Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:ATHLETE)

What's happened to NFOOTBALL?

[edit]

I'm looking for guidance on notability criteria for professional (association) footballers, but WP:NFOOTY seems to have disappeared from this article. I've found some old discussions about it and proposals for change but can't see what the current guidance is? Can anyone help? Orange sticker (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find multiple sources of significant coverage about the subject? Then he is likely notable. If he doesn't, he likely is not Alvaldi (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I was just hoping there was clearer and easier criteria as in other sports, as this player did play at international level and in a World Cup (see this Article for Deletion). Thanks! Orange sticker (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but no. I would try to Google his native name in South Korean sources (i.e. " 박철진 site:.kr") but if that doesn't turn anything significant up then he's all out of luck. Alvaldi (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the section it now redirects to, it reads:

Sports which are not listed on this page should defer to the § Basic criteria for guidance. This includes both those which were never listed, and those which were but have since been removed, most recently following an RfC from January–March 2022.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs)
There was consensus in a 2022 RfC to remove solely participation-based criteria. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability#202203070648_Wugapodes_2. There was then consensus while implementing the RfC to remove NFOOTY because it was solely participation-based, and discussion regarding an alternative was tabled. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge

[edit]

I propose the following for inclusion to the main article.

I will ask other Bridge editors to comment and add.


Bridge

[edit]
Shortcuts

(Note: I am not sure how to create Shortcuts, nor how to check with conflicts with other shortcuts on other topics. The shortcut WP:BRIDGE refers to physical bridges)

Significant coverage is likely to exist for Bridge players if they
  1. Have won a medal at an international event at the senior, open, womens, mixed, youth or junior level. International events include the European Championship, World Championships and North American Bridge Championships (NABCs).
  2. Have placed first or second in a major North American Bridge Championships. Major events are Vanderbilt, Spingold, Soloway or Reisinger.
  3. Have won an open, mixed, senior or women's North American Bridge Championships.
  4. Have been elected to the Hall of Fame in their National Bridge Organization (NBO)


Discussion information: European and World events award medals. NABCs do not.

Other National Bridge Organizations (NBOs) may have appropriate qualifications. For example someone in the Hall of Fame for a NBO.

FAQ numbering

[edit]

BI noticed here that the FAQ numbering skips 5. I'm thinking we should probably renumber the questions, but I wanted to check and make sure 5 wasn't being excluded deliberately before BOLDly making the change myself. If we're keeping the same numbering for historical reasons, we ought to make a note to that effect rather than just not having a Q5 at all. Hamtechperson 00:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it up. I forgot to renumber the questions when I deleted one that was no longer relevant. I've renumbered them now. isaacl (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Speedway

[edit]

Hi all, not sure if I am in the right place but would like to nominate some standards of notability for motorcyle speedway, maybe in the Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Motorsports section, which I cannot seem to find existing at present. The sport is worldwide and extremely popular, in Poland for example it is the national sport (ahead of association football) and was once the most watched sport in the United Kingdom behind football. A simple Google search shows how popular the sport is. The two main competitions suggested for notability are the Speedway Grand Prix (previously called the individual world championship) and the Speedway World Cup/Speedway of Nations (the team world championship). Any help about how I go about this would be appreciated, many thanks Pyeongchang (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an active NPP'er. I was a strong advocate of getting rid of the "did it for a living for 1 day" criteria for athletes because IMO it set the bar too low. But overall I would WELCOME expansion of the special notability guideline to provide more clarity on sports-related articles. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put together what could be a draft of a replacement guideline and I welcome feedback. - Enos733 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an effort....that's quite a bit of work! It would be a few days before I have the wiki-time to review. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I still think the same of the draft as I did in archive 56: that won't work. An American football player must be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (i.e. one of the greatest 300 figures ever, when there's probably 50,000 notable figures) to be considered as "likely" to have significant coverage? That is only going to result in nominations for deletion like "isn't in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not notable" or "only was a starter in the NFL for six full seasons, not notable" – which are plainly ridiculous. The players in the Big Four leagues having presumed notability for playing a game is the only thing that made sense (especially post-1930, that criteria really worked); and although I know the anti-sports editors will never let this page return to sense like that, restricting it to only the greatest ever would only encourage silly time-wasting deletion nominations. Not to mention the biggest issue with NSPORT that isn't changed: the value of meeting the criteria suddenly becomes wholly worthless and irrelevant solely by one typing the two words "fails GNG" – no matter what the circumstances are. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, but the community discussion that nearly led to the deletion of NSPORTS went the other direction - namely that participation is not sufficient for a stand-alone article. My goal is similar to yours - a desire for more clarity than this existing text and also to give guidance on how to evaluate sources based on the circumstances of the subject (prep athletes have the highest bar to clear, second-tier professionals a higher bar to clear, and professionals in a top-tier league the lowest bar to clear). Ultimately I see the sport specific text as useful outcomes for sports people, rather than a pass/fail bar. But at the same time, I also do not share your fear that an editor would attempt to nominate an NFL player post 1930 or an Olympic medalist. - Enos733 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have an Olympic medalist likely to be deleted at an AFD right now – and several others who've already been deleted. My main issue with the current NSPORTS which seems to stay the same with the draft is this: every single person meeting it can have their accomplishments / satisfaction of the criteria made wholly irrelevant and useless solely by someone typing the two words "fails GNG" with no real effort to find sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that is an expectation that can be made. I don't think we can expect that an editor won't bring any article to AFD and claim there are not sources or who will not do an adequate before search. I do agree with you that very few athletes that play in a top-tier league would fail GNG. That said, I can't think of a standard that is not participation-based that would meet the community's guidance. - Enos733 (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, after twenty years' worth of sports articles at AfD passing solely by someone typing the two words "meets NSPORTS," with no real effort to find sources, I'm unmoved by the inclusionists' dismay. 2022 never would've happened without the unreasonableness of the one-game-equals-notability clergy, spearheaded by the likes of the cricket and footy projects, and if they now feel hard done by, they need only look into mirrors for the culprits. Ravenswing 13:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, a comparison with Wikipedia:Notability (sports). isaacl (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an unusual view of the sports SNG. Most view it (being a way to bypass GNG) only as a way to make the criteria more lenient. But in the fuzzy world of GNG on sports, it could cut both ways. Another gorilla in the living room on sports is that "coverage" is usually itself a form of entertainment rather than than "just getting it/them covered" and so can be less indicative. The current defacto "GNG only" criteria can result is somewhat arbitrary decisions in both directions. On some where included coverage is very weak, certain advocates just say "of course coverage exists, it just hasn't been found yet" (including in some presumed search of non-english sources, and no addressing on whether it is GNG coverage ) In the other direction, an extremely thorough / strict reading of GNG is applied, which is stricter than the norm. IMO more clarity and guidance along the "middle ground" in this SNG would be helpful. Not only would it affect the SNG "route in" but it would also influence edge case GNG decisions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that most view the sports-specific guidelines on having an article as a way to bypass the general notability guideline. Many discussions have found a consensus that they are used to help predict if the general notability guideline is likely to be satisfied. I agree that there is a promotional dimension to a lot of sports journalism, and so this has to be considered when evaluating the suitability of a source in demonstrating that the general notability guideline has been met. isaacl (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is a promotional dimension to a lot of sports journalism, and so this has to be considered when evaluating the suitability of a source We already have WP:INDY that precludes use of sources written by or affiliated with the athlete or the team. We also exclude fan blogs and such that do not qualify as WP:RELIABLE. Those are reasonable safeguards. However, we do not and should not exclude sports journalism in reliable, independent sources on grounds that sports journalism has a "promotional dimension". Cbl62 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that sports journalism does have a promotional dimension, the same can be said elsewhere. Does not arts journalism -- book reviews, movie reviews -- have not only a promotional dimension, but that's even more of a primary focus of the coverage? Ravenswing 19:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, promotional journalism is not only limited to sports (restaurant reviews and travel journalism being other prominent examples). This does not mean that all articles in this genre are promotional. Nonetheless, it's a consideration that must be evaluated for each specific citation when determining its suitability for demonstrating that the standards for having an article have been met. isaacl (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'd use the word "promotional". I'd say that to some extent it's writing to entertain in addition to writing to inform, and more so than in most other fields. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers often cover local sports teams and restaurants in a promotional manner (though not exclusively) because that's what its readers want to read. The New York Times travel section has many (though not all) articles that have a very promotional tone. isaacl (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think that I again failed to adequately communicate my point. Since it's sort of a sidebar item, I think I'll just leave it at that. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: I didn't mean that sentence the way that it sounded. My "bypass" statement was just about the flowchart/structural aspect, and about SNG's in general. And while I'm a bit skeptical about the "predictor of GNG" capability, I accept such wording (which is universal in SNG's) and that it is a good thing in the big picture of wP:Notability. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To restate the point which I intended to make, despite the common "flowchart" view that expanding a SNG makes entry more lenient, I am of the view that expanding the sports SNG would provide more guidance which would tend to work in BOTH directions. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment of how SNGs like this play out. Without the SNG, borderline cases come down to a subjective evaluation of whether the GNG criteria are met. With clear criteria, borderline cases that don't meet the SNG will be more likely to get declined/deleted than they otherwise would be, while other articles with weaker citation work but a clear claim to the SNG will be approved. signed, Rosguill talk 15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And it also provides more guidance to us NPP'ers on those cases. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I feel it is desirable to have a full revision of the guideline - to clarify existing consensus around the need to prove reliable sourcing and also give guidance for editors about which athletes are likely to be notable. - Enos733 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would an article with weaker citation work have a clear claim to the SNG? The SNG requires all articles actively cite an IRS source of SIGCOV and ultimately requires GNG be met. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORT has always been quite clear that GNG is ultimately necessary for notability, and after the RfC the understanding that NSPORT subcriteria should predict GNG is essentially universal. Certainly out of the hundreds of post-2022 AfDs I've been in there is broad recognition that GNG is needed and that NSPORT itself does not confer notability directly. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local sources must be independent

[edit]

This SNG currently says:

Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be independent of the subject...

I've got no objection to this, but it's kind of silly. By specifying that local sources have to be independent (to count towards notability), we're implying here that means national and international ones don't. This is nonsense; only independent sources count towards notability, full stop.

I'd try to WP:PGBOLDly fix this, but I'm not sure what problem is trying to be solved. Which of these sounds most like the problem?

  • A bona fide newspaper in a small town runs an article about a local athlete, possibly because there isn't much other news to report this week.
  • A newspaper writes a puffy human interest story gushing about an athlete's positive qualities, because civic boosterism sells papers.
  • A newspaper writes a positive article about a local athlete, who also happens to be the newspaper owner's nephew (or next-door neighbor).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • One problem that I am seeing more and more of in the US (and, I don't see it going away anytime soon, considering the sad state of local journalism in the US today), is that many local US papers post-COVID no longer employ actual reporters anymore to cover local sports teams. But they still want to provide some coverage, to check a box, I guess, and be able to say that they're still covering them. So, they resort to re-printing press releases directly from the team, written by team employees, and using that as their "local coverage" of the team. That, I do have a problem with, as the material is originating from the team themselves and is generated by people who are paid directly by the team to provide PR for the team. But, like I said, in some geographical areas of the US, in terms of print media, that's literally all that there is available anymore. I'm not sure exactly how we want to deal with the issue moving forward, but, like I said, I don't see it going away anytime soon. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that really a "local" problem? I assume that regional and national newspapers also don't send reporters to the games. In fact, I'd assume that regional and national newspapers are less likely to do direct reporting than the local media. The cost is lower: they can both get free tickets/entrance, but the local reporter just has to go down the street, or perhaps across town, and the further away places would have to pay for flights, hotels, meals, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an incremental start on a "big fix" here?

[edit]

Well, the removal of the "did it for a living for one day" criteria stemmed the torrent but we still have quite a mess. (I'm an active NPP'er) In essence, for GNG dependent articles, GNG is not being implemented at AFD. And folks that lament the narrowing of the SNG criteria are probably falsely imagining that the GNG standard is what now applies.

Here are two very common situations:

  • "Stats only" articles. E.G for a team's season. With zero sources other than for the stats, much less GNG sources or anything even near one GNG source.
  • Basic article on a less-notable professional with no sources anywhere near GNG sources. With a few of the basics put into sentences like "played for the xyz team starting in 2012"

There are LOTS of these new articles.

When I AFD one of these, it inevitably goes like this:

  • "Of course they are notable" "They are obviously notable" "The NPP'er is stupid not to know they are notable" (with no support for that statement, or just saying that many people know them)
  • The NPP'er didn't look hard enough for coverage (the coverage that nobody else found and is not in the article or AFD discussion) And note the use of the term "coverage" instead of "GNG coverage"
  • "Coverage exists" but doesn't find any and again note excluding "GNG" from the term when discussing coverage.

I get so tired of this (including getting beat up at AFD) that I just pass the slightly better than normal sports articles and just leave the other non-notable ones in the 13,000 article NPP backlog disaster for someone else to deal with.

One idea would be to create another section in the SNG, another "way in" that roughly says:

  • Professional athletes with a larger than typical amount of included sources which provide published independent in-depth coverage of the athlete
  • For "seasons" and other articles which are heavy with stats, inclusion of sources which provide published independent in-depth coverage where the coverage is about the season (or topic) as a whole, and substantial prose text developed from those sources.

This wording is structurally a different approach (especially with the emphasis on included sources.) And also while it prima facie / structurally makes it more lenient by offering a different "way in" I think that it will be influential is seeing that GNG (or something close to it) is being followed for GNG dependent articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this is as good a place as any for me to raise again the point that the relevant standard for Sports bios, post-2017 NSPORTS RfC, ought to be WP:NBASIC rather than WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, the reason the 2017 discussion didn't reach this conclusion was (1) very many participants in that discussion, both inclusionists and exclusionists concerning sports biographies, had at best only a very approximate underanding of WP:NBIO, and (2) some number of editors participating seemed to be under the misapprehension that NBASIC is more lax than GNG, when (as far as I can determine) it is slightly more restrictive. Without the perception that NBASIC would somehow be a loophole, perhaps there would no longer be a motivation to circumvent the logic of NBIO by asserting that there is one category of humans to which the otherwise universal standard of NBASIC does not apply but instead a marginally more permissive standard (GNG) does? If we are going to change anything, could we please fix this? I don't think there was a clear consensus to override NBASIC for sports biographies, but the (difficult) close has a number of "approximate" conclusions (or apparent conclusions) of which this is the one I personally find most irritating. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated previously, Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Basic criteria is a summary of Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline, placed in the context of biographies. Each of the bolded words in the first sentence of the "Basic criteria" section has a corresponding bullet point in the "General notability guideline" section. The basic criteria section derives from the general notability guideline section and is not a replacement for it. isaacl (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I 99% agree with Isaacl's, response, the other 1% being to note that it includes a provision allowing combining non-GNG sources when GNG sources do not exist. (IMO a bad idea) I'll also note that in the common cases noted above, the respondents aren't even taking the trouble to quote guidelines (including using this provision). With just vague unsupported claims that they/it us "notable" or "sources probably exist". Hence my emphasis on included sources. I realize that this does not fit the classic prima facie reasoning (that notability is about whether the sources exist, not whether anybody has actually provided them) but IMO something is needed to solve a pretty common problem. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, that's just an additional description of the significant coverage portion of the general notability guideline and so doesn't amount to a replacement of its guidance. isaacl (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is twofold, and any "fix" done on this end won't be worth a tinker's damn. There is no rule, regulation, tweak or guideline that will prevent lazy, indifferent AfD voters from being lazy, indifferent, and/or downright stupid. Nor is there any rule, regulation, tweak or guideline that will compel closers to hold by valid policy rather than by headcount. Ravenswing 14:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)&oldid=1244519651"