Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56

Proposal to eliminate WP:NBASE

There is a clear consensus that the current version of WP:NBASE should not be kept as a guideline. This closure does not take a position on what (if anything) should replace it. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 18:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

The current baseball SNG at WP:NBASE (limited to Hall of Fame inductees) does not provide meaningful guidance and serves no useful purpose. The notion that SIGCOV is likely to exist for Baseball Hall of Famers goes without saying. Rather than keep such a meaningless standard in place, risking that it be misinterpreted to suggest that other major-league players aren't notable, we should simply get rid of it and let WP:GNG be the standard. This would put baseball on the same playing field as American football and association football, both of which are now governed by GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Support eliminating NBASE. Cbl62 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Ravenswing 19:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. NSPORTS has become so useless we should probably just get rid of it entirely. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • So I think unlike many SNGs, eliminated NBASE will, I suspect, lead to an increase number of people becoming notable or at least an increase in the number of articles written about players. Specifically many American minor leaguers were, under the old criteria, borderline notable and the fact that they were not notable under the old SNG helped to limit the number of BLPs about obscure people which could follow them around for life but for whom we'd not normally cover. I think that would be an unfortunate outcome here. For more on the how current prospects are covered see my essay on the topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    And that had a great deal more to do with the general hostility (at least at one point) of the baseball Wikiproject towards the minor leagues than out of any legitimate sense that minor leaguers -- many of whom played in major metropolitan areas with substantial media coverage -- were uniformly unable to meet the GNG. If a minor league baseball player can meet the GNG, then he must not be as obscure as all of that. Of course, those project members who consider covering minor league articles to be a waste of effort are the best judges of their own time, and I expect they can leave matters to those willing to properly source articles on such minor leaguers as can meet the GNG. Ravenswing 19:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    BLPs are different than other articles which is why we have a special policy around them. This policy, for me, means we owe an extra duty of care to monitor them because of the harm to the people that bad ones can do. So yes I would prefer, in all contexts, to not create loads of BLPs, and judging by the regular requests we get to delete them (even from people that wrote them themselves) they would like that too. And I know I'm not the only one wary of creating too many BLPs as it was a common reason at the RfC for reformulating NSPORT. That said I'm not actually opposing this idea because I recognize that GNG, on the whole, is better than what the status quo had been for NSPORT. I am just commenting that unlike many SNGs where scrapping them will produce fewer articles that qualify, scrapping this will make clear that more articles should be had. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd rather fix it. It would be useful if we listed baseball awards/achievements likely to make a player receive SIGCOV. For example, for MLB players: MVP, Rookie of the Year, Gold Glove, Silver Slugger, Cy Young. Starters who won the World Series, possibly also LCS champions. Top Prospects and early draft picks (not sure how many, top 3?) who actually went on to debut in the MLB. This is all off the top of my head but there is definitely useful information the SNG could provide about which baseball players are likely to receive SIGCOV. (And such a list could be compiled for any major sport.) Levivich 19:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The reality is that just about everyone who played MLB in the last 100 years has received abundant SIGCOV. Limiting the SNG to just Hall of Famers or others that represent the top 1-3% of the sport (e.g., Cy Young, MVP, ROY, Gold Glove, Silver Slugger, etc.) is not useful and will simply be used to argue that the other 97-99% aren't notable despite the presence of abundant SIGCOV. In the absence of an SNG that actually establishes a realistic dividing line, GNG should govern baseball -- just as it now does for gridiron football and association football. Cbl62 (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thats missing the purpose of the SNGs. It should be used to define situations where we can readily presume notability due to some merit, and where the GNG may be difficult to meet. The Sng does not need to outline all possible ways that that articles under a topic can be shown notable. eg NBIO in no way covers all cases of biographical topic notability, only for cases where the person's merit will likely lead to being shown notable by the GNG in the future. The GNG remains the default option for all topics. Masem (t) 20:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. SNGs on athletes should provide reasonably accurate guidance as to which groups of athletes are likely to pass GNG. NBASEBALL doesn't come remotely close to doing that. Cbl62 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
But thats not the purpose of SNG,they are meant as alternatives to meeting the GNG. if a group of athletes can meet the GNG without much effort to find sources, an SNG is a waste of time. Remember that the SNGs are not inclusion guidelines. Masem (t) 20:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
? NSPORT is not and has never been an "alternative" to GNG. All NSPORT subjects must meet GNG, but the page itself only has to demonstrate that the subject meets the SNG criteria (although "eventually" it also is required to demonstrate GNG is met). JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
" @Masem: In your formulation as outlined above, SNGs are only needed "where the GNG may be difficult to meet". That does not apply to Baseball Hall of Fame inductees (or Cy Young winners, Gold Glove winners, etc.). So, the current NBASEBALL fails even your SNG standard. Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • A better solution would be to have a broad general guidance across all sports for any individual that has made that sport's hall of fame or equivalent recognition. is that requires then explicitly stating which halls of fame are considered, that's fine, but this is the type of generalization thing that NSPORTS needs, rather than piece meal by sport. Masem (t) 19:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    The sports notability guideline received consensus support to replace the former athlete notability guideline because it was felt that broad guidance across sports did not result in appropriate guidance for each sport. Taking Halls of Fame as an example: anyone can start one, for any subject they want, using whatever inclusion guidelines they choose. The Baseball Hall of Fame was started by the Clark family to draw more tourists to their home town. Pickleball has two halls of fame being planned by rival organizations. If there is going to be a list of qualifying halls of fame, then it's not broad guidance any more. isaacl (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    the bigger problem is that each if the individual sports areas are trying to act as individual fiefdoms when it cones to what topics should be presumed notable. Eliminate that and look for broad criteria...i mean outside some broad swaths, NBIO works without further breakdown by topic area. Masem (t) 20:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    I think there is common guidance that can be given regarding what constitutes routine coverage and promotional coverage (both often cited in deletion discussions even though they aren't suitable as sources to show that the general notability guideline has been met). Beyond that, there a wide diversity in the development state of each sport, such that it just feels like an endless arguing opportunity to try to extract broad guidance, beyond what's already present in the guidance for having articles on people. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    Hello Dodgeball Hall of Fame.—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Current NBASE is utterly useless. Nigej (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Based on the responses here (particularly Ravenswing and Barkeep49), as well as my own experience reviewing new baseball biographies, it kinda seems like the old participation-based SNG for baseball is actually a pretty reliable predictor of GNG, if only thanks to most MLB players passing through well-covered levels of minor league ball and the relatively small geographic range of where baseball is played professionally (at least in comparison to association football, where there's relatively little you can generalize about its level of coverage internationally). signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The old participation-based SNG (at least as applied to MLB) was indeed a reliable indicator. Unfortunately, there's extreme resistance to restoring any such criteria, as seen in the NBA discussion above. Cbl62 (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Mmm ... rather the opposite, actually. Due to the sheer longevity of top-flight baseball, we all know there've been a lot of players who met the one-inning-of-one-game=notable! standard about whom nothing is known other than that Soandso pitched for the Columbus Solons in 1889. Ravenswing 21:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Mmm .. Show me an MLB player in the last 100 years who doesn't pass GNG ... or an AfD that's been sustained for such a player. Cbl62 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Show me where 1889 falls into the last 100 years and I'll deign to respond. Good grief. Ravenswing 01:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ravenswing: Condescend much? You can "deign" to respond or not, your highness, but the point was this: The handful of MLB players who were ever successfully AfD'd were from the 19th century. In the modern World Series era (i.e., 1901 forward), players in the American and National Leagues have received abundant SIGCOV, and the old NBASE provided pretty solid guidance. Unfortunately, that guidance is now dead and buried. Cbl62 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
My comments were intended to be about recent players--obviously bets are off if you go back too far before ~1960 or so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't have the time to prove it, but my intuition follows Rosguill's. After a certain date (post integration for MLB? post WWII for NPB?) the old guidelines actually were useful as a criteria for various leagues. So starting with the old league based approach but finding the right dates would be a better solution than scrapping them altogether. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The current criteria is not useful. I am sympathetic to the comments like those by Barkeep, but I believe two things are needed for an SNG to be successful; it has to be strongly predictive of there being significant coverage of the topic, and it has to be difficult to abuse for the purpose of mass creating micro-stubs - unfortunately, criteria based on participation for sportspeople are easy to abuse. BilledMammal (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This is one of those situations where it simply isn't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I continue to prefer a general description of the notability of a professional athlete (such as "Athletes who won or medaled in a major amateur or professional competition (as listed on this page) or won a significant honor (such as election to a hall of fame) are likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Professional athletes in team sports may also be likely to receive significant coverage, especially in elite professional leagues, but all articles must contain references to more than a statistical database."), than individual sport criteria (except to the extent that the criteria clarifies what is a major competition). That said, what is helpful in the current WP:NBASE is the guidance about minor league players. --Enos733 (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral The guideline is doing no harm as is. Perhaps it should be broader, perhaps not, but those who meet it will be notable. Repealing it will have no effect since anyone who meets the current guideline will pass GNG. This is a complete waste of everyone's time trying to repeal it, but there's no good reason to oppose it given it has been proposed. Smartyllama (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Framed differently, the guideline is doing no good as is. On the harm side, it's inevitable that new page patrollers and AfD participants will misconstrue such standards to mean that those who have not reached the specified level of achievement are not notable. E.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larrye Weaver where the nominator believed that the HOF standard in NBASE and other high standards "were kind of a rough rubric" on who is and isn't notable. As [[User:Rlendog] noted in that discussion: "we overpruned NSPORT and people don't understand that if an athlete meets GNG they are still notable even if they don't meet NSPORT". IMO the overpruning is so severe that the remaining twig should be put out of its misery. Cbl62 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
from that AFD I think I have a better way to describe the major problem with the NSPORT guidelines (before and after) in that there is a presumption created by most of these and from discussions i have seen that nearly every player is an S-tier player, but when in reality there are only a handful of S-tiers, a few more A listers, all the way to D-list player that may play once in a while in special roles. This is comparable go the workd of acting (falling under NCREATIVE) thst there, editors certainly arent creating aeticles for every person that is crefited for a role on TV. That doesn't mean D-list artickes dont ever get aetickes, but their acting career alone won't get them then NCREATIVE allowance.
Applying thgat to sports, arguably Larry Weaver is not S or A tier, his career while can athlete is otherwise unremarkable even if playing for the NFL is a high mark. That's not say that GNG quality sourcing exists, but from how SNGs work, there is nothing obvious in the man's career that we should not be using an SNG as a shortcut to the GNG, and instead ask for the article to start with GNG sourcing. An added complexity is that nearly every player regardless of their skill level is documented in stat books and databases, where as with actors the onky thing comprehensive like thst Is IMDB, which is not a reliabke source. For sports this gives the impression that any player is more signifucant than their career lets on.
That was a problem with any participation guideline, is that it made no distinction in player skill and presumed everyone is great. Instead the SNG for sports shoukd be focusing on how to make sure highly skilled players can have presumed notability without showing full GNG, while less skilled players should be met by the GNG from the start. This could be based on participation, though over multiple seasons, such "has played in at least two seasons and at least 20% of those games" to show a B tier player is valued by their team rather than merely stepping on the field once. Masem (t) 13:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
What is "S-tier" or "D-list"? —Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Bagumba, Tier list. S = best, D = mediocre. signed, Rosguill talk 15:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. @Masem: That seems to conflate Wikipedia notability with fame, as "mediocre" players in certain well-covered domains do consistently receive extensive coverage. —Bagumba (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Even in films those tiers aren't related to fame but to success (which incorporates but is not limited to fame). The idea is that low tier people may be name dropped and appear in works, but don't have any type of assured career like top tier ones. In sports, fame would not like be a factor if an athlete is S Or D tier, only their skill. An S tier player is highly visible in every game they are in, the D tier player likely warming the bench for the bulk of the games they are in. And importantly in both cases, people can move between tiers. Soneone who may be a thid string player for their initial career ay rise up the ranks to be a team's star player. Masem (t) 16:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the subject-specific notability guidelines have not set a more restrictive standard for having an article than the general notability guideline. (I know some consider the notability guideline for academics as one that sets a higher bar.) Setting an achievement-based standard is challenging for most domains, as it would require relying on those with greater knowledge of the topic area in question to set them, and English Wikipedia is reluctant to defer to a subset of the community. isaacl (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Common sense housekeeping. Serves no useful purpose. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal. There's nothing here that clarifies nor expands upon the GNG in any meaningful way. --Jayron32 12:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal. The current version of NBASE is useless, and should be removed. In fact, you can really say the same thing about the entire NSPORTS, as well. If someone wanted to propose deleting NSPORTS in its entirety, the way things stand right now, I would probably support that, too. All the changes made here have really rendered this entire thing completely useless. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Those obstructing any changed to NSPORTS so much that people want to just ditch it are overlooking the RFC, which stated There is a general consensus that the NSPORTS guideline still has broad community support, and whatever problems may exist, the community does not see them as justifying the deprecation of the guideline. Talking about removing even more of it than was ripped out without any thought of what remains goes against this. Spike 'em (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time, my friend. Or more to the point, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Who's to say what the community will feel about this in 6 months, or a year, or 5 years? --Jayron32 14:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    Consensus can certainly change if people try to bludgeon others into submission my friend. When people suggested not gutting the whole page and adapting what was there we were told that the RfC held sway, and has led us to the current situation where the guideline mkes no sense. I guess if you want to burn the foundations of the house down so that it collapses in a heap then you are going about things the right way, my friend. Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    The foundations of the house are WP:GNG, and are the strongest thing we have at Wikipedia; it's just obscured by the giant pile of unmanageable rubble piled on top of it. Clearing some of that rubble away is a noble goal, if only to bring the good stuff into the light. --Jayron32 15:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- as housekeeping that prevents the possible issue of people reversing NBASE into a notability standard. Agree with Cbl's comments throughout. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - There's just no need for this. At best it just tells people what they already know (a US/Japanese Hall of Famer has almost certainly received SIGCOV), at worst it allows people to start adding in people who are members of the Hall of Fame of countries where baseball has a very low profile and in fact those people have not received SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2022 (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.

Proposed amendment to basketball guideline

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus to introduce this subject notability guideline. Basically I don't see much numeric support on either side, and even though the list does show that all players who have played exactly one game have their own articles with sourcing, too many editors were unconvinced about the rigorousness of the approach to close this as support . Some editors additionally seemed to dread the thought of having participation-based SNGs, or were afraid that this change would be used as an excuse to keep poor quality articles about basketball players. You may try again a bit later with more and better evidence. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I’d like to recommend that the basketball guideline add a numbered statement (in the first position) under “Significant coverage is likely to exist for basketball figures if they:”

  • Played at least one game in the National Basketball Association (NBA), existing 1946-present

Work was done several months back source to GNG players who appeared in exactly one game (discussion here, list here). Overwhelmingly it appears NBA players get significant coverage either through their NBA careers or college or other leagues. The work was done and in my opinion should result in an update to the guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Support The data has been collected and is solid. Playing in the NBA, even a single game, warrants a presumption of that SIGCOV is likely to exist.. Cbl62 (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Although, I'd be inclined to simply get rid of the existing WP:NBASKETBALL and replace it with this. Nigej (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose your sample size is under 100 and imo is too small to be relied upon for such a wide period. Plus the sample was skewed to more recent players. A sample of 5 players for the whole of the 1960s is simply inadequate. Spartaz Humbug! 13:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    • The sample size is literally every person who played exactly one game in league history. Players who have appeared in more have more substantial sources available. It’s a function of the league being only 75 years old (so the modern media era) and the American college basketball system (the overwhelming source of NBA players through time) getting as much or more media coverage as most professional leagues. Rikster2 (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Then you demonstrated that the articles can be sourced and are just looking for a lazy way out of providing the sourcing. If you kmow sources exist what the hell are you doing creating the articles without checking them. That is a BLP violation in my opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
        • So your assumption is that I, or others currently active on Wikipedia, created every NBA article? I don't create articles without sources, you can check my article creation history if you are truly concerned about it. There can be articles of notable individuals that don't currently demonstrate they meet GNG but could. The guideline would help people understand that improvement is the right course vs. deletion. Rikster2 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    • A sample covering every person to play only one game is ideal. Players get more coverage with every game played. Cbl62 (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose We got rid of "participation only" criteria for a reason. Can you not simply use the SIGCOV you claim exists? --Masem (t) 13:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    • When we found that literally every single one-gamer in the NBA has SIGCOV, what is wrong with saying that "SICGOV is likely to exist" for people who played in one+ games? BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
      There is a larger trend here of avoiding mass article creation with no intent to expand (currently, due to Arbcom, there is a RFC being developed to figure out the issues of mass creation as well as mass deletion). It is far far better to encourage articles to be created with the significant coverage or at least some of it in place as to meet the GNG. Especially with the NBA, which is well documented and easy to search on materials related to the players. You should be only carving out these criteria for cases where it may be more difficult to locate sourcing (eg foreign, older print-only media) but it is assured that sourcing will likely exist, and nearly all the time, that will be based on merit, not participation. This is a fall back to the previous attitude of NSPORTS that deems to document pretty much every player without actually considering the problems NSPORTS creates when compared to other topic areas. (eg the issues around minority representation both within sports and outside it). Masem (t) 17:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
SPORTBASIC requires at least one example of SIGCOV. This proposal does not change that. Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
    • The problem with the old "participation" criteria was that they extended to groups of players (Class B Uruguayan football and Korean baseball) where the presumption was unwarranted. If limited to truly apex groups like the NBA, they make perfect sense and provide useful guidance. Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • comment re BLP if the contention is that you have shown that every player who played in the NBA should be sourced then why on earth are you asking to be allowed to create what will be, in most cases BLPs, without checking the sources first. This is unacceptable and antithetical to DONOHARM. Spartaz Humbug! 17:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
All sports biographies are required to have at least one SIGCOV source. This proposal doesn't change that. What this accomplishes is the same as any SNG -- to provide notability guidance and to minimize disputes related thereto. Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
The question to ask is how many times has the notability (at the GNG level) of a NBA player been disputed? If there's only a few isolated cases, then there's no need for an SNG. If there has been, and in most of those times, sigcov can be met, then it makes sense to propose something; this is my read of how Olympic medal winners work in that if the winner isn't from a Western or major Pan-Asian country, work can be shown that sources exist. Just adding a criteria because there hasn't been any disputes in this area is not really helping and on the verge of CREEP - the NSPORT SNG should not try to address every sport or situation, only the ones that have had repeated problems in the past with PROD/AFD and where editors have proven those cases to be acceptable for GNG. Masem (t) 18:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Masem: You're advocating an inescapable Catch 22: 1) If you can't show that a group always meets GNG, they don't deserve a SNG. 2) If you can show that a group always meets GNG,they don't need an SNG. I disagree and think such SNGs have value. Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I think he is asking why you need this unless, and this is my reading, your wikiproject wants leave to do the bare minimum rather than striving to write the best articles possible? Spartaz Humbug! 18:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I think your reading does not assume good faith. No one is proposing anything to get out of work, but there are substandard legacy articles in all sorts of disciplines on WP. Rikster2 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
To which my honest answer is "tough." Either do the work to properly source the articles -- which is, after all, a fundamental requirement for any article -- or accept that there will be stubs lost at AfD or redirects of the same. What is this proposal but a wish to get out of work ... the necessity to source an article that's been brought to AfD? Ravenswing 02:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
+1 I fail to see what problem this solves. Apparently there are only 450 NBA players in all. How many lack articles and of those how many will be difficult to source with even the most trivial effort? Spartaz Humbug! 16:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
450 active players at any given (modern, post-expansion) time. Thousands of players over the league's history. Levivich 18:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
My point is that there should not be a need for an SNG criteria where nearly all members can easily be shown via readily available sources to be notable. The criteria should only be brought into line when a class of topics can be difficult to source beyond the bare minimum WP:V criteria, but when it came to AFD the additional coverage through more sourcing has been shown. Thats the reason to make an SNG, as to prevent common disputes on notability. The way this is being presented is more of making the SNG an inclusion guideline which we do not want. Masem (t) 19:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
What is the point of this then? If you already agree that every article must contain at least one significant source as required by the RFC, why are you asking for an additional to the SNG at all? Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Very simple. Like any good SNG, it provides accurate guidance on categories of people that are notable. Such guidance assists those seeking to create articles and helps to avoid unnecessary disputes and AfDs. The opposition here overlooks this and seems to be a knee-jerk reaction against any participation-based guidance. Cbl62 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
In practice, this is what WP:OUTCOMES is for. I don't think anyone is going to object to stating there that athletes who participated in NBA, MLB, NFL, Premier League, and other select leagues would meet GNG. An alternative would be to add something like this in the basic criteria (which would cover all sports):

Athletes who won or medaled in a major amateur or professional competition (as listed on this page) or won a significant honor (such as election to a hall of fame) are likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Professional athletes in team sports may also be likely to receive significant coverage, especially in elite professional leagues, but all articles must contain references to more than a statistical database.

- Enos733 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a SPORTSOUTCOMES section on this page can help for common cats of players that will nearly always meet the GNG and thus should have gng quality standalones written when first created. Masem (t) 11:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Seems to me that this discussion is highlighting the fact that NSPORT has ceased to serve a useful purpose. NSPORT says "The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the general notability guideline." Surely the whole premise of this statement is that it only applies to biographies that do not currently satisfy GNG. An article that does currently satisfy GNG is clearly "likely" to meet GNG (to spell out the obvious). Now we seem to be moving to a situation where criteria here need to demonstrate 1) that a high proportion are notable 2) that a significant proportion are notable but for some reason the SIGCOV is not currently available and 3) there's a good reason to create the biography even though SIGCOV is not currently available. Demonstrating all 3 of these is going to be nigh-on impossible. In summary I'm struggling to "square the circle" whereby 1) NSPORT criteria only applies to biographies that do not satisfy GNG and 2) NSPORT requires that biographies satisfy GNG. What is the point of it? Nigej (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Easy: #1 is not a criteria. Surely the whole premise of this statement is that it only applies to biographies that do not currently satisfy GNG. An article that does currently satisfy GNG is clearly "likely" to meet GNG (to spell out the obvious). is not correct; that's not the premise. In fact, NSPORTS and the other SNGs do not apply to articles at all, they apply to subjects, or topics to choose another word, same as all notability guidelines. The purpose of an SNG is to tell editors what types of subjects are likely to meet GNG. This is useful to article creators and page reviewers among others. Levivich 20:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid that doesn't make sense to me either. If what you say is true, why are people arguing against this proposal on the basis that it's not required since SIGCOV is readily available. Since it seems that the players covered are "likely" to be notable, shouldn't we be including it to indicate that articles on these players probably can be created, since "The purpose of an SNG is to tell editors what types of subjects are likely to meet GNG. This is useful to article creators and page reviewers among others." Nigej (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
That's a great point. I can think of two recent RFCs that resulted in global consensus about the purpose of SNGs in general, and NSPORTS in particular:
  • 2021 WP:SNGRFC, which set the wording for WP:SNG, including The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic.
  • WP:NSPORTS2022 #8, which changed presumed to be notable to significant coverage is likely to exist, with consensus that The purpose of a SNG is to give editors guidance on when significant coverage is likely to exist, and clarifying that requirement in the prose will help avoid misuse at AFD (a major concern brought up in the main discussion
Since global consensus is that NSPORTS says when significant coverage is likely to exist, it makes no sense at all to exclude NBA players from NSPORTS on the basis that significant coverage exists for them, and I have no idea why multiple editors are voting on that nonsensical basis. Levivich 06:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I think a potential problem down the line is when someone suggests adding additional leagues (across the world and across sports) where the presumption of notability may not necessarily apply. Again, this is where I suggest an entry at WP:OUTCOMES is appropriate. - Enos733 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Support, though I am very skeptical that any other league in the entire world would be like this. The NBA is unique in having very few players (~450, compare with MLB ~900, NHL ~900, and NFL ~1,600). Every NBA team is in a huge, developed media market (major US cities, plus Toronto). Until the relatively-recent advent of the G League (2001), there wasn't any real "minor league", other than college ball, which is where (until relatively recently) all the NBA players came from. So entire cities full of basketball fans have only 13 players to focus on; it's not surprising all 13 will receive significant coverage, even before playing a game, just for being on the roster. The research linked in the OP establishes that every single player who has played in only one game has nevertheless received coverage from at least two GNG sources. It stands to reason that players who played two, three, or more games, are also likely to receive significant coverage. Again: I'm not sure this could be proven for any other league, but for the NBA, the data proves it. Impressive work by the editors who did this. Levivich 00:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Quite aside from the questions as to the accuracy of the methodology, and quite aside from that there's a plain movement away from mere participation criteria, this is rulemaking for the sake of rulemaking. If, indeed, each and every NBA player has SIGCOV, what's the problem this proposal seeks to address? Ravenswing 02:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Very cautious support with the strong proviso that this shouldn't be seen as an invitation to go back to the old, busted NSPORTS, and if necessary, add some sort of "don't take this as precedent elsewhere" footnote on this guideline. I'm definitely fearful that this will set the wrong precedent, and moreover, it doesn't really gain us much since it seems we all agree that NBA players will meet GNG anyway. That said... it does seem like that this is basically correct given that all of the one-gamers seem to merit adequate coverage. Unsure if it's worthwhile to add given that it may lead to complaining of "what about my favorite sport" when the NBA is unusual (very famous + huge market + small number of players per team), but in a vacuum, seems fine. SnowFire (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose playing one game is a ludicrously low standard. It should never have been set for anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The RfC earlier this year rejected participation-based presumption of Notability, and we should not be going back down that avenue. I would be in favour of noting the findings of the above research as an FYI somewhere, so that editors know such players are almost always notable, but I wouldn't want to see such a weak condition be binding at AFDs. Either include the sourcing in the article, or don't create it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    • But... the SNG is exactly the right place to note the findings of the above research as an FYI so that editors know such players are almost always notable. I mean that's the whole entire point of NSPORTS. And this SNG isn't binding at AfD, GNG must be met, it (finally) says so explicitly. Levivich 15:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
      The research behind a good sng candidate criteria is to show a class of topics which are routinely considered for AFD or PROD, and show that the bulk of the time, sigcov can be found for them. This specific RFC is asking to add a criteria where no problem has been shown. Masem (t) 18:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
      I disagree. The purpose of an SNG is to tell editors what topics are likely to receive SIGCOV. The topics don't need to be routinely considered for deletion in order to have an SNG. SNGs aren't for AFD defense. Levivich 18:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
      SSNG are not inclusion guidelines and should not be used for article creation. They are meant as defense for AFD discussions, or as leading prior to an AFD. Masem (t) 19:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
      I think that's only partly correct. They are meant to forestall AfDs by indicating that SIGCOV is likely to exist. However once taken to AfD, using them as a generic argument (ie this man played 1 game therefore he's notable) is extremely weak. Either people need to find SIGCOV or show why, in the particular case, it's likely to exist but can't be found. Nigej (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
      It's a good thing we have WP:SNG to clarify what an SNG is :-) Levivich 20:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose and procedural close. "Participation only" was removed by a wider, recent and this can't override that. BTW I encourage development of some type of a narrower SNG on this. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Opinion here is split so far; I've added an {{rfc}} tag and will notify WT:N and WT:BBALL. Levivich 17:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - That doesn't line up with WP:GNG, which is the gold standard. Significant coverage, multiple reliable sources. Just playing in one game doesn't come close to guaranteeing that, and will just result in a lot of AFDs with articles getting deleted for the (sports) essay being too lenient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    They demonstrated that every single player who played in one game meets GNG, so what is the basis for saying "just playing in one game doesn't come close to guaranteeing that"? Levivich 17:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    In a small sample. Can you guarantee that going forward for all players? That's the point. Watering it down to say that "if they have played in a professional game, it is likely, but you need to be able to provide multiple sources" would be more in line with the actual policy. GNG is the authority to which (sports) gets it's authority, it can't set a lower bar, and this would be encouraging a lower bar. We just got through dealing some an editor that made a million stubs, we don't need to create another situation like that. We need to encourage editors to actually produce the sources at the creation of the article, and not just guess they exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    But it's not a small sample, it's every single player who played one game. There are 72 such players and they all received SIGCOV, as demonstrated by the sub-pages linked in the OP. It's a sample size of 100%, which is not a sample at all, it's absolute, definitive proof that every single player who ever played one game in the NBA received SIGCOV. Thus, it stands to reason, players who played more than one game, would also receive GNG.
    This SNG already says that no matter how many games a basketball player played, a basketball bio must meet GNG. This is not a GNG alternative that is being proposed. What's being proposed is saying in the SNG that every player who played in an an NBA game is likely to receive SIGCOV. That is true, it's supported by the evidence that every player who played in one game has received SIGCOV. Levivich 17:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    "...it stands to reason, players who played more than one game, would also receive GNG" – while this may seem logical, it is still a leap, and one that requires evidence, e.g. a decent sample of players playing a small number of games, before we should accept it. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    It's easy enough to disprove: any "oppose" !voter can just post the name of an NBA player who doesn't have SIGCOV. So far, none have done so. Levivich 18:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    "a decent sample of players playing a small number of games" We have here the deepest, most persuasive sampling ever presented in support of a sports SNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    But it isn't deep and it's only superficially persuasive. I'm not seeing evidence that anyone has even looked at 2/3/4 game players or a decent sample of historical players, but just assumed they pass GNG too. Sorry, but that just isn't forensic enough for me. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    If you are going to water down WP:GNG, even while saying you are complying with it, then no, the burden isn't on the doubters, it is on the ones wanting to say we have a lower standard than we really do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Dennis Brown: How in any way does this proposal "water down" GNG? NSPORT no longer even creates a presumption of notability. Further, NSPORT clearly states that it is subservient to and does not replace GNG. If you read the lead clause of NBASKETBALL, all this proposal does is to provide useful guidance, based on solid data, that: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for basketball figures" who have played at least one game in the NBA. This does not mean that sub-stubs can or should be left intact without SIGCOV. That issue is dealt with in SPORTBASIC which now explicitly requires, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." So no, this proposal doesn't water down GNG. It simply and usefully provides solid, supportable guidance that NBA players are likely to have SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'm kind of tired of explaining. As someone who has to close the AFDs, I think this gives editors the wrong impression and causes problems. I've said my piece and explained it enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    If the survey shows that every bball player can meet the gng (multiple sources of sigcov) with little effort to find sources, then it simply makes sense to require that from the start for those players), then to create a weak article requiring only one source via this proposal. Masem (t) 21:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    Even stipulating that it has been proven that all NBA players can meet SIGCOV -- which has not been done -- I'm still not seeing any reason to recreate this rule: any reason, that is, beyond handing an excuse to editors not to trouble themselves over sourcing their articles. We've seen exactly how much damage has been done by many years worth of "one-game-means-an-automatic-exemption-from-deletion-no-matter-what." Those who don't care for the outcome can blame both the Lugnuts and Dolovises of the world, and the militant "Played one game, done deal" AfD voters, in equal measure. Ravenswing 10:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Everyone knows now that the SNG is subservient to the GNG; this is just a useful indication that playing in a NBA game is likely to meet the standard - backed up by the research.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    Everyone most certainly does not "know" anything of the sort, by witness the many prods and AfDs up until quite recently that closed far to the contrary. That being said, "useful" how? What is the precise result you see happening here? What would enacting this guideline do that as of right now cannot be done? Ravenswing 10:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks to the RfC everyone who knows what an SNG is and what the GNG is, is now well aware of the relationship between the two. And it's useful because it does what a SNG is supposed to do, indicate accurately where significant coverage is likely to exist. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    Except here, it has been claimed GNG type sigcov does exist and there us no guess work needed. It us far more responsible for editors to create an article that us assured to meet the GNG than to create a half-ass article with only minimal sigcov sourcing. SNGs should be when the effort to find additional sourcing may be difficult , which this exercise has shown is not the case for NBA players. Masem (t) 23:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    You're just repeating yourself here. If each and every NBA player can meet the GNG, what does a SNG indicate that's not already present? I ask again, and would appreciate an explicit answer: what do you think a SNG will do here that simple reliance on the GNG does not do? Ravenswing 01:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    There already is an SNG. This addition to it is a verifiable criteria about a topic which shows that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic, per WP:SNG. It will provide additional guidance to article creators, new page patrollers and at AfD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    If a GNG quality article can be made with nearly no effort in sourcing for sigcov, then there is zero point in having guidannce that allows for weaker sigcov that doesnt met the GNG. You are not showing that sourcing "likely" exists, the assertion here is that is "does" exist. So lets make sure that articles are written to the GNG at creation and avoid problems later. Masem (t) 04:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support the basis for the removal of participation only SNGs was the fact that in teams, it's difficult for individuals to stand out and meet GNG by themselves. As has been shown by other supporters above, this doesn't apply for the NBA. Some of the Opposes above either misunderstand the question this RFC is asking (No, thus doesn't overturn the RFC that put GNG above NSPORTS) or are opposition to SNGs in general. Iffy★Chat -- 20:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. The evidence nom provided above is convincing. While I have no reason to doubt this will be the case, I want to make it abundantly clear that this !vote is conditioned on NSPORTS continuing only to assert that SIGCOV is likely to exist. HouseBlastertalk 21:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Masem said it perfectly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficiently demonstrated criteria for a specific top-tier league. It's undeniable that certain footy, cricket, and Olympic editors went rogue by creating bios on subjects that had not received significant coverage, due to prior loose "guidelines". This one for basketball, for one specific league, does not repeat that mistake. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Per the guideline WP:NEXIST:

    Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.

    This is consistent with SNGs of other domains e.g. WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NPOL, WP:NACTOR, etc. New page patrollers, who are not necessarily domain experts, seem to bear the heaviest burden in the absence of substantive SNGs.—Bagumba (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support, correlation=causation in this case. All NBA players with 1 game are significant so far, don't see why this shouldn't be an obvious rule. The deprecation of SNGs is ridiculous, just like blindly following GNG is ridiculous.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm conflicted here. On the one hand, several people have raised good points about why we'd even need a guideline if sourcing is so readily available. Editors creating articles on NBA players shouldn't need guidance saying they're likely to have SIGCOV, since that should be apparent with just a very brief search. It does somewhat feel like we're encouraging lazy creation here, since the only reason most editors would need this criterion in the first place is if they wanted to make a bio with the least amount of effort.
On the other hand, the basketball project really should be commended for going well beyond what we ask of new criteria proposals and actually demonstrating all single-game players meet GNG. Just because it was easy for them doesn't mean it's unnecessary -- after all, not everyone creating an article will have the access to resources that the project members do (looking at the discussion, it seems like newspapers.com membership was an integral part of sourcing some of the older bios). While all future NBA players will have far more online coverage and editors shouldn't need those tools to find SIGCOV, I could see it being helpful to someone in like, I dunno, Albania, whose Albanian Google search is probably not going to return much in Albanian on some fresh recruit out of Tennessee.
Overall, I think I'd be more comfortable supporting this if the guidance strongly encouraged editors to demonstrate GNG from the get-go and reminded them that at least one source of SIGCOV has to be present in the article. I know the latter is redundant, but given the large number of AfD and DRV participants who willfully disregard that requirement, I think it needs to be emphasized a lot more. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Ive sugggested the idea of SPORTSOUTCOMES that could be used not for notability but guidance when a group of athletes nearly all easily meet the GNG and so article about them are expected to start with meeting the GNG. That still gives reason to reference this research to show that, but which should not encourage subpar stub article creation. Masem (t) 17:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
That seems to be a double-standard for sports, when Wikipedia has plenty of other WP:SNGs. Why relegate sports to SPORTSOUTCOMES, whose standing as an essay would be no different than WikiProject guidance. Again, it was a necessary evil to cleanup NSPORTS because some sports never cleaned up their loose "guidelines". Use this NBA guideline proposal as a standard for future NSPORTS additions.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
because SNG criteria should be left for cases when a class of articles are routinely brought b to AFD but their GNG notability is nearly always shown out, or where we know ahead of time that finding source a may be hard. This NBA one meets neither. But it makes sense to say that nearly every NBA player can be shown to meet the GNG with little effort, so that's worthwhile to document. Masem (t) 14:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay: FWIW one of the reasons I'm supporting this is in the hope it sets a precedent about data being required for a new NSPORTS SNG. Levivich 06:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
We can do that with a separate conversation about how to use data and to be honest, I'm minded to start that Spartaz Humbug! 07:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Joelle Jay: the doesnt' encourage or permit lazy creation of new articles without SIGCOV being present. SPORTBASIC expressly mandates sport biographies to have SIGCOV, and this doesn't change that. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Cbl62, it would be great if AfD and DRV participants actually observed that rule, but the same minority of editors who opposed your NSPORT proposal just continue to disregard it in both of those venues, where their numbers are often enough to force a local consensus. I have no doubt they'd do the same for new article creations as well. Based on these experiences in deletion discussions, I would be more comfortable adding the proposed criterion and any other participation-based criteria iff the new guidance reiterated a) the article must have at least one cited SIGCOV source at all times for any SSG criteria-based presumptions to apply; b) a single source still isn't enough if notability is challenged and no one has been able to identify even potential offline candidate sources of further SIGCOV; the subject must meet GNG, and this must be proven at some point. I'd also be satisfied if all this was just strengthened in SPORTCRIT to prevent wikilawyering. JoelleJay (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
    @JoelleJay: I don't see how SPORTCRIT could be any clearer than it is. A sports bio "must" (not "should", not "would be nice") have actual SIGCOV in the article. I've raised it at multiple AfDs, but I don't see others relying on it. And I also don't see closers relying it. The rules are there and just need to be enforced. IMO none of that is a reason to reject the proposed amendment to NBASKETBALL when we have data showing that 100% of NBAA players pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see the need for this. In the prior and related discussion here, User:Cbl62 and others verified that the first 21 players on this database list [1] (from 1955 to 1970) satisfy SIGCOV. Apparently they all the 21 players have their own Wikipedia articles. I only checked a few for myself and I'll take their word on the rest for now. These editors from the discussion are proving the point that this SNG is not needed.
The SNG is not required because, as these editors have shown, it will probably be a simple matter to source future articles according to SIGCOV. The only use I can see for this is the same as what happened before at some Sports AfDs. For example, NFOOTY was a nightmare. Some sport-fan editors would pile on in a number of AfDs. And then the closer would see that their argument satisfied policy per NFOOTY and declare "Keep." Or maybe no consensus sometimes.
Getting rid of performance participation−based criteria of, for example, playing in one cricket game, removes enforcing substandard criteria, along with skewing AfD results or the notability criteria imho. I do not want to return to those days.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The problem was not performance-based criteria. It was indiscriminately allowing performance-based criteria for any and every professional league, and not demonstrating that it was warranted as this NBA proposal has done. —Bagumba (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not see that there has been demonstration that this NBA SNG is warranted based on the ease with which sourcing per GNG was established at the prior discussion, and which has been elucidated at this RFC. It looks like a step backward. And as an aside, Notability (sports) did have SPORTSBASIC and the "Applicable policies and guidelines" section during the days of indiscriminately allowing sports-based criteria, but was overlooked (or ignored). So I'm not sure the process will be different with this proposed SNG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Participated based criteria is the problem. It is attempting to show correlation without causation... Simply playing in a professional sport is no assurance (even at the NBA level) that sources with sigcov would follow. Merit based criteria (like a high plaver finish in the Olympics or breaking a Workd Tecorrd) is at least a reasonable correlation with causation since we know from the past sources want to cover these highest levels od performance. Masem (t) 20:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I wholly disagree. The one game participation “criteria” is simply an unambiguous way of saying “NBA players are notable.” The act of stepping on the floor for a game doesn’t suddenly make someone notable, the point is that some leagues like the NBA are at such a top world-class level that a player has gone through many career stages, for example (in this case) college or other pro leagues, that have earned them notability. It isn’t many leagues at all, but it does exist for a few select leagues. Rikster2 (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
A better criteria to establish that a career player in the NBA is nearly always notable would be something like having played 50%+ of the games in one season.
But here is the thing...i am being told it takes Almost no effort to find three or more pieces of sigcov, so why promote a criteria that we encourage laziness and only based on one source?? The proposed SNG is just not needed since you've shown GNG can be easily met. SNGs should be left for difficult cases of source discovery. Masem (t) 22:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The participation criteria was a problem because there was never any research done to see if appearing in a certain league generally had enough significant coverage to pass GNG. Here we actually have such research and the evidence indicates that individuals appearing in a single NBA game generally have enough significant coverage to pass GNG. But yet the argument here is that since the SIGCOV is so likely and easily found for these subjects then we shouldn't have it in the SNG which is literally here to state if SIGCOV on these subjects is likely to be found? Wait, what?
(On a sidenote, has research been done on the merit based criteria in NSPORT to see if there is correlation between passing them and subjects having the SIGCOV to pass GNG?) Alvaldi (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
(re sideiine) Spot on. Throwing out participation criteria en-bloc makes absolutely no sense. Playing for England at cricket guarantees notability whereas scoring a century in a local league is nowhere near. We threw out the existing participation criteria en-bloc only because it had become impossible (through debate here) to modify them individually, but that doesn't at all imply that they serve no useful purpose. Nigej (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
...i am being told it takes Almost no effort to find three or more pieces of sigcov...: Who said that? And if someone did, why do you think it's believable?—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Editors have previously been told that any new SNG would need clear proof that a large proportion of those passing it would pass GNG, but now are being told that meeting this confidence level means that the SNG is not needed. This is completely inconsistent and this suggested SNG would be justified and useful. Spike 'em (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
There is no inconsistency with my argument. It totally makes sense to me and some others in the above. It's just that others have expressed similar sentiments using different wording. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Appearance based criteria were done away with by RFC; the rationale for creating a new one, along with the supporting evidence that has been presented, is weak and unconvincing. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    How is showing that all one-gamers meet GNG "weak and unconvincing" evidence in proposing a criteria where 1+ game players pass? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    Explained above; but essentially proof by induction/inductive reasoning involves more than just proving the 1. Further, the sample size for historical players (which is where these things usually fall down) meeting the test criteria is too small for the claimed conclusion to be valid. wjematherplease leave a message... 07:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Giving people an excuse to create articles which could never be expanded beyond the stub stage is always a bad idea. Either enough source material exists about a subject to write a decent Wikipedia article or it doesn't. Implying that people can create articles for which they don't need to bother finding sources is not guidance we should be adding to SNGs. We should be removing such guidance where it exists. --Jayron32 18:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This misstates the proposal which does not state (or imply) "that people can create articles for which they don't need to bother finding sources." To the contrary, SPORTBASIC expressly mandates that all sports biographies must have SIGCOV present.---User:Cbl62 18:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
SPORTBASIC only requires one piece of sigcov, which when combined with a merit based criteria, makes a good case for expandability and presumed notable. This is nit true fir participation based criteria, because it is not obvious if more coverage exists. Masem (t) 20:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Fresh take. It is frankly misleading to demean reaching the NBA as a mere "participation" criteria. The NBA is the top of a worldwide pyramid of basketball leagues. The reality is that playing in the NBA is an "achievement" criteria. It's analogous to saying that serving in the U.S. Congress (a similar pinnacle in US politics) is a mere "participation" criteria. When you reach a certain pinnacle level of achievement, those things are solid indicia of notability. And in this case, the data proves it. Cbl62 (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Strange world. So, we currently have a "non-participation criteria" for basketball that applies to youngsters selected in the early rounds of the NBA draft, i.e., those who are top prospects but have not yet participated in the NBA. So we give a pass to those "likely to participate" in the NBA but not for those who actually do participate. Does that make any sense? 13:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose' per Masem, North8000, Dennis Brown, etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords°
  • Weak oppose; I am concerned by the possibility that any such participation guideline would be abused to support mass creation, given the tendency to ignore WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 at AfD. BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    • There will be no mass creation of NBA player articles. Every NBA player to date has an article, so the only new articles would be new players entering the league. This is the advantage of keeping the bar high where it is accurate that all players in the league are likely notable. What this might do, however, is stop poorly thought out AfDs, as happened with Don Anielak last year. The correct path for articles created some time ago without adequate sourcing is improvement, not deletion. Rikster2 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
      if every NBA to date has an articke and we are onky dealing with new players, sigcov is going to be super easy to get, so you dont need an SNG. Just write to the GNG Masem (t) 14:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • It is amazing how this argument has started since the gutting of NSPORTS and was never part of that discussion before that. As I mentioned, NBA players are brought to AfD by non-domain experts and currently the basketball guideline looks like no players are likely to meet GNG. This work was at least an attempt to put a first plank down and would be followed by other guidance. Rikster2 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - SNGs along these lines (that is, presumptive notability that SIGCOV will be met, rather than an alternate route a la NPROF) need to simultaneously prove two things: that SIGCOV will almost always exist for members - I believe that is done & that there will be some members of the category who can't be adequately sourced due to reasonable difficulties. The indication here is that an NBA member will always be sourceable, so why bother having an SNG for them? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The assertion that because (almost?) everyone who meets this requirement also meets GNG/SIGCOV, there is no need for this SNG, is simply ridiculous. That's exactly when we create an SNG, the same users who are !voting oppose here have been saying that for years every time someone proposes a new SNG. In this case, such a thing has been demonstrated, and nobody has seriously rebutted that assertion. Therefore, the SNG is justified. Several users asserted the sample size was too small to draw any meaningful conclusion, but since it included every single player who played exactly one game, and they all met the criteria, I fail to see how it could be any larger. Smartyllama (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    You mean no one has put forth a rebuttal that you like. So stipulated, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that far from their original intent, the vast majority of SNGs in practice exist for no other purpose than to insulate article creators against having to do the fundamental work of sourcing articles. Ravenswing 10:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    "Ridiculous" is your POV and is kind of nebulous. I cannot see the logic for this SNG based on the demonstrated availability of SIGCOV sources, which is claimed as evidence for this SNG. However, this SNG solves no problem because there is no problem. Also, I never previously said the evidence of SIGCOV sources would indicate the need for an SNG, "exactly" or otherwise. So, I do not know to which editors your refer. It's possible that this is an entirely different group of editors in attendance here. And I think an SNG is needed when finding sufficient sources may be a challenge, but possible, as demonstrated by evidence. This proposal is not that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment. What is the purpose of SSGs? To curate assessments of sourcing potential at all levels? Or just at the levels where guidance is expected to serve a purpose reasonably often? From the !vote distribution, it seems like most editors either agree with the second interpretation, or are opposed to having any participation-based criteria in general. But that doesn't mean NBASKETBALL's efforts can only be used as SSG criteria or cannot appear in the SNG at all. One alternative could be a section of NSPORT outlining the general expectations for adding inclusion criteria -- e.g., formalize the "90-95% of [some representative sample of X] meet GNG" metric -- and link the NBA discussion as an example to follow for demonstrating this. But note that in cases like here where we have truly exhaustive evidence that even minimally meeting the criterion accurately predicts GNG, a guideline isn't necessary because finding sufficient SIGCOV should be very easy, and this should be taken into consideration during both article creation and nomination for deletion. Another option would be to explain that participation-based criteria were deprecated, but that for some leagues we have proof that participation in just a single game always corresponds to GNG coverage (and that this should be taken into consideration...etc. etc.). JoelleJay (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Another option would be to scrap NSPORT completely. Given that the most sensible of proposals to update it, is opposed, there is basically no prospect of ironing-out any inconsistencies, let alone changing anything substantive. Lets just get rid of it and rely on GNG/AfD. Nigej (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Nigej. When a proposal isn't backed by data showing that > 90% pass GNG, it's defeated because it isn't sufficiently calibrated to GNG. When a proposal is backed by data showing that 100% pass GNG, it's defeated because it's obviously calibrated to GNG and therefore unnecessary. In other words, "head's I win, tails you lose." These discussions have become a joke. Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
This RFC is not yet closed, it might not be defeated. Levivich 20:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Props to certain footy, cricket, and Olympic editors for gaming the system before. Now nobody can have shiny things. —Bagumba (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support based on both the data analysis provided by supporters and my own anecdotal experience reviewing new biographies of NBA players. Individuals are essentially guaranteed to meet GNG by virtue of the copious amounts of coverage generated by top-level high-school and college-level basketball in the US, as well as the formal scouting process. Adopting an SNG significantly reduces the amount of work that needs to be done by new page reviewers, particularly novice ones who don't yet have the personal experience to intuit patterns of coverage. Objections based on the prior RfC without further justification miss the point of (either? both?) said RfC and this proposal and should be discounted. signed, Rosguill talk 20:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. For top-level leagues in major, Western nations where the sport is truly popular (NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL) it's not ridiculous to say that players who play in those top level leagues will have accrued coverage somewhere along the way. That's because nobody just pops out of nowhere and starts playing in those leagues. Anyone who makes it to that top level of play will have spent years and years playing sports in high school, college, and minor leagues before making it to that top level of play, gaining more and more media coverage at every stop of the way. The problem with the old NSPORTS was that some sports were extending that presumption to low level (third and fourth tier) minor leaguers, and to sports in other nations where presuming that coverage was going to exist at any level was an iffy proposition, at best. That's not the case with this proposal here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    If the reliable source coverage always exists, then the criteria is redundant to WP:GNG and doesn't need to be here, because any article whose existence is justified under the proposed criteria is also justified by the GNG, which makes the criteria entirely redundant and pointless. --Jayron32 14:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    NSPORTS does not justify the existence of any articles; we've already come to consensus about this, twice (WP:NSPORTS2022 and WP:SNGRFC). Of all the objections, this one is really, really nuts: the idea that if an SNG is too good at predicting GNG, it is redundant and pointless? In your own words, what is the point of NSPORTS? Levivich 16:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, we keep coming to a consensus that SNGs should not be used to justify the existence of articles. Wishing in our deepest souls that people would not use them that way, and even having votes that we all agree in our deepest souls that people (most of which aren't participating in these votes) won't use them this way, doesn't actually mean anything. As long as they exist, they will continue to be used as a means to justify the creation and perpetuation of stand-alone articles. It doesn't really matter how much we want people to not do this. They have been since forever, are still right now, and will continue to do so as long as they exist. Unless and until our standard for creating and maintaining a stand-alone article is "has enough reliable, independent source text to write a proper stand-alone article" and only that guidance is given, there will still be a confused state here at Wikipedia. Not wanting the SNGs to be used as a back door to create articles for which there is no chance of passing GNG doesn't mean that is going to happen. Your fantasy that insisting that people stop doing that will cause them to stop doing that is not borne out by the evidence. The existence of SNGs is the problem, not the wording. --Jayron32 14:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    What you say is exactly true. How times have we seen: "Keep. Passes NFOOTY" (or whatever) at AfD. Or comments here along the lines of "why isn't my sport here", often as a result of an AfD - they're clearly thinking that having the article pass NSPORT guarantees (or at least increases its chance) that it will be kept and they're often correct in that thought.. Or comments along the lines of "these people are notable but NSPORT says they're not". The only conclusion of this debate (and others too) is that NSPORT serves no useful purpose, and for most of its life has actually be a big net negative, encouraging the creation of vast numbers of inappropriate articles. It needs to go. Nigej (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    If the 2 of you want to start an RfC to deprecate all SNGs, then please do so, but the last RfC on this subject endorsed NSPORT continuing. Spike 'em (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    Probably would fail at this time. Wikipedians are well known for keeping things well past the time when common sense says they should go. If only we did this .... Nigej (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Jayron32: Can you identify three (or even one) AFD since WP:NSPORTS2022 in which a "Keep, meets NSPORTS" vote was counted? It used to happen, I don't think it happens anymore. Levivich 16:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    I didn't have to look any further than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 2 Today's AFD discussion where someone cites NSPORTS and makes no attempt to establish the actual existence of sources. --Jayron32 16:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    I said counted. Levivich 16:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    Like this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver. Levivich 16:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Levivich, see here and here for recent examples. However, that argument has mostly been replaced with baseless claims that GNG is met and complete disregard for the requirement of a SIGCOV source. 1, 2, 3, 4 JoelleJay (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    @JoelleJay: Thanks for that, but I don't think those first two are "Keep meets NSPORTS" examples. Okilani Tinilau is up for DRV, so that one is still sort of in limbo, and also it's a serious outlier. Sources like [2] are arguably GNG, plus there are the various mentions in other sources which together might count under the "combined SIGCOV" theory (which I don't subscribe to but consensus is undetermined on that). But on top of all of that, and much more importantly, the guy is from a tiny country, broke a record, and was an Olympics coach. Kind of the posterchild for the weaknesses of GNG in the developing world, and a real IAR candidate. (Compare with Cody Claver, who played in two pro games for a 2nd-tier team in Western Europe.) The second one, Sam Meston, also is an (arguable) GNG keep with [3] and [4]. Those two would have been kept regardless of what NSPORTS said.
    As to your second point -- phony GNG claims -- I couldn't agree more, that's a theory I tested myself not long ago with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver (2nd nomination). :-) WP:100WORDS is the next AFD battle--actually requiring SIGCOV to be significant in length--but that's not an SNG issue.
    My point being that articles that only meet NSPORTS without meeting GNG at all are no longer kept, even though that used to happen often. The problem now is the shift to calling any brief mention SIGCOV; but (properly) expanding NSPORTS doesn't risk "keep per NSPORTS" anymore. Levivich 19:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    The Tinilau example is more to show the kinds of egregious !vote-counting closes that are accepted "because overturning wouldn't change the outcome". The Sam Meston obits do not seem intellectually independent of each other -- they're just worded slightly differently -- and are of unclear provenance, so if they were the reason for the keep !votes that's just further evidence of poor GNG claims. But regardless, 2–3/5 keeps are basically the same "meets NCRIC" !votes as before, so if they'd been properly discarded the outcome should've been NC rather than keep.
    And I'm certain the articles that only meet NSPORTS without meeting GNG at all phenomenon is still happening -- see here and the followup here and the DRV here -- (and @BilledMammal probably has more examples, e.g. those cricket ones), but another one of the issues is that !voters, rather than explicitly referencing NFOOTY, will instead basically restate former NFOOTY criteria (like First, he is young footballer with an ongoing career in a fully pro league or Young Australian footballer who won the FFA Cup in 2021 with Melbourne Victory) and claim the subject has generated GNG coverage without actually identifying any SIGCOV. So their !vote appears like it's saying "GNG is met" but actually the entire basis is from meeting the former criteria, with maybe a few passing mentions or non-independent refs thrown in. Closers who are not familiar with NSPORT completely miss that nuance and end up perpetuating the exact same problems we had pre-RfC. JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    Oh yeah I forgot about that one. Well, um, I'm sure things have gotten better in the last month or so? :-) Levivich 21:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    Not when we have the same disruptive handful of editors !voting on every single footballer AfD with essentially "keep meets NFOOTY" rationales and garbage sources... JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    It really is. I'd like to know what the magic sweet spot that an SNG needs to hit to be valid : it seems 100% is too good, but a bunch of people here say that it needs to hit at least 95%. Is 99% too good, so we need to find a single obscure NBA player to allow the SNG to be added? Spike 'em (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm utterly confused too. I've be under the illusion (or perhaps delusion) for many years that the whole point of NSPORT was to be a good predictor of GNG, while those at the margins would be handled via AfD. Apparently it's the exact opposite. NSPORT doesn't need to bother itself with those that clearly pass GNG, it somehow needs to be a good predictor of those at the margins (although how it's going to do that is not at all clear to me). Nigej (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support There are every indications that participating in a NBA game is a very good indicator of players having the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, usually due the the player having made a name for himself as a college star prior to joining the NBA. Outside of the above mentioned research where every player with one career game passes GNG, I've slowly been going through NBA players with two career games, and so far sourced 17 of 20. So out of 93 players with 1-2 career NBA games, 90 have been shown to pass GNG (97%). Note that this does not grant the affected articles a free pass in AfD's, hopefully this would rather encourage to search for sources or maybe seek the assistance of the NBA WikiProject to improve the article rather than nominating them for deletion. This will also not result in a mass creation of articles. There have been around 4,400 total players in the NBA and probably all already have articles. If the consensus is that this is too small of a sample size, then it would be good to know what would constitute as a reasonable sample size, as that should also affect other proposed changes to NSPORT. However, if the consensus is that the only proposal that, as far as I know, actually shows some data to on it being a good predictor of GNG gets rejected for being to good of a predictor of GNG, then we have to ask ourselves what is the point of NSPORT? Alvaldi (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank for that Alvaldi. The sample size is the largest that's ever been presented in support of a sports SNG. It is also the best formulated sample that I recall, because it eliminates the potential for cherry-picking by examining every player who participated in only one or two games. Cbl62 (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
There have been around 4,400 total players in the NBA and probably all already have articles. PetScan says we have 4,569 pages in a subcat of Category:National Basketball Association players by club, so yeah probably everyone. Levivich 21:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
So why do we need an SNG here for that? this now us a "barn doors open and the horses escaped...into the yard" situation. We would only be in the future creating articles on new players to the league meaning most sourcing will be immediately available from online coverage from SI and ESPN in addition to other papers from US sources...the GNG should trivially be met. This SNG wastes everyone's time then Masem (t) 21:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The reason we should have a basketball SNG is so that when an editor wants to know what kinds of basketball players are likely to receive sigcov, they have a handy quick-reference guide that tells them. Same as all the other SNGs. Levivich 21:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
again, the point ofSNGs are not inclusion guidelines, which this is being treated as, but determine when a topic can be presumed notable when the GNG cannot easily be met, but another criteria can be shown in a WP:V way. Since any future NBA player should readily meet the GNG, and all existing ones likely have articles (under 1% at most may not), there's no purpose for an SNG criteria. I do agree tgat a line that is treated as OUTCOMES that all NBA players can meet the GNG shoukd be stated as to encourage new player artices to be written to an easy to meet standard. Masem (t) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. SNGs help in the marginal cases, not the obvious ones. Also SNGs help point out "real world notability" - recognizing, like in WP:NBASE, there is a difference in scrutiny of sourcing given to athletes who made a top professional league and those who might participate in amateur or low-level professional leagues. - Enos733 (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Cautious support. Overall, I just don't see the harm in allowing this given the evidence for GNG. While we're technically violating the "participation-based criteria" rule, I don't see how this will lead to a proliferation of unexpandable or untouched microstubs. Moreover, we want this level of diligence for SSGs, so if it serves as a prime example to point to for successful criterion additions I think it might actually help filter out any future proposals that don't have comparable data. Plus it shows this is something that can be done in a short time by a wikiproject, which should make it much harder for other projects to claim surveying some number of minimally-qualifying subjects is "too much work". I feel these aspects more than counterbalance the fact that it doesn't really offer useful guidance in the way intended for SSGs. JoelleJay (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: the WikiProject offers convincing evidence that NBA players with exactly one game played can be sourced to reliable sources; it's then reasonable to extend the availibility of sourcing to players that play more. The SNG does also serve a purpose because when an editor wants to know what kinds of basketball players are likely to receive sigcov, they have a handy quick-reference guide that tells them (Levivich). I also particularly like Rosguill's support. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 02:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Alvadi. Swordman97 talk to me 18:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree that sufficient statistical findings have not been made to justify the presumption proposed for codification here. I get that "we checked every player who played one game and they complied with SIGCOV/GNG" feels like a significant statement of probability, but even cursory application of mathematical/formal logic/set theory reasoning demonstrates how weak this is as empirical, probabalistic evidence this is for the broader class of individuals who are NBA players. Essentially, those who have advanced this as strong (let alone ironclad) evidence are commiting to a kind of peculiar (but genuinely interesting, and somewhat understandable) combination of the fallacies of composition and division, assuming that what holds for a given tested subset of players will hold generally beyond that set. But the overall sample is, by comparison to the overarching class (the only really meaingiful mathematical ratio for determinative puproses), actually quite small. So yes, it's supportive of the proposition, but it's not as great a showing as it impressionistically seems to be, just because the results were uniform, and tended to include demonstrably less experienced players than the average.
All of which is to say, in policy terms, something more is needed. The community has really only just recently clawed back SNG sprawl after their creation, promulgation, and development got seriously out of control for some years there, creating a lot of fast and loose content with regard to notability, and significant issues, ambiguity, conflict, and just generally increased work on the back-end, for already demanding procesess. Indeed, there's also the even more specific, narrow, recent, and on-point community rejection of participation-based presumptions for sports figures. So, I think it's understandable that it is considered very imporantant to hit a certain threshold when it comes to analystics for proposals in this vein. And I'm just not seeing a strong enough case yet for this proposed SNG/rule of thumb. The one-gamer analysis is a good starting point, but I don't have a problem calling it far from sufficient. SnowRise let's rap 20:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The sampling was extended to all two-game players. See here. What would you consider sufficient? Cbl62 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, the proposed criterion isn't for players who have played exactly one or two games in the NBA, so it will be used as evidence of the existence of suitable sources for players with more games played. Thus the criterion should be tested more broadly across NBA players with more service time. isaacl (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you not agree that one- annd two-game players are less likely to have SIGCOV than players with 100 games? How big do you think the sample needs to be?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
My personal threshold is a lot higher than what people in the past have said on this talk page, which I appreciate might be viewed as unreasonable, so I'd rather defer to those past statements (leaving aside that some editors now seem to be adding a utility standard as well). I will say I think a sampling of all players is needed, throughout the period of history for which the criterion will apply. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to demand 100% sample size for an SNG. A scientific sample for a population this size, for example, would be around 350. But are people actually questioning if players with over a season’s worth of games (82) would meet notability thresholds? That drastically reduces the population we should be worried about. This site is a volunteer activity, editor time counts for something and should not be wasted on busywork Rikster2 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, nobody has yet posted even a single example of an NBA player who has not received sigcov. Levivich😃 15:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure; I haven't said anything in opposition to that (and the desirability of narrowing down the scope of uncertain NBA players is a key factor in my hesitation in trying to figure out specific criteria for a sampling). Regarding busywork: it may be simpler to move to a record of historical outcomes than continuing with guidance that follows the predictor principle, as has been suggested by others earlier. This would keep the value of guiding new editors on what persons they should focus their attention on, while avoiding having to argue about the exact thresholds that would serve as predictions for future persons. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Got to say I'm very doubtful. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Golf/archive, the biographies are a very disparate group. Some clear keeps, some clear deletes, some one-offs, not that many at the boundary where advice would be useful. I just can't see how a list of 30 or so outcomes over the last decade or so is going to provide anything useful to help editors. Nigej (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure, if it doesn't work for golf or other areas, let's not do it for those domains. It could be workable for NBA players, though. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Verdict? Rikster2 (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I've requested closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Iffy★Chat -- 18:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Technical oppose Ranking playing any NBA games ahead of being in the first 2 rounds of the draft and the other 2nd level criteria seems odd. Something closer to how it is presented at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Cricket may be better with a sentence like Additionally, basketballers who have played in the NBA may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. Gusfriend (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2022 (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.

Did we forget about rugby?

Taking a look at WP:NRU today, it looks like the criteria listed are still predominantly appearance-based. Should they be removed per the prior RfC, or am I missing some nuance of the SNG? signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks that way. Any appearance-based criteria should certainly be removed. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Quite frankly, any criteria that is not backed up by any evidence that it is a good indicator of notability should be removed. Alvaldi (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Enforcing SPORTBASIC's requirement of SIGCOV

I tried redirecting a number of American football sub-stubs today where there was a complete failure of WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." The redirects were promptly reverted by User:BeanieFan11 on the basis that he believed the above requirement was "illogical." I disagree with the mass reverting without any policy-based rationale. I believe redirects are the best way to deal with such failures, and that such redirects should only be reversed if/when SIGCOV is brought forward.

Allowing such mass reverts subverts the purpose of SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which was approved overwhelmingly in last year's ominbus RfC. It forces us to take each offending article through the far more burdensome AfD process. I have done that for the following handful (Roy Vassau, E. Bobadash, Adolph Kliebhan, Ed Rate, Buck Saunders), but we should be able to deal with these by way of redirects. Thoughts? Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors rejecting policy is a behavioural WP:IDHT issue.
To handle articles that fail SPORTCRIT #5 I think that bold redirects are appropriate - editors who disagree with the redirect are encouraged to revert it once they have found a source that demonstrates compliance with the requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
  • User:BeanieFan11 doesn't frigging get to decide, unilaterally, that a consensus-based notability guideline somehow magically doesn't count because he himself feels it's "illogical." Short of taking the matter to ANI, however, there's just no recourse other than AfD. It sucks, but there you go. Ravenswing 03:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
    • I really prefer not to take Beanie (otherwise an excellent and collegial editor) to ANI over this, but it's pretty ridiculous to have to open 100 AfDs to solve an issue that should be dealt with by noncontroversial redirects where there is no SIGCOV in the article. Of course, if and when SIGCOV is found, the redirect can be reversed. User:BeanieFan11: Any chance you can be persuaded to stand down on these blanket reverts? Cbl62 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports) to give editors an alternative to immediately redirecting articles lacking significant coverage. I've also created Template:No significant coverage that can be used on all articles. BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The template has now been nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 November 22#Template:No significant coverage (sports). BilledMammal (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
As the template is based on SPORTBASIC, prong 5, it should be modified to say "sports biographies" rather than "sports articles." That is the stated scope of prong 5. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I've also fixed the categories to match. BilledMammal (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • A usual (but optional) process of improving this project is WP:BRD. AfD discussions may lead to more editors performing deeper searches of subjects for significant sources. I do agree that it would be helpful if significant sources are provided after the revertion. --Enos733 (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    • My view is that a redirect is a softer and preferable course of action than an AfD. With a redirect, the article's history remains intact, and when SIGCOV is found and added to the article, the redirect can be reversed without any bureaucratic process. In the case of an AfD, the efforts to find SIGCOV are crammed into a single week (maybe two), deletion wipes out the edit history, and any later reversal of the outcome needs to go through a bureaucratic process. Cbl62 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    Aside from Clb62's take -- with which I agree -- we've got twenty years' worth of AfD and unsourced sub-stubs (and, ultimately, several tbans and cbans coming out of ANI) proving that there are far too many editors who not only don't give a damn, but are far more interested in racking up Game High Score article creations than in doing the more involved work necessary to source their sub-stubs. AfD is just overwhelmed now, with most discussions only having a couple voices, many of them going to multiple relists, and a number closing as soft deletions for lack of participation. Better to just redirect if there's a valid target, and let the next editor who actually cares to do that legwork bail it out. Ravenswing 19:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
    To be clear, I do not object to the redirection of articles. I also do not think that it is problematic that an editor reverts a bold edit (such as a redirect), although I hope a discussion follows. - Enos733 (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Redirecting is absolutely appropriate here, and reverting without addressing the sourcing issue is purely disruptive. Editors should not be using "please discuss" or the speed/volume of the cleanup process as reasons to revert. ANI should be next if the editor continues to diregard the guideline. –dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Cbl62 redirected a bunch of stubs that seemed to be clearly in violation of WP:SPORTSBASIC, which, as they mentioned, preserves the page history and doesn't permanently delete information, so that if/when BeanieFan11 (or anybody else) finds sources to establish notability, the redirect can be reversed. And a bold redirect probably shouldn't be reverted simply because "it wasn't discussed." I can understand Beanie's instinct to preserve former NFL players articles, but I haven't seen a policy that they point toward to justify reverting all of Cbl62's redirects, save for a couple. BTW, I'm not making these comments as an indictment of BeanieFan11, who is otherwise very competent and a valued editor. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 19:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_53&oldid=1143667955"