Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

WP:NTRACK Clarification

WP:NTRACK states in the first criterion "Has competed in the Olympics or senior IAAF World Championships." About a month ago, the link to the IAAF World Championships changed from multiple championships to just the outdoor championships. I think this change to the track criteria was an unintended consequence. Any objection on changing the above cited criterion to "Has competed at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Cross Country Championships, or the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships (former IAAF World Road Running Championships)?" This way it simply represents what the criterion from the last six or so years and removes the Olympics since it is just redundant with basic criteria listed for WP:SPORTCRIT (if editors really want the Olympics to remain, then that is fine, but I think it is needlessly redundant and should be removed throughout the sport-specific guidelines since the basic covers it). I will give a week and see if anyone objects. If not, then I will make the change since I see this more as a return to what it was before the linked article was changed as opposed to actually changing the guideline. RonSigPi (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's worth discussing whether criterion 1 should be limited to just the IAAF World Championships in Athletics or cover all those other meets as well. In this discussion last year (where that point was explicitly noted) athletics editors discussed the notability of an athlete (Soh Rui Yong) who had competed at the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships; there was no clear consensus whether he was notable or not or whether participation at the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships is an automatic indicator of notability, and the Soh Rui Yong draft was abandoned and eventually deleted under G13. Participation at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics is a stronger guarantee of notability since 1) the outdoor championships receive a lot more media coverage and 2) most athletes need to qualify for them by meeting an entry standard, which is also the case for the World Indoor Championships but not the World Cross Country or Half Marathon/Road Running Championships. It is true, however, that when GregorB originally formulated criterion 1 he intended it to cover all of these meets.
I think there's some point to continuing to mention the Olympics in NTRACK's criterion 1, since editors have occasionally suggested that participation in the Olympics, any sport any time, should not be an automatic notability indicator. So far consensus has always been that it is, but it's possible that that could change in the future; and such a change should not automatically affect NTRACK since NTRACK's "has competed in the Olympics" reflects a separate consensus. Sideways713 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all: thanks for the mention, but IIRC I didn't really formulate criterion #1, although I do remember providing input at some point.

The thrust of WP:NTRACK #1 - at least the way I see it - is the following: an athlete is notable if he or she has competed at the highest level of the sport. The "highest level" surely means OG and WC. Now, what about half marathon? Since, as we know, half marathon is - unlike marathon - not contested at the OG or the outdoor WC, for half marathon runners (HM specialists in particular), the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships is indeed the "highest level of the sport", and it seems reasonable and fair to include it in the criterion. The same applies to cross country WC and - at least partially - to the indoor WC (200-meter track and some otherwise unusual events such as men's heptathlon and 60 meter races).

As for the OG, WP:SPORTCRIT is not specific - it says "likely to meet" standards of inclusion. In fact, in some cases participation at the OG is not the highest level of the sport in question (one example is football), and that's why I'd favor explicitly mentioning the OG. GregorB (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I am beginning to see the need to keep the Olympics, specifically with Sideways713's comment on if the basic criteria did change. I think outdoor is for sure and I would say indoor is as well. However, I do wonder about cross country and the half marathon. Just being "highest level" generally does not seem to be enough. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Bisek is the one I remember that him being a medalist was enough, but not competing. I have also seen swimmers deleted under the argument that the Olympics was the highest and the worlds did not rise to that level. Also, many world championships do not give the presumption (in boxing a fighter has to win a match and in the Ironman triathlon top-ten are included as opposed to say all elite runners (to knock out amateur age-groupers)) and this is likely so even for non-Olympic sports (the International Powerlifting Federation world championships don't even have an article, let alone their competitors). I think deeper analysis is needed on if the half marathon and cross country championships should be included (or relegated to the top-8 or top-3 category). RonSigPi (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The only reason half marathon and cross country are not contested in the OG or WC is that they overlap with other events: HM overlaps with marathon, and CC overlaps with 5k and 10k. Including these events in either OG or WC would effectively force the athletes to choose and would thus make the events less competitive. Also, these top-level events are important because of how hard it is to qualify for them in the first place. If e.g. HM were introduced to the OG, qualifying for it would not have been any harder (or easier) than it already is. That's why I see no reason to exclude it just because it is not a part of OG or outdoor WC. GregorB (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Cross Country once was in the Olympics. World Championships denotes exactly that, so we shouldn't try to pick around the edges in order to find a way to exclude some athletes. There are already enough deletionists out there who will take a mile before you even give them an inch. Not all of the best can make it into the World Championships, many ply their skills outside of that world because they can make money elsewhere, which is why we have additional criteria. 424 men from Kenya alone made the Olympic qualification standard in the Marathon, and did not get to compete in the Olympics this year. That lopsided talent finds its way into World Championship Half Marathon, Cross Country, Gold Label or even lesser Marathons and road races. It generates press coverage and elevates the stature of those events for those who do make it. Trackinfo (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Result So looking at this, it seems like we did have debate, but the debate favors making the change. I said I would make the change if no one objected. Seems to be people objected, but many others countered with strong points such that consensus is reached (especially in view of the fact that this really just brings it back to where it was before the link change.) Unless someone objects to my reading of consensus, I will make the change after 24 hours of this message. RonSigPi (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Volleyball notability proposal

There is an increase of the need of a Notability criteria for volleyball players since there are a lot of recent creation of BLP and clubs with dubious relevance. I would like to introduce this proposal:

Volleyball players and head coachs are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Has competed in the Olympics, World Cup, Club World Championship or senior World Championships.
2. Has won a medal at one of the following competitions: World Grand Champions Cup, World League, World Grand Prix, Goodwill Games, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, and any Senior Continental Championship.
3. Has won a gold medal at the senior level at any other major elite international event (e.g. the All-Africa Games, South American Games).
4. Has been inducted into a major hall of fame, such as the Volleyball Hall of Fame.

Note: College and youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider will follow WP:NCOLLATH or the requirements of WP:GNG.

I know that professional leagues and league players are being left for this proposal and an item about it should be added. Something like:

1. Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.

Another item that should be covered is beach volleyball. It should be something like:

Beach volleyball players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Has competed in the Olympic Games, World Championship and the World Tour.
2. Has won a medal at one of the following competitions: Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, and any Senior Continental Championship
3. Has been inducted into a major hall of fame, such as the Volleyball Hall of Fame.

Please let finish the discussion with a solid criteria. I hope this is not left unattended. --Osplace 15:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• I can't speak to the actual values you have in here. But I would just merge the two instead of replicating so much of the two and just add whatever is unique for Beach to the first one. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree. --Osplace 14:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• My overall thoughts are the same many editors will have: can you show the need for this guideline and can you show provide the rationale and body of evidence for this standard? Outside of the above comment, my suggestions are 1) remove Olympics as it is redundant with what is already out there, 2) remove the language 'any Senior Continental Championship' since that can lead to ambiguity (are paralympic competitions sufficient? Are we counting both the Men's European Volleyball Championship and European Games?, 3) same goes for 'major hall of fame' and just list the halls that apply (do national halls count?), and 4) Do not limit college to GNG since WP:NCOLLATH exists. RonSigPi (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That comment is WP:CRYSTAL, every editor will not have the same thoughts as you have, but I can answer you. 1) All WP:NTRACK, WP:NBADMINTON, WP:NCYC, WP:NEQUESTRIAN, WP:NSKATE and WP:NGYMNASTICS all cite Olympic in their criteria. 2) Senior mean NOT under age competition, there is not ambiguity is clear, but please read: Relating to or denoting competitors of above a certain age or of the highest status in a particular sport. 3) Hall of fame is corrected. 4) College and junior players have been rewritten. --Osplace 23:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course every editor wont have the same thoughts. That is the whole point of having discussions. For 1, you are right that other guidelines have Olympics - they should all be changed because they are redundant. No need to compound an error. For 2, having something open-ended leads to the complaint with the college guidelines - as new competitions emerge they are just grouped in without a determination on if they should be included (with college it is more an issue with awards being added to the template, but the same concept). I wouldn't say this is WP:CRYSTAL, but that we need some basis on why these were selected. RonSigPi (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"My overall thoughts are the same many editors will have" that is WP:CRYSTAL. For 1 is your own tought, I will not answer you saying all those criteria are wrong. For 2 I would really like to aswer you but still do not know if you are aware what senior means, even with the explanation I gave you, but even if I do not clearly understand what are you asking, I will try to do my best. According to the FIVB rankings Olympics, World Cup and World Championship give the same amount of points, that is why they are grouped together in the top. The second criteria is for the next level of competitions coverage and references availabilty. Same for the third, that are less notable competitions. About the open-ended complaint you made, this is used in WP:NTRACK and WP:NBADMINTON. College competitions is already mentioned in the corrected text. --Osplace 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Af first, thanks for starting the conversation!! I agree for beach volleyball but I want to expand it for indoor volleyball. Indoor volleyball is one of the most played sport worldwide. As the sport is one of the most popular sports the level is in many nations high in relation to many other sports. Being part of the national team you have to be one of the best in the country. As in many countries many more than the 14 people who competed at a given competition are notable. For many sports all players who compete at club level are notable, so many more people than those who play for the national team. For many countries being part of the national team is already a verry small selection of the best players! I think the next proposal is more suitable.

1. Competed international for the national team in the year the nation competed at the Olympics, World Cup or senior World Championships.
2. Was part of Competed for the team at the Club World Championship, World Grand Champions Cup, World League, World Grand Prix, European Volleyball Championship
3. Has won a medal at the senior level at a major elite international event (e.g. the Asian Games, All-Africa Games, South American Games, Goodwill Games, Pan American Games, European Games, NORCECA Volleyball Championship etc.).
4. Has won the gold medal at a small regional championship/Games (e.g. European Volleyball Championship of the Small Countries Division, Pan Arab Games, Bolivarian Games)

# Has been inducted into a major hall of fame, such as the Volleyball Hall of Fame. note redundant as the person must have won one of the above competitions. Note deleted commonwealth games and added European Games. I believe all these players are notable. If you not agree, please give some names so I will (try to) show notability. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Being part of a national team is not enough in ANY sport but Association football, that requires just capping one FIFA match, I do not back up your just participation for must competitions. Commonwealth Games are not not enough for you, they do for me. But lets see what the consensus say. Must Volleyball Hall of Fame inductees have not won any of the above, that is a fact for players, coach, leaders and officials. --Osplace 23:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Osplace:, I see what you mean, I made it competed for. I removed the commonwealth Games becaus volleyball is not a Commonwealth Games sport. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Beach volleyball with be in the next games. --Osplace 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

More discussion and consensus is needed in this discussion, please participate. --Osplace 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

GNG v NSPORT

In the first two paragraphs of this guidance there are separate statements that meeting NSPORT is an alternative to meeting GNG, whereas the 'Applicable policies and guidelines' section states that all articles must meet GNG. This is contradictory and I believe needs to be made clear and amended accordingly. I've seen that the FAQ goes into some further details on this, with regards to players from the past, but if there are qualifiers to be made to meeting GNG, they should be set out fully in the main guideline text, and not in the FAQ. It is noted that GNG does not make reference to NSPORT. Eldumpo (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately we want articles to have GNG-like qualities, specifically that they are based on significant coverage from multiple secondary, independent sources. But subject-specific notability guidelines like NSPORT are created knowing that for some topics where certain merits have been made, that we will still likely have an article, and the GNG-type sourcing does likely exist, but to collect those sources in the short term might take a great deal of time and effort (eg print sources). So NSPORT is a alternate means to show notability for topics of appropriate merit while efforts should be made to find the sources to make the article more conform to the GNG. The idea is that notability is presumed, and NSPORT is one way of presuming notability as to allow others to help contribute towards the topic in the open wiki nature. But after a great deal of time if it becomes apparent that that presumption cannot be justified with more sources (eg as to meet the GNG) then we will likely delete. This time factor is on the order of years. -MASEM (t) 14:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is consensus that GNG should ultimately be met but that there is effectively leeway for older articles (relying on print sources only) that is a key point that needs to be clearly marked, as the bolding at the start of the article is not telling the whole story. Eldumpo (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The bolding is talking about needed sources to proove they meet the individual bullets farther down, not meet notability. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The notability guideline says that a topic should either meet the general notability or the conditions specified in a subject-specific guideline. The sports-related notability guidelines covered on this project page have, since inception, explicitly stated their role is to provide a reprieve from immediate deletion, and not to replace the general notability guideline. As previously discussed in a conversation we both participated in, there wasn't a consensus to change the wording in the lead section, so the best I could do then is add clarification in a FAQ. Perhaps an agreement can be reached now to refine the wording? isaacl (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on the above and previous discussion it seems that most people are not saying that NSPORT is a substitute for meeting GNG, but there is an issue regarding time and available sources, and this caveat to the bold wording should be added to avoid the contradiction I mentioned, but it seems overall there is no desire for this to happen? Eldumpo (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I have never read NSPORT as a substitute for GNG (though it seems some do) but rather as a set of guidelines that explain to the non-aficionado how notability is determined by various sports, particularly more obscure ones. For example, NSPORTS is useful to know that while winning the Foo ABCD World Cup is a notable thing, winning the Foo WXYZ award is not because it's handed out if you send in two cereal box tops and 75 cents. Montanabw^(talk) 16:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is because the more your write the more loopholes/lawyering you cause. For example if we say it gives a reprieve regarding sources people will treat it like that reprieve is forever, when in reality it can be called and go to discussion even if it meets the criteria below. Every subject-specific notability guideline exists for the purpose of granting a reprieve due to time etc. so this isn't exactly unique to this one. It is generally understood by most. There are of course a number who never seem to understand that which is why we have the FAQ. I think changing the wording at the top is something we have to do very carefully because unlike alot of the other SNGs this one is constantly under attack by people who just plain don't like sports and don't think most athletes can be notable. Frankly I think the current wording is pretty good. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Although thinking about it more, the contradiction you are talking about isn't what you think it is. The bolded line is just trying to say you need sources showing the athlete meets one of the points below in order to claim they meet NSPORTS, not to say they are notable. In other words you can't claim they won x award without having a source that prooves they did. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that the bold text is not conferring general notability. Also, the second sentence of the second para seems to be making it clear that NSPORT is an alternative to GNG, and is not caveated. Eldumpo (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

And the whole next paragraph explains these are just rules of thumb while the previous two use words like likely to show that meeting them is not a guarantee of notability. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

To recast the conversation a bit, it's pretty difficult to encapsulate the intent of these guidelines in a single sentence. Thus even if that sentence is in bold or in a nutshell summary box, it's going to leave some details out. Given the difficulty in getting people to agree on wordsmithing guidelines, it may be more productive to reinforce the message that the introduction must be read in full and in context, rather than trying to perfect any one sentence. (The FAQ is one attempt to do so.) isaacl (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NRU Update

I posted this on the project page as well. I just commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgi Pruidze. He played for Georgia at the 2015 Rugby World Cup. In evaluating WP:NRU I see it hasn't been updated for the 2015 World Cup. I don't have the knowledge to make sure that the correct update is made and technically that the update should be made, but looks to me someone with the knowledge should. RonSigPi (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

esbl.ee

I found Estonian encyclopedic website with selected Estonian related sportspeople. I lists ~7500 (former) sportspeople, with a short biography (well written in Estonian language).

The website can be found here . I made a list of: Requested articles/Sports/Estonian sportspeople.

Because it's a selection from the Estonian sports history, and what I red from the articles I've seen, from my opinion they are all notable. So I think it would be good to include it under WP:NSPORTS. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not all are sportspeople, they are sports-related people. I don't see enough in e.g. [1],[2],[3],[4] to conclude that these are indeed clearly notable enough to be included in NSPORTS. Has e.g. articles on a motorsports talent who is only 14 years old[5], probably not ready for an article here. Fram (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I see, some will be border line. I see your point. I did a quick search on these people. I think [2] might just pass for notable researcher (profile) [2], was after his own career the coach of the best national gymnasts in Estonia (example) and the junior boy is multiple European Junior Champion. In several sports (but I'm not into motor sports) people get an article for it. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Gymnastics

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

So I would propose:

Proposal for gymnastics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. won a senior medal at an elite international competition

*An elite international competition is

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

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

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

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

• 50th Fanny Chilo, 1
• 57th Taissa Garcia, [6]
• 61st Lara Hüninghake, Lara Hueninghake, (de:Lara Hüninghake), 1, 2
• 65th Jessica Alysse Shaw, Jessica Shaw, 1
• 62nd Beatriz Martins 1, 2
• 71st Katarina Prokesova, Katarína Prokešová, Katka Prokešová 1, 2
• Hanna Harchonak 1
• 76th Tara Fokke 1,2
• 74th Kirsten Boersma 1, 2, 3, 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volleyball notability proposal

There is an increase of the need of a Notability criteria for volleyball players since there are a lot of recent creation of BLP and clubs with dubious relevance. I would like to introduce this proposal:

Volleyball players and head coachs are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Has competed in the Olympics, World Cup, Club World Championship or senior World Championships.
2. Has won a medal at one of the following competitions: World Grand Champions Cup, World League, World Grand Prix, Goodwill Games, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, and any Senior Continental Championship.
3. Has won a gold medal at the senior level at any other major elite international event (e.g. the All-Africa Games, South American Games).
4. Has been inducted into a major hall of fame, such as the Volleyball Hall of Fame.

Note: College and youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider will follow WP:NCOLLATH or the requirements of WP:GNG.

I know that professional leagues and league players are being left for this proposal and an item about it should be added. Something like:

1. Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.

Another item that should be covered is beach volleyball. It should be something like:

Beach volleyball players are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Has competed in the Olympic Games, World Championship and the World Tour.
2. Has won a medal at one of the following competitions: Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, and any Senior Continental Championship
3. Has been inducted into a major hall of fame, such as the Volleyball Hall of Fame.

Please let finish the discussion with a solid criteria. I hope this is not left unattended. --Osplace 15:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• I can't speak to the actual values you have in here. But I would just merge the two instead of replicating so much of the two and just add whatever is unique for Beach to the first one. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree. --Osplace 14:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• My overall thoughts are the same many editors will have: can you show the need for this guideline and can you show provide the rationale and body of evidence for this standard? Outside of the above comment, my suggestions are 1) remove Olympics as it is redundant with what is already out there, 2) remove the language 'any Senior Continental Championship' since that can lead to ambiguity (are paralympic competitions sufficient? Are we counting both the Men's European Volleyball Championship and European Games?, 3) same goes for 'major hall of fame' and just list the halls that apply (do national halls count?), and 4) Do not limit college to GNG since WP:NCOLLATH exists. RonSigPi (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

That comment is WP:CRYSTAL, every editor will not have the same thoughts as you have, but I can answer you. 1) All WP:NTRACK, WP:NBADMINTON, WP:NCYC, WP:NEQUESTRIAN, WP:NSKATE and WP:NGYMNASTICS all cite Olympic in their criteria. 2) Senior mean NOT under age competition, there is not ambiguity is clear, but please read: Relating to or denoting competitors of above a certain age or of the highest status in a particular sport. 3) Hall of fame is corrected. 4) College and junior players have been rewritten. --Osplace 23:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course every editor wont have the same thoughts. That is the whole point of having discussions. For 1, you are right that other guidelines have Olympics - they should all be changed because they are redundant. No need to compound an error. For 2, having something open-ended leads to the complaint with the college guidelines - as new competitions emerge they are just grouped in without a determination on if they should be included (with college it is more an issue with awards being added to the template, but the same concept). I wouldn't say this is WP:CRYSTAL, but that we need some basis on why these were selected. RonSigPi (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

"My overall thoughts are the same many editors will have" that is WP:CRYSTAL. For 1 is your own tought, I will not answer you saying all those criteria are wrong. For 2 I would really like to aswer you but still do not know if you are aware what senior means, even with the explanation I gave you, but even if I do not clearly understand what are you asking, I will try to do my best. According to the FIVB rankings Olympics, World Cup and World Championship give the same amount of points, that is why they are grouped together in the top. The second criteria is for the next level of competitions coverage and references availabilty. Same for the third, that are less notable competitions. About the open-ended complaint you made, this is used in WP:NTRACK and WP:NBADMINTON. College competitions is already mentioned in the corrected text. --Osplace 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Af first, thanks for starting the conversation!! I agree for beach volleyball but I want to expand it for indoor volleyball. Indoor volleyball is one of the most played sport worldwide. As the sport is one of the most popular sports the level is in many nations high in relation to many other sports. Being part of the national team you have to be one of the best in the country. As in many countries many more than the 14 people who competed at a given competition are notable. For many sports all players who compete at club level are notable, so many more people than those who play for the national team. For many countries being part of the national team is already a verry small selection of the best players! I think the next proposal is more suitable.

1. Competed international for the national team in the year the nation competed at the Olympics, World Cup or senior World Championships.
2. Was part of Competed for the team at the Club World Championship, World Grand Champions Cup, World League, World Grand Prix, European Volleyball Championship
3. Has won a medal at the senior level at a major elite international event (e.g. the Asian Games, All-Africa Games, South American Games, Goodwill Games, Pan American Games, European Games, NORCECA Volleyball Championship etc.).
4. Has won the gold medal at a small regional championship/Games (e.g. European Volleyball Championship of the Small Countries Division, Pan Arab Games, Bolivarian Games)

# Has been inducted into a major hall of fame, such as the Volleyball Hall of Fame. note redundant as the person must have won one of the above competitions. Note deleted commonwealth games and added European Games. I believe all these players are notable. If you not agree, please give some names so I will (try to) show notability. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Being part of a national team is not enough in ANY sport but Association football, that requires just capping one FIFA match, I do not back up your just participation for must competitions. Commonwealth Games are not not enough for you, they do for me. But lets see what the consensus say. Must Volleyball Hall of Fame inductees have not won any of the above, that is a fact for players, coach, leaders and officials. --Osplace 23:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Osplace:, I see what you mean, I made it competed for. I removed the commonwealth Games becaus volleyball is not a Commonwealth Games sport. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 11:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Beach volleyball with be in the next games. --Osplace 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

More discussion and consensus is needed in this discussion, please participate. --Osplace 17:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

NRU update High performance unions.

Hi there have been some significant changes to the IRB definition of high performance unions. They have now been split into 2 tiers.

• Tier One (the 10 Six Nations/Rugby Championship Unions): England France Italy Ireland Scotland Wales + Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa
• Tier Two (the other 10 RWC qualified Unions): For the moment for the 2019 World Cup they are (other than Tier 1 teams) Georgia and Japan.

This definition is interesting but poses a problem concerning the nations that were qualified for 1 RWC but not for the next, if they are not in the tier 1 do all the players that were considered notable thanks to this definition become no longer notable.

I propose that we widen the definition to any international player that has played for a nation that has at one point in time participated in the RWC. At the moment this stands at 25 nations in total.

Just as a reminder other wikipedias have much more liberal conditions. e.g in the French version a player is considered notable if he fulfills one of the following conditions

1. For a country with professional competition:

• After the professionalisation of rugby union in 1995, having participated in his country in a professional championship game as a player, coach, manager or referee.
• Before the professionalisation of rugby union in 1995, to have participated in their country in the highest championship as a player, coach, manager or referee.

2. For a country with amateur or semi-professional competition, to have participated in their country in the highest championship like player, coach, manager or referee.

3. Have played at least one game in official international competition as a player, referee, coach or officer.

I would appreciate any feedback and ideas before going ahead and modifying the criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

When did they change their regulations? Hack (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hack: Hi it's difficult to say as i can find no press release or other official document but on the World Rugby web site there are documents dating back to the 2013 season giving the fixtures for tier 2 matches. http://www.worldrugby.org/search?s=tier%202%20fixtures&toggle=document. This document date from 2015. http://www.worldrugby.org/documents/high-performance?lang=en Domdeparis (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a few examples of tier 2 HPU players that don't meet WP:NRU but meet WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

this could be difficult as they are systematically deleted as not being notable. most sportsmen are notable only for their particular sport especially at the start of their careers and when they come from a tier 2 nation there is often little or no coverage in English. Domdeparis (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a few examples of HPU tier 2 players that you believe meet WP:GNG, whether they have articles on the English Wikipedia or not. Hack (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

here's a couple Matthew Janney Giorgi Koshadze. Domdeparis (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This change would mean that any player who has ever competed for e.g. Portugal or Ivory Coast would automatically be considered notable. ("any international player that has played for a nation that has at one point in time participated in the RWC"). I don't see why the fact that a cuontry played at the RWC in 2007 or so would make a player for that country in the 1950s suddenly notable. Fram (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I understand what you're saying but as it stands any player that played for one of the 6 nations at any time is automatically considered as notable including a player for Italy long before it became a HPU. The problem comes from the fact that the new definition of high performance union includes 10 permanent teams and 10 teams that are "floating" depending on when you look at the rules. For the moment Canada is not qualified for the next RWC so is not considered as a HPU as of today so should all the players that don't meet the other criteria be taken out of Wikipedia and if and when Canada qualify they can be reinstated? As it stands a player that doesn't meet the other criteria but who has played one match for the USA against any team in the world at any time is considered notable despite the fact that their performance at the RWC is not particularly good and they are classed 18th but a Georgian player that doesn't meet the other criteria but has represented his country any number of times is not considered notable. Georgia is the 12th nation in the rankings table and is considered a HPU now and the USA is not. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of new pages other sports that are "niche" sports have much laxer rules. e.g. Aussie Rules football criteria say that any player for any club at any time is considered notable. There are tens of thousands of Aussie Rules players with their own pages. As it stands the criteria are unfair to nations that have an excellent level of rugby and are recognised as such by the IRB but not by WP criteria. Do you have another suggestion to rectify the situation? Domdeparis (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

We could have a list of "played for country X between years Y and Z: automatically notable". Or we could simply go with the GNG. Fram (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Everybody in WP:NSPORTS should be GNG. In WP:NSPORTS we try to define groups of people who meet automatically notability, so I prefer defining "played for country X between years Y and Z: automatically notable". Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That's fine but that will require a lot of maintenance and discussion. the period between Y and Z would be what exactly? As the IRB defines a tiers 2 HPU as being one that has qualified for the RWC a Canadian or American player that does not fulfill the other criteria and have their first caps this year are not yet notable and once the teams qualify (as I'm sure they will), they become notable. For certain tier 2 countries this is relatively easy as they have been qualified every time or like Georgia 4 times consecutively. The difficulty comes with countries like USA that did not qualify for the 1995 RWC and only qualified for the 1999 RWC on the 22/08/1998. So a player that was only played between 1992 and 1998 would not qualify...it's a logistical nightmare...

New suggestion the idea is to suggest that players from a nation that has a good track record of being a HPU according to the new criteria be included. This would involve setting a minimum number of qualifications. For exemple 3 appearances at the RWC. And of course keeping any player that actually played at the RWC as being a criteria. Just as a reminder any player who has played in 1 international match is considered as notable for the French speaking Wikipedia community. Domdeparis (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I know from experience that it is sometimes hard to get something in WP:NSPORTS because someone will always point to an exeption within the 1000s of people where the definition is about (usually an athlete from long long ago), from someone who usuallo don't know anything about the sport. And I can say for most of the sports WP:NSPORTS is not covering all of the notable people, only the obvious notable ones. I would prefer something of the French Wikipedia, and think it's fair. So I would say something like "A player who played at least 1 international match is considered as notable (but this might be questionable for people [a few aspects when the player might not be notable while having played an international match]. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Rugby is only a big deal in a handful of countries and even in those places, it can be difficult to demonstrate that an international player meets WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Humm there are 4.5 M rugby union players world-wide (20% increase between 2007 and 2011) and almost 20 000 clubs. 34 countries have more than 10 000 registered players each and 8 have more than 100 000 players each, it is watched by hundreds of millions of people, 6 countries have it as their national sport...in England alone (not the UK) there are almost 2 million players. It's true that as with many sportsmen outside their sport it is difficult to prove GNG but it would be unfair to say that it is a big deal in just a handful of countries and that's why we should be careful about not being too restrictive with the notability criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the criteria should become just tier 1 HPU. Most players in tier 2 would then meet one of the other criteria (play in a RWC, a fully professional team or a notable Sevens tournament) and, if they don't meet one of the other criteria, they probably also fail GNG. Mattlore (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely against just tiers 1 that because that would be mean restricting massively the number of eligible players and the aim of changing the criteria is to allow more players to have their pages. As we said sportsmen often fail other GNG at the start of their careers but that doesn't make them less notable as players. Domdeparis (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the amount of consistency in which nations make it to the RWC, surely a list of noteworthy teams could be assembled. Clearly all Six nations and rugby championship sides would be included (England, Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland, Italy, New Zealand, Argentina, Australia, South Africa) without any debate. Then you would look at the Pacific nations, who have only missed one RWC each (Fiji in 1995, Tonga in 1991 and Samoa in 1987)and include them. Then you look at USA and Canada who have qualified for every one bar USA missing out in 1995, and you can safely assume they're a consistent force in Rugby and deserve notability also. Japan have made every RWC, so they'd be in. Then you'd look at the top European sides; Romania (who have made it every time) and Georgia who have qualified 2003-2019. Namibia have gone 1999-2015 also. All these sides should easily walk in to a list of notable rugby nations. Then there would be room for debate around countries such as Russia, Uruguay and Spain, who have not been so consistent in their RWC qualification. For me, this simple list of what countries automatically qualify as notable teams would be the simplest way to solve this issue, the list can be reviewed and adapted in response to changes in rankings or in major competition results. The current situation where Georgia are not recognised in their own right is ridiculous. They have been the 6th best side in europe by the rankings for a while now and are higher than several other nations that find themselves with notable status now. BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Paralympics

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.

---

Should WP:NOLYMPICS restored to its original text? Namely: Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or the Paralympic Games Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Rationale

In a nutshell, An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The Paralympics certainly qualifies as a major professional competition. Indeed, it is the third largest in the world, surpassed only by the Olympics and the World Cup. To demonstrate that Paralympians routinely pass WP:GNG, we were able to easily able create articles on Australian athletes for the 2016 Paralympics. So we have demonstrated that Paralympians in recent years invariably attract sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG That being the case, the proposed change only reflects the reality of what has already been achieved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. The "original text" was there for two weeks after this became a guideline, and has been absent for more than 6 years since. Stronger arguments than "it is the original text" are needed to be convincing. Many, many Paralympians, certainly for the early games but also for more recent ones, at least ~upto and including the 2000 games, have received little to no attention at all (they get listed in databases, and that's it). We have had the discussion about this in a previous section here, where I presented many examples of athletes without the required notability (or teams where the names of the athletes are not even known). NSPORTS is intended to make life easier for e.g. AfD debates and the like, i.e. indicating which groups of athletes can be presumed to have the necessary notability as defined in WP:ANYBIO: not as a pass for certain groups to lower the basic notability threshold. Fram (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, I didn't propose a rationale at all! To make the RfC as neutral as possible, per WP:RfC, I did not put a rationale up immediately. I have done so now. You posed Jamaican athletes as an example; you thought we couldn't even find the names of the athletes, but it was quickly demonstrated that not only could we find their names in an instant, but that they do indeed pass WP:GNG!!! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I said that I couldn't even find their names. You found all five (good). The first one you listed was "Anthony Bryan (table tennis)". I can find him listed in one or two non-independent databases or lists, but he doesn't seem to have received any significant attention in reliable independent sources, which is needed to demonstrate notability. And that's for a 2000 athlete, not some 1968 one or so! Fram (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

For Bryan, all I can find is [www.ipttc.org/communication/2000/M_1-11_April2000_selection.xls] which is a list of competitors, not evidence of any notability so far. Apart from that, absolutely nothing. Obviously, I can't prove that no sources exist, but it certainly doesn't look good, and is a good reason not to give Paralympians, even from the 2000 Games, a free notability pass here. Fram (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Now I've always been on the side of inclusion, but I agree with Fram here. If it's next to impossible to even get the name of the individual from the Paralympic Games, then I can't see how they'd be notable. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: There've been several attempts to broaden the scope of NSPORTS criteria to include more (or all) Paralympians. Probably unsurprisingly, these attempts have been almost completely devoid of any evidence that there are broad swathes of Paralympians who would otherwise meet the GNG falling through the cracks. This particular wording is completely inappropriate unless -- and only unless -- its proponents are willing to do the work to demonstrate that every Paralympian who has ever competed can meet the GNG. Without such evidence presented as part of a proposal to change the guideline, an Oppose is the only reasonable response. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an engine for social engineering or consciousness-raising. Ravenswing 08:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added one now. Evidence has been presented. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You're really not suggesting that the notability of Australian Paralympians from THIS YEAR credibly mirrors the notability of every such athlete from every country in every year? I'm frankly astonished both at such an assertion from an editor of your longevity and experience, and that you'd think we'd swallow such uncritically. Ravenswing 11:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose As noted above, early Paralympians certainly can't be safely assumed to meet WP:GNG, and even for more recent games this would be questionable. Sideways713 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Paralympics are in recent years rarely meet GNG, it would be way more difficult to find references and news from early age Olympics, sometimes just list of medalists and more recently participants. I will not buy the "original text" argument. --Osplace 16:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't an argument, that was merely the proposal. I have posted one now. Paralympians in recent years invariably pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

What about WP:BLP1E? --Osplace 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Like the Olympics, you won't qualify unless you are a national champion. Only the top nations have more than one athlete per event. Qualifying times are set around the previous top ten in the world mark. So in the process of just qualifying, athletes build up a solid record of achievement in international competition. While it is possible for a rookie to play in the Super Bowl or to break a world record, you won't get into the Paralympic Games. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

But national paralympic championships and other meetings will receive (and certainly in the past didn't receive) very little to no attention in many countries. The may "build up a record of achievement", but they are still only known for one event (if even that), which is BLP1E. Fram (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, so what? No doubt there are "national champions" from all manner of fringe sports in all manner of small countries. I expect that there are a bunch of US Navy sailors who could credibly claim to be the first baseball "national champions" of the Marshall Islands, by virtue of whupping the crew of that Air Force flight in a pickup game in 1979, and they're not presumptively entitled to Wikipedia articles for the same reason prevailing here: they don't meet the GNG. Ravenswing 11:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

IOC gives participation to athletes that do not meet the qualifying criteria, a lot of them in swimming and track and field. Paralympics athletes in most of the countries do not held any championships. United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, but most poor countries just nominate athletes that have been trough a training process to achieve required marks. No national championships at all. They train without ever appear in a national or even local newspapers. Even when they are mentioned as the traveling delegation they are only mentioned as a team. Some favorites may be mentioned. But the point is that they do not meet GNG just for appear in the Paralympics Games. You have to prove case by case. --Osplace 22:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

They do not invariably meet the GNG. I would actually argue the opposite, that they almost invariably do not meet the GNG. There may be some countries where their athletes are more likely to meet it. But in the vast majority of countries they don't even come close. In many countries it would be hard to find a list of participants never mind multiple articles written in depth about each individual. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Support As proposer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Paralympians definitely meet the notability criteria - An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If any Olympic athlete is considered notable then Paralympic athlete is as well. You need to consider the recent history of the Paralympic movement. Since 1988, there is a strong relationship between the Olympics and Paralympics - host Olympic cities are required to host the Paralympics several weeks after the Games. This applies to both Summer and Winter Games. Paralympic athletes in many countries are financially supported by their Governments just as Olympic athletes are supported. Like the Olympics, the Paralympics have strict qualification standards and anti-doping regulations. In the pre-digital world, Paralympians received less press than Olympians but since 2000 Paralympians receive a great deal of coverage in the digital world. Paralympians are representing their country just as athletes selected in national football, basketball, cricket and other sports teams. Wikipedia regards as notable someone who may play first class cricket but who has not represented their country -it is not easy to accept this criteria if Paralympians are excluded. I agree somewhat withHawkeye7's compromise that the criteria may limit it to Paralympians from the 2000 Games onwards as this is where there is a wealth of information due to the increased coverage of the Paralympics, the profesionalisation of the Paralympics and the digital world. (talk) 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You miss the part that mentions so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In the case of the paralympians this isn't the case. You can't say that 99.9% of paralympians meet the GNG even if you cut it down to 2000 and after. It just simply isn't true. In Canada a fairly sports minded country you could barely even tell the Paralympics happened never mind coverage of a single athlete from an obscure sport. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Canada is not generally regarded internationally as a "fairly sports minded country"! In London in 2012, I heard a great deal of griping about how meagre coverage the coverage was in Canada, but 2016, it was expanded, and better, but still not as extensive as Australia's. That having been said, the Canadian media contingent in Rio was just as large as ours, and was, by our standards, very well resourced. They were unfailingly helpful to us, both to the Australian media in general, and to Wikipedia in particular. A key difference is the lack of emphasis on Wkipedia. Jnkwidis in particular did a great job on Canada at the 2016 Summer Paralympics.

There are ample sources on Canadian Paralympians, and plenty of manpower available, so I will be taking this up with them in the near future. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comments on the rationale. You have established that in one developed, sport-minded country, all athletes of the 2016 Paralympics are notable. This is not evidence that all Paralympians (all countries, all years) are notable at all. If you could establish that e.g. all athletes of the 1968 Paralympics for a number of countries (including smaller or less sport-minded ones) are notable, then you could claim that the text should be changed to your proposed version. Less relevant for here, but what's your evidence for the claim that the Paralympics are the third-largest sports competition in the world? You have, in the 2016 one, 4,342 athletes from 159 countries. The 2015 Summer Universiade had only 143 countries, but 12,885 athletes. According to the BBC[7], the claims of "third largest" are made by a fair number of events, including the World Athletics Championships, the Rugby World Cup, the Youth Olympics, the Champions League, the Cricket World Championships, and so on. For some of these, all competitors are considered notable. For others (like the Universiade or the Youth Olympics) not so. Fram (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose In recent months there has been a number of newly created Paralympic articles. Some have passed GNG and some have not and some have just squeaked by as no consensus to delete. Older events would be ridiculous to create articles for. I think medalists in the NOLYMPICS section is adequate with GNG able to pick up those with extensive press articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As much as I support and think what paralympians do is amazing, there just isn't the media coverage to meet GNG for the vast majority of them. You would barely have even known the paralympic games were happening in my country for example. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This comes up often and the overwhelming evidence shows that coverage cannot be presumed to exist. Of course a decent number of athletes will meet GNG and every single one of those should have an article. But evidence is not there that all participants gain the necessary coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support for most recent editions only: As example from the Dutch Athletes it appears that they all meet notability for the recent editions. See as example the Dutch page nl:Nederland op de Paralympische Zomerspelen 2012.Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 05:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There are many countries that still in this games have almost zero coverage of the games. Simple mention in a list is not enough. Still not even this days is easier to not to find any information about every specific Paralympic athlete in most countries. Remember, big countries are just a few and total participation, as of 2016, was 159 and only 83 won medals, that is half the participation without even a medalist mention. --Osplace 12:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I have not seen your Dutch example until now. In that example I could not find any references. Is not an example of relevance, just a Wiki enthusiast is what I have found there. --Osplace 12:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per most of the above. If they can't pass WP:GNG they don't get a free pass just because they were in the Paralympics. Olympians get treated as presumptively notable (!= absolutely guaranteed to be notable) because they do in fact garner enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG in most cases. Topical notability guidelines like this are not the Magical Notability Rules Exemption Bureau; they're simply interpretations of the existing site-wide notability guideline. They exist to help avoid wasting editorial time writing articles on topics which/who are most likely not notable, or arguing in vain to delete those that almost certainly will prove to be so. All these topical interpretative notability pages aside, it's entirely possible for a specific topic (person, whatever) to fit in something one of the declares presumptively notably (e.g. someone on a Olympic team with a lot of members, who played one game in an early Olympic Games, and was from a small country later subsumed into another one, and who was never otherwise noted by reliable sources for anything), and be deleted on the basis of an actual GNG failure after people have tried to more specifically prove notability for that individual. The obvious problem with RfC proposal is that an enormous number of Paralympian article could get created under the proposed WP:Notability (sports) rule change, and then end up causing a big time sink for a lot of people, as editor group A wrote earnest but poorly supported articles about them, and editor group B tried to verify their notability and eventually took them to AfD on GNG grounds, then editor group C argued and source-checked and so on at great length at AfD, and editor group D administratively deleted the weak pages. That's four groups of editors with better things to do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Support The distinction made in current text distort and confuse the broad term Olympian. Most arguments that oppose will be refuted once a contestant in the Summer or Winter Olympic Games is confirmed not notable. I don't think it is impossible to find the not notable ones, but I do not wish for a constant process of measuring and weighting on wiki terms, is this Olympian notable? .--Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ ^•♪talk _{♪• look} 05:52, 2 November 2016 (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.

Weightlifting

I copied this unfinished discussion from the archive. Maybe it's time to finish it :) Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

1. Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships (full results of World Championships prior to 1973 are unknown on the internet, so these participants might not all be notable).
2. Medalist at an elite international championship / Games (for instance: continental championships, continental Games, Commonwealth Games, Mediterranean Games)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk)

It seems that e.g. for the 1907 World Weightlifting Championships, we don't even have the names of all the participants. Declaring them all de facto notable seems like a rather big step. The name "world champiosnhip" seems like a misnormer for these old ones in any case; in 1911 there were four(!) world championships (1911 World Weightlifting Championships), with participation in total from four neighbouring countries. It seems unlikely that all these competitors would meet the WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: You can't create articles of unknown people. If you find the name of a person in an old news paper for instance (only there it can be found I think), it would make him notable. The names that are known are the medal winners. They are notable. WP:NCYC also states that for instance all participants at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships and UCI Road World Championships are notable. Same issue there. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read WP:BIO. Finding a name in a newspaper does not make anyone notable. If you would find a newspaper from 1911 listing the complete results for one the four championships of that year, you could add those names to that championship article, but it would be wrong to create articles for these people if that is all you have. You need evidence that all or nearly all competitors in these old championships are notable in the Wikipedia sense (i.e. have significant, indepth coverage about them in reliable independent sources) before such a rule should be added to NSPORTS. NSPORTS is not meant for "they are not notable by normal standards, but we want to have articles about them anyway". Fram (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And another example WP:NGYMNAST with the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships. In my opinion we can't speak at the moment for people who are unknown. Let's have that discussion if these people are known. Otherwise all these examples of WP:NCYC, WP:NGYMNAST and probably others should also be reverted. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

But you want to add a rule that already states that these unknowns will be notable as soon as we know their name! As for other sports, some may need to be made more restrcitive (I have done the same in the past for NCYCLING already, and argued against loosening the rules for Paralympians as well). For e.g. cycling, there are multiple encyclopedic works covering all or nearly all cyclists competing in world championships. E.g. the "Velo Gotha" contains information on these cyclists. Fram (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Same with cyclists and gymnasts. So far they are unkown at Wikipedia, but all participants that are known are notable. Would be very appricated if you have it and can give us the data of riders of the old world championships. Maybe it will change WP:NCYC. But untill that time, they are also unknown. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And in addition, most people agree with WP:NOLYMPICS, however look for instance at Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics: Many possibly non-notable fencers with no other details apart from their name, in most cases, only their surename. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For background to this request, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Henderson (weightlifter) (2nd nomination). Fram (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply why listing this article? I fails the notibility guideliness I'm stating above. This article is about whether or not the person meets WP:GNG. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"he won the silver medal at the 2015 Commonwealth Championships": does this not meet your second line, "Medalist at an elite international championship / Games"? Fram (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a junior championship he competed in.Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Then you really need to make that clear in that article, as it stands it is highly misleading (that championship is also for seniors, so it's not obvious at all that he won only a medal in the junior category). Fram (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As nobody replied I adjusted the statement. (@Fram:, @MATThematical:, @RonSigPi:)

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

1. Participation at the Olympic Games (all), or World Championships from 1973*.
2. Medalist at an elite international championship / Games (for instance: continental championships, continental Games, Commonwealth Games, Mediterranean Games)

*: full results of World Championships prior to 1973 are missing on the internet, so we can't assume all these unknown participants meets notability

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As nobody replies, does that mean this can be moved to WP:NSPORT? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Intercalated Games Athletes

Are the athletes from the Intercalated Games, specifically the athletes who competed at the 1906 Intercalated Games notable under WP:NSPORTS as a consequence of the games being effectively Olympic Games? EdChem (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a really good question that I've thought about during my time here. They were recognised as an Olympics at one point in time, then "downgraded" (when?) Is there some other like-for-like example in another sporting area? For example, a football league/tournament that was considered top-level, but is no longer in that bracket? I would like to believe that at least all the medalists would pass some sort of notability. And as a side note, most of the people who competed in 1906 also competed at other Olympic Games. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, given such issues, we focus less on whether the Intercalated Games are "equivalent" to the Olympics and more on what ought to be the real issue: whether athletes from the 1906 games can reliably meet the GNG. We don't give a presumptive pass to Olympians as a participation prize; we do so out of the likelihood that they are likely to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 11:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason I asked was not so much to decide about writing an article, but for helping to resolve a dispute at this DYK nomination, where an athlete from the 1906 games is mentioned, and there has been an objection on the grounds that he is not notable. I doubt there are easily-accessible resources to say anything about the athlete (Eugenio Colombani) who competed in an undistinguished fashion in cycling and Greco-Roman wrestling. I was surprised on doing a search of the archives that the topic of the Intercalated Games had not been previously discussed, so I thought the general question was worth posing. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes, the Intercalated Games count as a real Olympics for this purpose; I'd expect someone who competed in 1906 to have received at least as much coverage as someone who competed in 1896, 1900 or 1904, both in their own time and from later historians. I'm not saying that finding sources (beyond standard ones like Sports-Reference) for the more obscure athletes will be easy, but it shouldn't be any more difficult than for the other early Olympics.
Note that this doesn't directly answer Ravenswing's question of whether athletes from the 1906 games can reliably meet the GNG; it only suggests that if they can't, other early Olympians may have the same problem. But the consensus here has always been that all Olympians, including early Olympians, are notable. Sideways713 (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There are more examples of other people who competed at the 1906 Games without competing at other Olympic Games. And coverage, also on these athletes can be found. See for instance Heinrich Rondi at the German Wikipedia. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well ... let's be honest. The consensus that all Olympians (Major League Baseball players, top-flight soccer players, National Hockey League players, and so on ...) are notable is an artifact, really: of WP:ATHLETE's original -- and unexamined -- Everyone Who Ever Played Top-Flight Anything For So Much As One Minute Is Notable concept, and of our complete unwillingness to go over the records to find and define the historical breakpoints where players no longer reliable meet the GNG. It's a daunting prospect, however much it fuels the perception of other Wikipedians that the NSPORTS criteria is far too lenient across the board. Ravenswing 16:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

A series of AfDs

Comments will be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletics at the 2005 Mediterranean Games – Results, as well as at the AfDs linked from Template:2016-17 Sports event AfDs. These are all bundled multi-page AfDs and hence require wide input. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Weightlifting

I copied this unfinished discussion from the archive. Maybe it's time to finish it :) Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

1. Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships (full results of World Championships prior to 1973 are unknown on the internet, so these participants might not all be notable).
2. Medalist at an elite international championship / Games (for instance: continental championships, continental Games, Commonwealth Games, Mediterranean Games)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk)

It seems that e.g. for the 1907 World Weightlifting Championships, we don't even have the names of all the participants. Declaring them all de facto notable seems like a rather big step. The name "world champiosnhip" seems like a misnormer for these old ones in any case; in 1911 there were four(!) world championships (1911 World Weightlifting Championships), with participation in total from four neighbouring countries. It seems unlikely that all these competitors would meet the WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: You can't create articles of unknown people. If you find the name of a person in an old news paper for instance (only there it can be found I think), it would make him notable. The names that are known are the medal winners. They are notable. WP:NCYC also states that for instance all participants at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships and UCI Road World Championships are notable. Same issue there. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read WP:BIO. Finding a name in a newspaper does not make anyone notable. If you would find a newspaper from 1911 listing the complete results for one the four championships of that year, you could add those names to that championship article, but it would be wrong to create articles for these people if that is all you have. You need evidence that all or nearly all competitors in these old championships are notable in the Wikipedia sense (i.e. have significant, indepth coverage about them in reliable independent sources) before such a rule should be added to NSPORTS. NSPORTS is not meant for "they are not notable by normal standards, but we want to have articles about them anyway". Fram (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And another example WP:NGYMNAST with the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships. In my opinion we can't speak at the moment for people who are unknown. Let's have that discussion if these people are known. Otherwise all these examples of WP:NCYC, WP:NGYMNAST and probably others should also be reverted. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

But you want to add a rule that already states that these unknowns will be notable as soon as we know their name! As for other sports, some may need to be made more restrcitive (I have done the same in the past for NCYCLING already, and argued against loosening the rules for Paralympians as well). For e.g. cycling, there are multiple encyclopedic works covering all or nearly all cyclists competing in world championships. E.g. the "Velo Gotha" contains information on these cyclists. Fram (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Same with cyclists and gymnasts. So far they are unkown at Wikipedia, but all participants that are known are notable. Would be very appricated if you have it and can give us the data of riders of the old world championships. Maybe it will change WP:NCYC. But untill that time, they are also unknown. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And in addition, most people agree with WP:NOLYMPICS, however look for instance at Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics: Many possibly non-notable fencers with no other details apart from their name, in most cases, only their surename. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For background to this request, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Henderson (weightlifter) (2nd nomination). Fram (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply why listing this article? I fails the notibility guideliness I'm stating above. This article is about whether or not the person meets WP:GNG. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"he won the silver medal at the 2015 Commonwealth Championships": does this not meet your second line, "Medalist at an elite international championship / Games"? Fram (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a junior championship he competed in.Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Then you really need to make that clear in that article, as it stands it is highly misleading (that championship is also for seniors, so it's not obvious at all that he won only a medal in the junior category). Fram (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As nobody replied I adjusted the statement. (@Fram:, @MATThematical:, @RonSigPi:)

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

1. Participation at the Olympic Games (all), or World Championships from 1973*.
2. Medalist at an elite international championship / Games (for instance: continental championships, continental Games, Commonwealth Games, Mediterranean Games)

*: full results of World Championships prior to 1973 are missing on the internet, so we can't assume all these unknown participants meets notability

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As nobody replies, does that mean this can be moved to WP:NSPORT? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Handball

As handball is an Olympic sport, and many handballers are created, it must be good to make some notability guideliness. I propose:

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

1. Participation at the Olympic Games, World Championships or European Championship.
2. Medalist at an elite international competition (for instance: continental championships, continental Games, Pan American Games, Mediterranean Games)

Why adding European Championships participants and not from other continents?: Europe is the strongest handball continent and it is hard to qualify for the European Championships. Since the existance of the European Championships, there were at both the men's and women's World championships at least 3 European countries in the last 4. Input is welcome. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 18:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sander.v.Ginkel I was just about to ask if we had a standard for this. I'm not familiar with handball so I can't be of much use crafting it, but I think having a standard would be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Notable?

Is this team notable (proded and de-proded)? And is every national team in this sport notable, as was asserted, and (as listed in the article) every person associated in with the team notable enough for mention in the article? Thanks. --2604:2000:E016:A700:B468:7737:D3D8:F1B7 (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Masters Athletics

It appears that trackinfo took the time to make pages for the random set of 10 gold medalists I challenged him with to establish notability :: I generated two sequences of random numbers (the first from 1-33, 1.XX.__) and the second from (1-23 the 1.__.XX). and asked him to look up the gold medalist in each of these events

1.6.1 Fatiha Idmhand 1.7.15 Ihar Dolbik 1.7.1 Maria Jose De Toro Saiz 1.10.2 Thomas Oberhofer 1.15.15 David Carr 1.20.6 Sue Yeomans 1.21.23 Gerhard Windolf 1.22.7 Terhi Kokkonen 1.23.10 Galina Kovalenskaya 1.32.2 Bianca Schenker

Shall we assess if a gold medal at the masters world championships presumes notability? While I think he did a good job, and many of the articles definitely pass WP:GNG some are a bit closer to call as to whether the sources are WP:ROUTINE. This would be to add the category of gold medal at masters world championships back into prong (4) of WP:NTRACKMATThematical (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I am curious which ones of these you actually think could meet WP:GNG. As pretty much all of them are made up of only results lists and/or WP:ROUTINE. The first three I randomly looked at were immediate Afd candidates which I will likely put up in a bit. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually since all but one were very clear delete cases I have nominated them. The one I didn't I am going to look into. There is one actual source about him, but GNG does require multiple so I will dig even deeper to try to find more. But none of the others ones had any reliable sources that contained significant coverage about the individual. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that 2 pass WP:GNG 1.15.15 David Carr , 1.21.23 Gerhard Windolf , and that one 1.23.10 Galina Kovalenskaya would almost certainly pass WP:GNG if we had access to (edit: all Russian) news sources. I'd say that I am not satisfied with the search, for the general purpose for having the gold medal added back to the prong for WP:NTRACK. The 90+% requirement wasn't satisfied by the sources provided, but I really appreciate Trackinfo's efforts to attempt sourcing these articles. User:Trackinfo makes a valid point that if we had good access to regional foreign papers, we'd likely find extensive coverage of at least some of these athletes, but that is speculation until we have evidence of some more evidence. MATThematical (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NGRIDIRON

I am looking at the criteria for WP:NGRIDIRON and I believe there is a typo but thought I would post here first for someone with more knowledge on the defunct leagues to chime in. It states

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 third American Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league.

Shouldn't this state the fourth? I checked American Football League (disambiguation) to confirm my understanding and they call the league AFL IV. Is there something I am missing or should this say fourth? Thanks - Galatz^Talk 19:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree. I think it should be fourth. RonSigPi (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

NRU update High performance unions.

Hi there have been some significant changes to the IRB definition of high performance unions. They have now been split into 2 tiers.

• Tier One (the 10 Six Nations/Rugby Championship Unions): England France Italy Ireland Scotland Wales + Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa
• Tier Two (the other 10 RWC qualified Unions): For the moment for the 2019 World Cup they are (other than Tier 1 teams) Georgia and Japan.

This definition is interesting but poses a problem concerning the nations that were qualified for 1 RWC but not for the next, if they are not in the tier 1 do all the players that were considered notable thanks to this definition become no longer notable.

I propose that we widen the definition to any international player that has played for a nation that has at one point in time participated in the RWC. At the moment this stands at 25 nations in total.

Just as a reminder other wikipedias have much more liberal conditions. e.g in the French version a player is considered notable if he fulfills one of the following conditions

1. For a country with professional competition:

• After the professionalisation of rugby union in 1995, having participated in his country in a professional championship game as a player, coach, manager or referee.
• Before the professionalisation of rugby union in 1995, to have participated in their country in the highest championship as a player, coach, manager or referee.

2. For a country with amateur or semi-professional competition, to have participated in their country in the highest championship like player, coach, manager or referee.

3. Have played at least one game in official international competition as a player, referee, coach or officer.

I would appreciate any feedback and ideas before going ahead and modifying the criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

When did they change their regulations? Hack (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hack: Hi it's difficult to say as i can find no press release or other official document but on the World Rugby web site there are documents dating back to the 2013 season giving the fixtures for tier 2 matches. http://www.worldrugby.org/search?s=tier%202%20fixtures&toggle=document. This document date from 2015. http://www.worldrugby.org/documents/high-performance?lang=en Domdeparis (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a few examples of tier 2 HPU players that don't meet WP:NRU but meet WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

this could be difficult as they are systematically deleted as not being notable. most sportsmen are notable only for their particular sport especially at the start of their careers and when they come from a tier 2 nation there is often little or no coverage in English. Domdeparis (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a few examples of HPU tier 2 players that you believe meet WP:GNG, whether they have articles on the English Wikipedia or not. Hack (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

here's a couple Matthew Janney Giorgi Koshadze. Domdeparis (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This change would mean that any player who has ever competed for e.g. Portugal or Ivory Coast would automatically be considered notable. ("any international player that has played for a nation that has at one point in time participated in the RWC"). I don't see why the fact that a cuontry played at the RWC in 2007 or so would make a player for that country in the 1950s suddenly notable. Fram (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I understand what you're saying but as it stands any player that played for one of the 6 nations at any time is automatically considered as notable including a player for Italy long before it became a HPU. The problem comes from the fact that the new definition of high performance union includes 10 permanent teams and 10 teams that are "floating" depending on when you look at the rules. For the moment Canada is not qualified for the next RWC so is not considered as a HPU as of today so should all the players that don't meet the other criteria be taken out of Wikipedia and if and when Canada qualify they can be reinstated? As it stands a player that doesn't meet the other criteria but who has played one match for the USA against any team in the world at any time is considered notable despite the fact that their performance at the RWC is not particularly good and they are classed 18th but a Georgian player that doesn't meet the other criteria but has represented his country any number of times is not considered notable. Georgia is the 12th nation in the rankings table and is considered a HPU now and the USA is not. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of new pages other sports that are "niche" sports have much laxer rules. e.g. Aussie Rules football criteria say that any player for any club at any time is considered notable. There are tens of thousands of Aussie Rules players with their own pages. As it stands the criteria are unfair to nations that have an excellent level of rugby and are recognised as such by the IRB but not by WP criteria. Do you have another suggestion to rectify the situation? Domdeparis (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

We could have a list of "played for country X between years Y and Z: automatically notable". Or we could simply go with the GNG. Fram (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Everybody in WP:NSPORTS should be GNG. In WP:NSPORTS we try to define groups of people who meet automatically notability, so I prefer defining "played for country X between years Y and Z: automatically notable". Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That's fine but that will require a lot of maintenance and discussion. the period between Y and Z would be what exactly? As the IRB defines a tiers 2 HPU as being one that has qualified for the RWC a Canadian or American player that does not fulfill the other criteria and have their first caps this year are not yet notable and once the teams qualify (as I'm sure they will), they become notable. For certain tier 2 countries this is relatively easy as they have been qualified every time or like Georgia 4 times consecutively. The difficulty comes with countries like USA that did not qualify for the 1995 RWC and only qualified for the 1999 RWC on the 22/08/1998. So a player that was only played between 1992 and 1998 would not qualify...it's a logistical nightmare...

New suggestion the idea is to suggest that players from a nation that has a good track record of being a HPU according to the new criteria be included. This would involve setting a minimum number of qualifications. For exemple 3 appearances at the RWC. And of course keeping any player that actually played at the RWC as being a criteria. Just as a reminder any player who has played in 1 international match is considered as notable for the French speaking Wikipedia community. Domdeparis (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I know from experience that it is sometimes hard to get something in WP:NSPORTS because someone will always point to an exeption within the 1000s of people where the definition is about (usually an athlete from long long ago), from someone who usuallo don't know anything about the sport. And I can say for most of the sports WP:NSPORTS is not covering all of the notable people, only the obvious notable ones. I would prefer something of the French Wikipedia, and think it's fair. So I would say something like "A player who played at least 1 international match is considered as notable (but this might be questionable for people [a few aspects when the player might not be notable while having played an international match]. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Rugby is only a big deal in a handful of countries and even in those places, it can be difficult to demonstrate that an international player meets WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Humm there are 4.5 M rugby union players world-wide (20% increase between 2007 and 2011) and almost 20 000 clubs. 34 countries have more than 10 000 registered players each and 8 have more than 100 000 players each, it is watched by hundreds of millions of people, 6 countries have it as their national sport...in England alone (not the UK) there are almost 2 million players. It's true that as with many sportsmen outside their sport it is difficult to prove GNG but it would be unfair to say that it is a big deal in just a handful of countries and that's why we should be careful about not being too restrictive with the notability criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Giving them a free pass because you can't find sources is not a particularly good argument for notability. Hack (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hack: It's not a question of giving them a free pass. I'm not sure if you read the lead on the Guideline page but it clearly states The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline OR the sport specific criteria set forth below. Your argument is putting into question the whole idea of specific notability criteria. This discussion is to work out how to modify outdated Notability Criteria that have not kept up with the governing body of international rugby. I get that you personally don't think rugby is a big deal but a lot of people do. There are lots of different notability criteria for different profiles for exemple WP:PROF state that one of the criteria is

• The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

This means that when there is a reliable secondary source that supports this claim notability is already established and there is no question of "Free passes" . Domdeparis (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the criteria should become just tier 1 HPU. Most players in tier 2 would then meet one of the other criteria (play in a RWC, a fully professional team or a notable Sevens tournament) and, if they don't meet one of the other criteria, they probably also fail GNG. Mattlore (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely against just tiers 1 that because that would be mean restricting massively the number of eligible players and the aim of changing the criteria is to allow more players to have their pages. As we said sportsmen often fail other GNG at the start of their careers but that doesn't make them less notable as players. Domdeparis (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the amount of consistency in which nations make it to the RWC, surely a list of noteworthy teams could be assembled. Clearly all Six nations and rugby championship sides would be included (England, Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland, Italy, New Zealand, Argentina, Australia, South Africa) without any debate. Then you would look at the Pacific nations, who have only missed one RWC each (Fiji in 1995, Tonga in 1991 and Samoa in 1987)and include them. Then you look at USA and Canada who have qualified for every one bar USA missing out in 1995, and you can safely assume they're a consistent force in Rugby and deserve notability also. Japan have made every RWC, so they'd be in. Then you'd look at the top European sides; Romania (who have made it every time) and Georgia who have qualified 2003-2019. Namibia have gone 1999-2015 also. All these sides should easily walk in to a list of notable rugby nations. Then there would be room for debate around countries such as Russia, Uruguay and Spain, who have not been so consistent in their RWC qualification. For me, this simple list of what countries automatically qualify as notable teams would be the simplest way to solve this issue, the list can be reviewed and adapted in response to changes in rankings or in major competition results. The current situation where Georgia are not recognised in their own right is ridiculous. They have been the 6th best side in europe by the rankings for a while now and are higher than several other nations that find themselves with notable status now. BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)