General Notability Guideline unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days. JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support 1; oppose 2 I saw some articles and other Wikipages that said the Arena League was a major league. I agree with Cbl as I think calling it major was WP:OR. If we up the NFL standard to two then it could set a bad precedent to up it even more games. I know this is leading to a slippery slope argument but if we make it two then it opens the floodgates for SIGCOV to be the only guideline that matters.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that something needs to be done about the Arena League. I have long thought that the main Arena Football League needs to be split into two articles, Arena Football League (1987–2008), and Arena Football League (2010–2019), much in the same way that we have American Basketball Association and American Basketball Association (2000–present). Despite sharing the same name, the post-2009 arena league was owned by a completely different ownership group, and operated on a much smaller scale then the pre-2009 one did. The likelihood that players from the post-2009 league will pass GNG is very small, and we certainly should not be granting 1-game auto-notability to those post-2009 players. As for the pre-2009 league, 1 game is also probably too low. Would, say, 50 be enough? Frankly, I don't know.
  As far as the second part goes, I would oppose raising the limit for NFL players, but would be open to increasing the limit for players in other leagues. Like Cbl62 said, is there going to be SIGCOV for every 1-game USFL or AAFC offensive lineman? Possibly not.
  I also feel it's worth pointing out here that the gridiron project, to it's credit, has never made it a point to try to write an article about every single player who could be theoretically notable under WP:NGRIDIRON. If you go back and look through early season team rosters from even the NFL itself, you will see plenty of redlinks there. That's because the gridiron project has never made it a point of emphasis to try to write an article about every single player who could fall within the scope of WP:NGRIDIRON (unlike, say, the baseball project, which went so far into the weeds that, at one point, they were trying to write full articles about players with no known first names, and the most common last name in the English language. Just sayin'). Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support 1, oppose 2 NFL players who even play a single game are typically notable. Perhaps you can find a few exceptions, but the criteria to create an SNG require the vast majority of cases to meet GNG, not every single one, and the vast majority of players who played at least one game in the NFL meet GNG. As for the Arena Football League, that's a different story. I don't think players in that league are almost certain to meet GNG, especially in the post-2009 version. I think limiting Arena Football League notability to the pre-2009 version might be a reasonable compromise, since players in that league are typically much more notable than in the "new" version. Smartyllama (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support both I think #1 is obvious. For #2, I would not mind if WP:NGRIDIRON was specifically re-written to encourage what takes place over at association football: Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the 1960s American Football League, the All-America Football Conference, or the United States Football League. Players with a small number of appearances (e.g., one game) may be deleted if no significant coverage of the player can be demonstrated. Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not presumed notable unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days. This section does not apply to assistant coaches or coaching assistants. (Struck out the arena league, additions in italics.) SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Some context is necessary here, though. The difference between the association football guidelines and the gridiron football guidelines is that the association football guidelines allow for 1-game presumptive notability for third and fourth tier minor leaguers, which the gridiron football guideline has never done. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support both, and SportingFlyer's comment. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I had been working on an analysis for Arena Football League players being removed from NGRIDIRON, but Cbl62 beat me to the punch with their proposal here. You can view my research into the 1987 through 1989 seasons here. At the moment, I'd support the first proposal here, given what I've found so far from the AFL, but oppose the second proposal until evidence can be provided. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 oppose 2.. The Arena League is definitely a minor league that rarely gets significant coverage for its team members... however changing the requirements from one game to two games for NFL and others just seems silly.. why? One game is a bright line.. they played in the league.. but why is two a bigger deal than one? Why not three or four? Once you start just picking some random number it becomes entirely pov. Spanneraol (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support both per SportingFlyer. Players who play only one game apparently do not automatically get enough to amount to SIGCOV, so I see no reason why a slightly stricter requirement would not be useful (and there's nothing that prevents interested users from looking for coverage if they think it exist). The slippery slope fallacy presented by some against the second part is entirely unappealing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose option 2 - why 2? Why not 3, 4, 5, 10, 13 etc.? 1 is a clear step up from 0 and makes sense. GiantSnowman 16:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Did I really need to link "slippery slope"? Why does 1 make less sense than 2? Why even base it on an arbitrary number of games? WP is an encyclopedia, not a database for people's achievements. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Because there is a clear and obvious difference re:notability between somebody with 0 pro appearances and somebody with 1 pro appearance; there is not the same difference between 1 and 2. GiantSnowman 16:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  But there's still a clear difference. We generally don't keep bios of actors who have only a single speaking-role credit in a major film or TV show, either. While anyone can pass GNG if the sourcing is there (sometimes for things unrelated to their actual line of work, e.g. a legal controversy or whatever), we do not need an article on ever single person who ever played one game of pro sports. If they're not repeat-performance professionals, they are not presumptively notable, just competent (unless their one appearance was "interesting" in some way and generated lots of press coverage). Honestly, I'm starting to think it's time we just retired all the WP:SNG pages. They cause more problems than they solve (other than WP:NPROF which pre-dates GNG and is actually an alternative to it (though a controversial one, and the community would certainly not entertain creation of another one, least of all for sportspeople. Or second-least of all, after entertainment people. To the extent there's a difference these days).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any evidence that someone playing 2 matches in a competition that meets the NGRIDIRON criteria is definitively more notable than someone playing one. One has always been the line in the sand for the sports criteria because it's definitive. One - you've played, zero - you haven't. As others have said above it starts to become a POV and you may as well just pick a random number out of a hat if you're going to go that way. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Admittedly, I haven't done a thorough, scientific study on the difference in coverage between players who played one vs. two games. But my experience with hundreds of gridiron football bios satisfies me that players with multiple games played are more likely to have received SIGCOV. As noted above, I've searched for SIGCOV on many one-game players and find it on some and not on others -- but it's clear that we can't say that the overwhelming (>90%) number of these one-game players satisfy GNG. Also, enhancing the standard to two games should address any concerns that WP:BIO1E should be applied to athlete biographies. This is simply a modest, incremental enhancement which I believe is prudent, particularly given the hostility directed at NSPORTS and to avoid more draconian and ill-advised measures that would throw out the baby with the bathwater. Cbl62 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support both. We need way fewer marginally notable sportsperson articles that have nearly no content in them and never improve, because the person doesn't progress any further and become more clearly notable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support removing AFL, oppose the proposal to increase the game threshold. Not really convinced by any arguments about increasing it. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1; Oppose 2 The Arena League never really advanced beyond minor league status even at its height. Not particularly convinced that a playing in 2 games creates a huge step up in notability and I believe that the 1 game standard actually works pretty well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Cannot comment on 1, oppose 2 - Completely arbitrary standard, and I'm not convinced that playing in two matches results in more significant coverage than playing in one. It's not uncommon to see "Sporty McPersonface only played in one event at the top level..." used as a hook for fairly extensive biographical profiles of lower level or international sportspeople. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  If it's not uncommon then it's a poor hook. Anyway, this does not in any way affect those who might be notable for other reasons and therefore meet GNG. This affects those whose only claim to fame would be having played one such game. I don't see any justification for special pleading to exempt gridiron-persons from WP:BLP1E - having a minor role (non-descript position) in a minor event (one among hundreds of games of a regular sports seasons) is not a justification for a separate article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  It is not an exception to BLP1E. People always seem to forget that the 1 game number is a nod to the fact that their amateur/minor league career was notable enough to get them there. ie More than 1 event. It isn't the game that is making them notable, its that people who have had 1 game in the major leagues has with an almost 100% guarantee had a minor league/amateur career that was covered by reliable sources. Other sports you might be able to argue that isn't true, but in American Football you just simply can not, it is covered extensively, every player that has made it to 1 NFL game has been covered extensively in highschool and then in university etc. It would be actually be really hard to find one that hasn't been, that is just the nature of football coverage in the US. -DJSasso (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe what you say holds true for the 21st century (but then that might be a case of actual recency bias and WP:RECENTISM)... But it probably isn't necessarily true for players from over 50 years ago or something. I'm more willing to trust tales like those of Cbl62 than blanket assumptions about the current day being taken back and applied to the past. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but anytime this discussion comes around and people provide examples of 1 gamers from a long time ago that people don't think sources can be found for, they end up getting found. It isn't really a blanket assumption, these SNGS often get tested because of the multitude of reasons above, this isn't a new discussion, we have it every year or so and any examples people bring up of articles that can't possibly have sources for found, we end up finding them so its born out in practice, not just asumption. -DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  This is a large part of my point. While I am not particularly familiar with gridiron (or indeed any code of football), I am aware that to reach the highest professional leagues in that sport generally requires a notable amateur career. However, I see extreme cases of this in motorsport (which I am very familiar with) where it's not uncommon to see retrospective pieces published profiling the careers of drivers who only made one start in a series familiar to Anglophone audiences (Formula One, the WRC, Indycar, NASCAR, V8 Supercars, or the BTCC are the primary suspects), but who had extensive professional careers in Japan or Latin America. I would assume similar situations hold true for other sports. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment on 1, Oppose 2 I wanted to say oppose for the Arena League proposal, but other responses have convinced me not to. However I don't think we should remove all Arena players from NGRIDIRON. We could do something like this: Arena Football League players are presumed notable if they have: 1. Played in 20 (I was thinking between 10 and 20) or more games. 2. Won an Arena League award or were named All-Arena. 4. Were named to the Arena Hall of Fame 5. Or were a head coach, general manager, or owner for more than 5 games. (Just an idea, not saying that it should be the criteria) I would not support removing them in whole from NGRIDIRON because for all professional (at least I call it "professional") leagues in U.S. they lasted the second longest (32 seasons) and the only league to last more was the NFL.(I said professional, not minor, since leagues like the Empire Football League (which I didn't even know existed until recently), Chicagoland Football League, Mason-Dixon Football League (which doesn't even have an article) and other semi-pro leagues have lasted longer) And also, I think making the criteria for other leagues from one game to two doesn't really make sense (at least, to me). I also feel like football is underrepresented here on Wikipedia, since sports like baseball have about all (besides the ones without known names, I think it is all of them) of the players in the major leagues with articles. And for the soccer criteria, any players in any of the fully professional leagues can have articles which has to be a LOT, since there are a ton of leagues, listed here. I also have two unrelated questions I am asking here about NGRIDIRON. First, are players who pass the notability criteria here notable on all the wikis (I mean other languages)? And if one is not notable in the English wiki can they be notable on other languages? Since I saw an article that was deleted after a discussion is on the portuguese wiki. See here. My second question is: Are Canadian football people who played in the pre-CFL era notable too? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11: For your suggestions on Arena: I would like to see evidence of offensive linemen that played 20 games in the 1987-1999 and 2009-2019 years that meet GNG before considering item 1. Any award outside of the years where the league actually had lots of media attention (2000-2009) makes me also want to see evidence, but again they would be covered by SIGCOV. Considering the AFL announced Arena Football Hall of Fame candidates in 2015 and no winners because they simply forgot or didn't feel like doing it anymore makes me discredit anything in the post-bankruptcy years for the HOF and the players (not counting management and owners) seem to meet GNG. Fully disagree about Arena GMs and owners for the SNG. Owners were really only talked about when the were already notable, otherwise they were typically a large group of local business people with just enough money to run a team for a few years. Sometimes it was hard to determine who, if anyone, was the GM of some of those teams, even in the 2000-2009 years. If we have to have complicated qualifications just to state how participating in only a single league (a defunct league at that) to make an SNG function, then GNG is really the best way to go. Yosemiter (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11: Your second question is an interesting one. The CFL was established in 1956 as an umbrella organization for the existing western and eastern professional football leagues (IRFU and WIFU). The same teams, players, owners and coaches, just a different name for the overall organization. Moreover, I believe the CFL treats pre-1956 players the same for statistical purposes. For all of these reasons, it's my understanding the a 1955 IRFU/WIFU player would be covered, but I don't recall this issue ever being debated. You might want to take this up with folks at Talk:Canadian Football League. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose 2 The reason for 1 is that we can be reasonably certain that a player that plays a pro game has had a notable amateur/minor league career that would have been covered to get them to the point to play that game. There is no perceptible difference between 1 game and 2. Other than to feel like something what changed so it must be better. People always treat 1 as a nobody but forget they had to be a somebody to get that 1. -DJSasso (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support both I think the idea of giving someone a Wikipedia article for participating in one game, even if there is no significant coverage of them, is loathsome. Having an amateur career is completely irrelevant. Reywas92^Talk 03:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1. The Arena League was never really all that notable, even during its peak years. Most of that peak was due to vain attempts to market it as such that never really amounted to much, which is a big reason it went bankrupt as the owners overspent in an effort to make the league and sport bigger than the actual audience for it. Oppose 2 mostly. As others have noted, even getting signed to play a professional game at all indicates that the player already likely had a fairly notable amateur career, which, to rebut the above, is actually a notable thing in gridiron football, what with college football drawing the crowds and television viewership it does. The players might not get paid (directly) but they sure as heck get noticed by reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support both, and SF's suggestion. I'm surprised Arena League has lasted this long... I agree with RandomCanadian's argument regarding BLP1E as well -- it makes sense to treat coverage of single-game players with a little more caution when considering notability. JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1, oppose 2 Arena Football League doesn't seem to be that notable, as highlighted by many people beforehand. Changing threshold from 1 to 2 is just arbitrary, of all the players in these leagues, only a small percentage will have played exactly one game. I'm sure there's just as many non-notable "two-hit wonders" as "one-hit wonders". Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1, undecided on 2. The removal of Arena football dramatically reduces the laxity of the one game threshold, which may work ok for the NFL but less so for the others. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2 per Oknazevad and wjemather. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment there seems to be overwhelming and unanimous support for number 1, so per WP:SNOW I have implemented that bit since it is clearly not contentious. Of course the second one is still under discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  While this is the likely outcome, the discussion has been open for less than 48 hours, and the vote is not unanimous, as some are proposing a more limited removal of Arena. I suggest letting the process run its normal course. Cbl62 (talk)`

• Unsure on #1, Oppose #2. I think something needs to be done to curtail the notability of arena league players, but I'm not sure straight-up removal altogether is entirely appropriate. And, I am opposed to increasing the game limit for NFL players, though I would be open to a separate discussion for increasing the limit for players in some of the other non-NFL leagues listed under WP:NGRIDIRON #1. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Ejgreen77: You are certainly correct that one NFL game is very different in terms of establishing notability than one USFL or CFL game. (Similarly, one NFL game today is very different than one NFL game in the 1920s and 1930s. What would you suggest? 21:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think looking at what WP:NHOCKEY does with the different tiers of game limits for levels of notability for different leagues might be a good place to start thinking about things that could be done to tweak the NGRIDIRON guideline. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Ejgreen77: In principle, I think that makes sense. The problem is that I doubt the Canadian Football League project would agree that its subjects should be held to a different standard than American football players. Even though NFL receives a higher level of coverage, it would tend to pit one group or country against another if we seek to impose different requirements for Canadian football vs. American football. A higher standard for USFL would probably be less controversial. Cbl62 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Then we could, say, leave the 1 game in place for the NFL, CFL, and the American Football League; and increase the limit for the arena league, AAFC, and USFL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to the USFL requirement changing, I think the AAFC should stay the same. While their statistics are not part of the NFL record book, the NFL (or at least their website) considers AAFC players to have alumni to some degree. For instance, Walter Heap only played in the AAFC but has a profile in the NFL.com database of retired NFL players. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Having done a good deal of work on both AAFC and NFL bios of the 1940s, my sense is that the coverage received by players in the two leagues was pretty comparable. Cbl62 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal of Arena Football from the guideline. They mostly fail WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support both. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support both. Seems like a reasonable tightening that brings the football SNG in line with other entertainer fields where multiple appearances is expected (and indeed likely necessary to generate significant coverage.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support both. Seems like a good improvement with sound reasoning.4meter4 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support both. Ravenswing 06:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• This has been open for a month now, and it's plain that there's overwhelming support for option #1, while option #2 doesn't have a majority, let alone a consensus. I'll make the change, but perhaps an uninvolved viewer might close the debate. Ravenswing 02:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support both - 2 games is more likely to predict GNG than 1 game. (3 games even better, and I'd support that, too, up to a full season as a starter, but for now 2 is better than 1.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support both, and support SF's suggested changes as a back-up if 2 does not find consensus. --JBL (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1, Oppose 2 -- 2 games is just an arbitrary number while 1 game is a simple question of was he a professional or not. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose 1, oppose 2 Arena Football is a very different game. Less players, faster pace, higher scores. Scoring is different as well. You can see the major differences in this article. [4] It's like how Beach volleyball is different from Indoor volleyball. There are similarities, but major differences. Additionally, what happens to NFL Europe and XFL (2020) ? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Acree

Hi all, I nominated this article for deletion, and it has been considerably improved by those arguing for keep. I honestly don't know what to think now, and would appreciate some people more experienced in NSPORTS notability policy chiming in. It's a bit of a weird case because it's a high school football coach. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

New Notability criteria about Sambo

Hello, I propose adding the notability criteria for Sambo athletes.I went through the whole article, but I didn't come across an article about Sambo sport.The increasing popularity of sambo in the world and the Assuming that it is included in multi-sport events such as european games, world combat games,universiade , I think it would be helpful for Wikipedians to add a notability criteria that covers sambo athletes.MMAmonster10 (talk)

• It is the same as everyone else, they have to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• My response is pretty much a sticky now: I would be happy to vote to accept a set of notability criteria for any sport where the nominator has proven that 90-95%+ of athletes that meet them can satisfy the GNG. Without such evidence, I'll vote to reject. Ravenswing 22:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Note, I've blocked MMAmonster10 as a confirmed sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

intellectually independent

In the baseball guideline, what does "intellectually independent" mean? --2603:7000:2143:8500:845E:FC6C:A0EA:F171 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems the phrase in question was added back in 2009, taken from this version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability, and based on discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability. My guess is it means "editorially independent". Typically for the sports-specific criteria that's considered to be covered by the "independent of subject" criterion. isaacl (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

IIUC it also means that two sources that present the same statistical information don't necessarily both count towards notability. So if, say, sportsballstats.com and db-sportsball.com both use information from the same match day score card for their stats, they wouldn't both count as independent sources for the purpose of notability. Reyk _YO! 11:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I considered mentioning this, though in the context of say wire articles that are published in multiple newspapers (since as mentioned in the same paragraph, purely statistical sources aren't considered to be indicators of meeting Wikipedia's standards for having an article, by consensus of editors). But since the sentence in question doesn't mention number of sources, it doesn't really come across that way. isaacl (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

That paragraph really is only saying "then it must meet WP:GNG", which is redundant to the option already being mentioned earlier at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines. I'd propose to just remove the paragraph.—Bagumba (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Replacing the sentence in question with one that refers to the general notability guideline may be good. I think the rest of the paragraph provides useful guidance on applying the general notability guideline within the context of baseball. isaacl (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

In the press

Harrison, Stephen (July 26, 2021). "How to Use Wikipedia When Youre Watching the Olympics". Slate. Retrieved July 30, 2021.

On gender bias and the Olympic SNG czar 03:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

New criteria for Snowboarders/Snowboarding

Hello everyone,

I would like to know if we can create a new criteria for Snowboarders/Snowboarding. It doesn't exist and should exist because it's a well-known sport. Please help. DyingLightquests (talk) 10:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sticky response: I would be happy to vote to accept a set of notability criteria for any sport where the nominator has proven that 90-95%+ of athletes that meet them can satisfy the GNG. Without such evidence, I'll vote to reject. Ravenswing 11:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• DyingLightquests You haven't proposed any criteria. Merely being a snowboarder will never be acceptable as a criteria. As you have been told, once the snowboarder you have written about appears in a competition at the Olympics (which are only 7 months away) he will be notable. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)