Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Boxing guidelines

The following boxing articles have been nominated for deletion at AfD. I checked several of these boxers. Every single one of them is either a national champion or a medallist at a national event. Yet, every single one of them fails WP:ATHLETE#boxing. National champions are notable and they should be included. I think that medallists at national events should also pass WP:ATHLETE#boxing. What's your opinion on this? This AfD is a boxing article massacre:

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All appear to fail WP:ATHLETE#Boxing Travelbird (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

End of message. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't look at all of them, but a lot of them seem to have the main claim to fame as being undefeated as professionals, which doesn't exactly blow me away. But I did notice one who had a flyweight national championship, which I thought would pass this guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

But apparently a national champion isn't good enough to pass the boxing guidelines. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment When I nominated them, they did not yet have the info on having won national championships. This was added subsequently to the nomination. If this information had been included from the start, I probably wouldn't have nominated those particular boxers. However most of them still only have claims to junior championship medals, which is definitely not enough on its own to establish notability. Travelbird (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment The way WP:ATHLETE is structured is that a separation exists between professional athletes and amateur athletes. The boxing guidelines you mentioned are intended only for notability regarding professional boxers. It appears that the national championships you mention relate to amateur athletes, not professionals. Therefore, these athletes would need to achieve their notability either from the amateur or Olympic section or by meeting the WP:GNG guidelines. For example, someone like Saidu Kargbo is notable for being a boxer not under the WP:ATHLETE#Boxing guidelines, but for Olympic competition. RonSigPi (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good point, about amateur vs. pro. Indeed, the boxing section is a sub-section under professionals. Is there a case to be made for having a guideline section in the amateur section of this page, or is GNG good enough? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Boxing is in an interesting situation in that it is, to my knowledge, the only Olympic sport where professionals are not allowed to compete. It may be appropriate to add, under amateur sports, something that is similar to Gymnastics 1 and 2.RonSigPi (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment All of the articles listed in this section will be deleted if the policy on boxing is not amended. I have done all that I can to save these article from deletion. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 02:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bodybuilding guidelines

A lot of bodybuilding articles are getting trampled on at AfD because the WP:ATHLETE guidelines are being interpreted stringently. When a bodybuilder competes at Mr. Olympia that is the equivalent of competing at the Olympics. When a bodybuilder ranks at Mr. Olympia he's at the highest echelons of bodybuilding. Now take a look at Michael Kefalianos and tell me why he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE and then explain how that's fair? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Being a professional alone should establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Being a professional should mean nothing. The determinative factor is the level of source coverage only. If there are sufficient sources to sustain a real, full article, that's fine, and the article should pass AfD anyway. If not, we shouldn't have it, "professional" or otherwise aside. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, actually, being a professional does mean something. Since being a professional athlete is considered by WP:ATHLETE to be notable and the guideline is "a generally accepted standard", saying it is meaningless isn't very accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If he passes GNG then he gets to keep an article, if he doesn't pass GNG he doesn't. WP:ATHLETE is just a guide to when he is likely to pass GNG and by itself doesn't guarantee a keep or delete. Find sources and the articles won't get deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There are enough adequate sources. Are you looking for an intellectual piece in the Washington Post about a bodybuilder? Bodybuilding is like an art it tends to be more about photographs than lengthy interviews. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, there have to be actual written articles about the person to pass GNG, but it doesn't have to be in the Washington Post, it can be in any relevant major reliable body building publications. Photographs only help with WP:V to proove the person existed. If the person hasn't been written about they are deemed to not be notable. Even art is only notable when the paintings or whatever have been written about in articles. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

They do, however, have to be more than routine or trivial coverage that most bodybuilders would get in the course of what they do. Mentions on tournament scorecards or reports on them, short bios of a bunch of athletes at once, etc., would not qualify. There would have to be a significant number of sources about that particular person, covering them in depth, not just in passing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, thats what I meant. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include within the WP:ATHLETE guidelines something that considers bodybuilders? Something like Mr. Olympia is the equivalent of the Olympics for bodybuilders? Or something like if they qualify as a IFBB pro then they meet WP:ATHLETE. Thanks. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the Olympia is more like the Super Bowl. They are all IFBB professionals. No pro card, no entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ok. So what you are saying is that the only required qualification for a bodybuilder to meet WP:ATHLETE is an IFBB pro card. How about including that in WP:ATHLETE? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If being a professional in any other sport is generally considered notable, why would bodybuilding be any different? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Then why are they currently voting to delete a notable professional bodybuilder like Michael Kefalianos? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 02:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just being professional isn't all that is required anymore. That changed almost a year ago. WP:ATHLETE was completely rewritten. Its much more stringent than just being professional now. -DJSasso (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As of about 5 seconds ago: "Generally acceptable standards. Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: 1.have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. 2.meet any of the qualifications in one of the sports specific sections below.". Professionals, that have competed as professionals, are generally considered to be notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. :-) Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 04:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

At the highest level is the key there. You said just being professional, which was the old wording. Its now been changed to at the highest level. But it still comes down to sources, if it doesn't meet GNG no matter what this one says he can still be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Being a professional, ie competing in the IFBB as a professional IS competing at the highest level. One doesn't need to compete in the Olympia just to make notability. If the subject passes GNG, it is presumed to be notable. However, a topic can be notable without a lot of sources. A pro would be considered notable for having compete in professional contests. Then you'd be left with a stub that needs sources. Yes, it needs improvement, but needing improvement is often argued as not being a reason to delete. Since the subject passes the applicable notability guideline, it would be presumed notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough to know what the highest level of being professional is in body building. I assume there are lower level professional contests that wouldn't be notable, in fact I know there are local pro body builders who whould not have signifficant coverage. I wasn't talking about this specific article but in general. Every article needs to pass GNG, that is the be all end all. This guideline just states when that is likely to happen. Again this is not a comment on the specific article. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Olympia is the ultimate competition in the sport. Bt don't focus on that. You're too focused on the "highest level" part. Using your reasoning, a guy who played a single season on a team that went to the Super Bowl and only played a single down all season, would be automatically notable, over a guy who was a starter for 15 seasons on a team that didn't make it to the Super Bowl. Both competed at the highest level of the aport. The NFL s the highest level of competition in American football, not the Super Bowl, which is a single game/championship. The IFBB is the highest level of competition in bodybuilding, the Olympia is simply their championship.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I never said anything about the Super Bowl, you are confusing me with another editor who commented. The NFL itself would be the highest level I agree, the Super Bowl is just the championship of the highest level, akin to winning gold at the Olympics. As I said I didn't know what was the highest level of bodybuilding. But just being a pro itself is not enough because I am sure there are professionals that are not competeing in the IFBB. Do you see what I mean? Highest level is the most important part of that sentence. Its mean to seperate the people who play in a minor circuit from those top play in the top circuit. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not confusing you. I'm using the Super Bowl as an example, trying to relate it to another sport since you said you know little about this sport. Pro's, not competing in the IFBB are generally like calling a minor league baseball player a "pro" when he never played in the major league. I've voted to delete in the past when minor league or semi-pro stuff in other sports were the basis. IFBB= NFL/MLB/NBA of the sport. While a title from smaller federations might be notable (like the Mr. America), I generally equate other federations as "minor leagues", therefore not true professionals. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So we are basically on the same page just using different terminology. Professional to me is paid to play in any extent which is why I believe the word highest is used in the guideline.. Hence why I was trying to make the distinction. Lots of wasted kilobytes but we are all good I think since we are agreeing :) -DJSasso (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aren't there enough references at the Michael Kefalianos article? Isn't there enough referenced content in the article? Don't video'd interviews count? Aren't the extensive libraries of photos for each tournament enough? What else do I have to do to get Michael Kefalianos kept at [1]? He easily meets WP:ATHLETE. But apart from the video interviews there is very little content written specifically about him. Although it is possible to piece together bits from here and there (as I have done). And, are video interviews legitimate references? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 02:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Read through WP:Reliable sources and it will help with what are good references or not. -DJSasso (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Already have. I have listed the best sources that I could find. Some are very good sources. Some are written by local journalists or bodybuilding enthusiasts. What do you think of the article? Do you think it is good enough to pass AfD? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 02:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion here. The key point that Djsasso is making is that WP:Athlete is just a guideline that tells people when an athlete is likely to meet WP:GNG. For extremely popular sports like baseball, basketball and football, anyone who plays in the top league has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. For other sports that are popular (but not as popular) the sport specific requirements may be more stringent. Not every pro gymnast from every country has enough written about them to guarantee passage of WP:GNG, only those who compete in the olympics or finish well in major competitions are guaranteed to have enough written about them to pass WP:GNG, and hence get specifically mentioned by WP:Athlete. The same would be true with body building, if one were to create a bodybuilding category it would likely have a few bullets, and they might read something like this

won the national championship in a country that regularly sends people to Mr. Olympia,

competed in the Mr. Olympia

performed at a certain level at other major international competitions

Note that the above is just an example of what it could look like. A few people who know bodybuilding better should get together to pose a set of bodybuilding guidelines here. Then the general WP:NSPORT people will look them over, probably ask a few questions, and get the guidelines edited down, and then they can go up on the main page. --MATThematical (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Whitewater Sports

Whitewater Athletes are presumed notable if they:

Have competed in Canoe/Kayak Slalom at the Summer Olympics or have had a podium finish at the Pan American Games or Commonwealth Games.
Have had a podium finish in an International Canoe Federation sanctioned race, qualifier or championship.
Have had a podium finish at a Canoe/Kayak National Slalom Race within their home country or competing at another country. Class criteria can be Cadet, Junior-16, Junior, Senior, Masters (K1M, K1W, C1M, C1W, C2M) Example Races are: National, Senior Trials, Junior Trials, National, or International Championships, Junior Olympics, Age Group Nationals
Have had a podium finish at a Freestyle Kayak team trials, national event, or championships Example events are Team Trials, FIBARK, NAWF, LOG, Dagger-Shootout.
Have had a podium finish at a Wildwater/Downriver National Race within their home country. Class criteria can be Cadet, Junior-16, Junior, Senior, Masters (K1M, K1W, C1M, C1W, C2M) Example Races are: Senior Trials, Junior Trials, Age Nationals,National and International Championships

Comment - Differences between USA/Canada and European Reporting - There are vast differences between reporting of event here in North America and on the continent in Europe. Slalom is treated to an almost religious status in most European countries, notably the Czech Republic and Slovakian Republic. Sports outlets in the USA trend towards not reporting the events and the athletes unless they are contending for Olympic medals. In recent years there has been a higher trend in reporting on the more extreme side of the paddle sports in freestyle whitewater kayaking, but this too tends to be limited in scope. Factors to consider in awarding notability are: age of competitor vs. age of those they compete against. Examples are: a 12 year old who turns pro and competes against adults and wins against is notable. Another example is a canoe slalom racer who wins a spot on the US Team or their national team who is a Master (those in the master class are middle aged -40 to 55). That is notable as most athletes in canoe slalom do not and generally cannot compete against much younger athletes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddrokayaker (talk • contribs) 05:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Response: On analogy, say, with Gymnastics, I would suggest that competitors are notable if they have

Competed in the Olympics, the ICF Canoe Slalom World Championships, or the ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships.
Had a podium finish at the Commonwealth Games, the Asian Games or the Pan American Games
Won an individual gold medal in the Youth Olympics - see Canoeing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics

I understand your criterion #1, but I cannot understand the others, especially if you include Junior categories. St Anselm (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably worth noting the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Hyde (Kayaker), which the original proposer of the new guidelines seems to want to use them in, which is rather gaming the system imo. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 07:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, sure, but at least it shows true American grit. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Most of these standards conform to what I believe are the standards in other Olympic Sports. I'd say that is reasonable. However, we still have that nasty problem of the Youth Olympics. There was a faction that thought the participants in that event have not yet achieved notability. Lets wait and see. I argued against that idea, but to this point in time, the Youth Olympics have not been written into the guideline. We need to deal with that issue on a guideline global basis, rather than it merely being included in Gymnastics and now proposed for Canoeing. Trackinfo (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Note that including the youth olympics for gymnastics was uncontroversial because the sport is dominated by teenagers, meaning the gold medalist at this event is always at the same caliber as the best senior olympic athletes. For example, at the world youth olympics both the gold and silver medalist in the all around had higher scores than the gold medalist at the previous senior world championships. I suspect for water sports the junior seen is not at the same level. Now I am not saying this means that we shouldn't include it for water sports. I just think it would be a bit more controversial than the inclusion was for gymnastics. --MATThematical (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The proposed #2 seems very lax to me. I looked at their site and there are a ton of races. Just placing in one would pass? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think trackinfo was referring to the response set of conditions and not the original one. I cant see any reason for why you would think this "Had a podium finish at the Commonwealth Games, the Asian Games or the Pan American Games" is too lax, but perhaps I am missing something. Note the reason why I think trackinfo is referring to this set of conditions is because the youth olympics are not mentioned in the other set. --MATThematical (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - 2,5 are rather lax. For 2, that seems to say that any sanctioned competition is fine which is quite contrary to the spirit of notability encompassing competition at the highest level. The same goes for 5 in that national level competitions are not the highest level. AS for the age category listings, as Strange Passerby notes, this has come about from an AFD for a young kayaker. For ciriteria 2, a more reasonable approach would be to use the ones similar for other sports and look at competitions like [World Cups]. And rather than making this specific to whitewater, it would probably make sense for this to cover all of the canoeing sports governed by the International Canoe Federation. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
the blurb at the end is covered by the high school pre-high school section. If a 12 year old competes against adults and wins on a regular basis, that story is going to get covered (its very juicy) by the mainstream media. Hence I see no need to go beyond WP:GNG in this case. --MATThematical (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I agree that the Junior Olympic issue is a nasty problem. That being said, we do field Junior-16 and Junior classes internationally, sometimes against senior team level competition. Case in point would be Caroline Queen, Ashley Nee, both K1W AND Haley Thompson C1W who competed in ICF rankings races as Juniors (under age 18) and had top 10 finishes. Under ICF rankings rules, top 10 finishes equals big points in world cup standings, obviously, if you podium, that's even better. The only sub federations of USACK here in the USA that strictly adheres to age requirements are USA Wildwater and USA Freestyle. I believe Youth Olympics insofar as Whitewater goes, needs to be written into the guidelines based on the transitional trend of youth and strength and gender overcoming old-age and treachery (forgive the wee pun). This is very much unlike gymnastics. It is its own animal. There are different classes of races. There are International, National, Regional, and Local. Canada and elsewhere in the world it is pretty much the same. The UK is a really weird oddball with how they do things under the BCU. There is a whole promotion process with a defined set of rules. The ICF basically gives the various national and continental federations a framework, and basic rules. Anything else beyond that is up to the individual federations. Technically, Henry Hyde when he competes at the 2012 US Olympic Trials can make the team if he takes the top spot in the race. Conversely, he can be denied even if he does because he will only be 11 (but in his 12th year). A waiver has to be issued by USACK. Typically waivers are issued for competitors to compete in higher levels of the various disciplines. There are sometimes factors which will influence said waivers, such as maturity, physical and metal stability, etc. The comment about 12 year old winning against adults is juicy I suppose in some terms, but generally, press coverage on this side of the pond is poor at the best for whitewater sports. Most people outside of the sport think it is dangerous (which it is at times) and think the people who do it are crazy.

Rankings of finishes, be it top 10 overall, or podium in Class type is a noteworthy event, whether or not there is a significant story or press coverage or magazine article. Occasionally there are interviews, but that is not the norm. Usually all you will see is a list of how it all shook out. The one discipline beyond the international scene, specific to the USA and Canada now is Freestyle. This was a discipline left to the older adults for many years. Eric Jackson, 4 time world champion in freestyle and former US Olympian founded Jackson Kayak with one of his major sub-goals being to get kids into the sport as early as possible. This has led to the advent of child athletes competing against adults in freestyle competitions and in fact winning against adults. Do a search on Jason Craig and Dane Jackson (son of Eric Jackson), those two alone will give you an idea of what youth is doing to the sport and again, making it noteworthy and notable. You can almost quote me on this (it's late and I am being lazy), but I believe Dane Jackson took a 3rd or 4th place finish at Teva Mountain Games in Vail in either 2006 or 2007. What is notable about that is he was 11 or 12 at the time and that is a pro event (money purse). There is an entire herd of these kids now that are beginning to creep into the pro level.

If there is an issue of clarification of whitewater competitions in any form that is needed, please ask and I will dig up the citations and references and post them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddrokayaker (talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Normalizing NSPORT

I've been watching this guideline get more and more detailed from the original passage (after ATH was challenged) and I'm very considered this is getting too far indepth as every sport (athletic or not) seems to be slicing out pieces.

I would strongly recommend that we step back and think of the bigger picture. Most of the criteria that I'm seeing across all sports include:

Playing at the international or national league(s) for that sport
Winning/placing at an international or national competition for individual/non-league sports
Winning a significant award at the international or national level for that sport
Induction into the sport's international/national hall-of-fame or equivalent

That's likely not perfect, but you get the idea.

From this, my suggest would be to

Simplify NSPORT down to these guidelines, giving no sport a specific callout
Have specific wikiprojects set up the specific qualifications for the sports within their own guidelines. For example, the American Football project can outline that playing in the All-star game or being inducted into the Football HOF is satisifying the fourth point above. Swimming can define what are the acceptable competitions that merit notability, etc.
Have a table to crossreference which WPs are handling which sports with pointers to their specifications on the above simplified points.

Now, that said, it should be understood that at AFD, while NSPORT is accepted as a guideline, when things start to get into the realm of a Wikiproject, AFDer's may be less likely to accept a statement that supercedes existing GNG and SNG guidelines. So for example, if the American Football project stated that the waterboy for the Super Bowl winning team is notable just because, it will likely be rejected. But as long as the wikiprojects follow the general criteria given above and only stated explicitly what type of events or awards or competitions apply to that sport, we should be all good. I would also encourage that the wikiprojects spell out what their project considers as reliable sources that are otherwise not obvious to other editors (eg, I'd expect no one would question ESPN or Sports Illustrated, but you'd want to identify "Tennis Weekly" as a reliable source with editorila control and fact checking .See how the Video games project did this at WP:VG/S) That will help find sources to meet the GNG and avoid issues with questionable meeting of SNG and Wikiproject guides.

This would mean for example that if chess players wanted to create a notability guideline for them, they would identify the aspects of the simplified rules that apply to them, create that guideline, and then simply add a link to the above table. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the various Wikiprojects did in fact pen the notability criteria for their own sports.
That was the point.
It was painfully obvious, and obvious for years, that portmanteau criteria did not work. There are sports for which leagues below the One Major League are considered notable. There are sports for which they're not. There are team sports where amateur leagues are considered notable. There are sports for which they're not. There are sports for which teenagers can and have been highly notable, and others in which they're never considered so. Different sports have different awards, often times competing halls of fame, different takes on how many games played at which levels confers notability. And, truth be told, I see absolutely no benefit to portmanteau "standardization." "Too far indepth?" What does that mean? Why is that bad? What is served by making the standards vaguer and more generic? What makes setting down the precise criteria for notability undesirable? Ravenswing 19:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that sports notability can be overwhelming, but the previous generic qualifications resulted in a lot of debate at AFDs trying to decide what exactly constituted playing at a top level in their sport. These more explicit guidelines have made things clearer. I don't see any advantage to chopping the sport specific details off to a Wikiproject's sub-page. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
While RGs suggestions may make the page look prettier, I would rather have a bunch of editors be able to police and explain to eachother the guidelines for all sports than have it up to project pages. This way we keep the debates of what are good guidelines here as opposed to on AFDs where arguments will get heated and distract from the main AFD issues. --MATThematical (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability in Hockey

I'm just a little baffled. Nail Yakupov has been nominated for deletion because it is deemed not meeting the criteria for hockey notability. This leads me to wonder if there need to be added stipulations to what makes a hockey player notable. The reasons I have given, copied verbatim from my post on the deletion discussion (with a couple of additions), are as follows:

4th in scoring for the current OHL season, even a notch above Ryan Ellis
He has been OHL Rookie of the Month thrice (here are two, January and February)
Shoo-in for OHL or even CHL Rookie of the Year (not announced yet and thus WP:CRYSTAL right now)
Critical commentary by commentators that he may be a #1 NHL draft pick (not just fans, which would run smack into WP:CRYSTAL)
He has participated in international competitions (including the 2009 World Junior A Challenge); I forget the name of another he took part in near the start of the season that received Sportsnet coverage (I have learned that the 2009 event named does not constitute acceptance per the standards given the ages in the competition)
He has broken the Sting rookie scoring records previously held by Steven Stamkos, in particular the 42 goal mark (Yakupov had 49, here's proof of 43) and the 92 point total (Yakupov had 101) - in fact, his name is even listed on the Sarnia Sting page since he holds the record in question.

So with such a big resumé already for a rookie player, it shocks me that he does not meet the guidelines for a notable player, and it makes me question whether there should be other forms of inclusion that make someone notable. For me, if a player holds a team record in any league, he is notable. For instance, for the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds, Kyle Gajewski also deserves an article being the top goalie the team has ever had. If he ever gets topped in that record, he may lose notability. But I think he's notable; when I see he holds the record, it makes me want to know more about the player in question. This is something that I think should be considered for notability. Maybe I am alone in that belief, and I'm not advocating this in an attempt to save the Yakupov article (which it would indirectly ATM, but he will have other notability possibly within weeks and thus I'm not concerned), but it is my belief. Often top team rookies end up with Rookie of the Year as well, but that would be crystal-balling of course to say that before he wins any award. NEway, what are others' opinions? CycloneGU (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to bring it up at WP:HOCKEY. For players that don't meet the requirements here they fall to WP:GNG. Basically what you list above isn't generally considered a big resume to indicate lasting notability. There are many junior players who do well in junior and are never heard from again. Notability isn't temporary, so its not a case of he is notable now but might not be later. This notability guide is meant to be an almost guarantee that the player is notable. However they still have to pass the GNG, and this guideline is a good example of when a player is likely to. It is exceedingly rare that junior players meet notability standards. Your example of Kyle Gajewski is actually a good example of why few junior players meet the requirements, he has done nothing since leaving junior. These guidelines are partially designed to eliminate players who fade into nothing without every truly being notable. Players like Kyle Gajewski however would be welcomed at the Ice Hockey Wiki where notability isn't a concern.-DJSasso (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My bafflement here is in why you are so shocked, CycloneGU. This isn't a case of hidden requirements you're not seeing; it's a case that we have set the bar higher for presumption of notability than you would like. There have been hundreds of players over the years who've been in the top ten of league scoring, have participated in U-18 international competitions, were considered high draft prospects at one point or another and set team rookie records who never went on to do anything or be anyone in hockey. Our bar states that if Yakupov was a top ten career scorer in the OHL, he'd meet the criterion; he does not. It states that if he's won a major award issued by the league, he'd meet the criterion; he has not. Neither has he been a first round draft choice nor played in senior international competition. When he does - not if someone thinks he might - then he'll qualify under NHOCKEY. Until he does, he doesn't. Ravenswing 05:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Ravenswing, I think my initial shock at the deletion nom. comes from the fact that - if you consider last year's Rookie of the Year - Yakupov is in a virtually identical situation having achieved the Rookie of the Month title three times (we cannot of course speculate on whether he'll get a fourth for March, but not being able to play in the playoff round hurts those chances by a week). He is a near certainty shoo-in for at least the OHL Rookie of the Year, and maybe for the CHL one (I'm not familiar with the other two league's top rookie players). With those awards being so close to being announced, and since Rookie of the Year ought to be a big deal in terms of awards (best rookie player in the league, makes sense to me), I've actually proposed a delay with possible revisit to the AfD. If for some reason he doesn't get Rookie of the Year honours by some 2% shot to the moon chance, then Rookie of the Month thrice would most likely not be enough and I may be forced to agree with deletion. April 8 (or whenever) is extremely close, however, and deleting for procedure only to recreate in two weeks makes no sense, so a revisit seems best.

As for career top ten scorer, however...one COULD make the argument that his entire OHL career is as a top ten career scorer based on his only year playing. Of course, that would suggest articles needed for all ten players (and some of them already have articles, some don't). And I'm not making the argument, just pointing out it's a loose statement. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Top 10 Career scorer means that he is sitting in 10th or better place for career point total in the league. He isn't even remotely close to being one of the 10 highest scoring players in league history. Not yet anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, a completely different meaning than I took that to mean. Fair enough, you are correct there. CycloneGU (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Association football clubs and Leagues

Considering the opening statement of this guideline is "used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization' will meet the general notability guideline" I think somehow the "club" and "league" sections of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability should be included here in some form.--ClubOranje^T 09:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you post those guidelines here so that the general community can take a look at them and ask questions and possibly edit if need be before we put them up on the main page? --MATThematical (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure: direct from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability....

Club notability

All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.

League notability

All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable.
All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable.
All other leagues are assumed non-notable unless they can be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.

--ClubOranje^T 09:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't follow that many countries football leagues, are there countries where leagues that are not at the highest level can make the national cup? I think these guidelines look fine, but from an outsiders perspective some of them seem redundant. --MATThematical (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Any club above level 10 (I think) can enter the FA Cup. Any club in New Zealand with a senior side playing in a competitive league can enter the Chatham Cup. There are other examples...it is actually quite common.--ClubOranje^T 22:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To Clarify, leagues have to have clubs in them that are eligible for a national cup to be notable, and clubs have to have actually competed in a national cup in order to be guaranteed notability. This sounds completely reasonable. --MATThematical (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

parallel discussion moved from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#FOOTYN_club_notability

This section has been moved from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#FOOTYN_club_notability so we might garner a consensus to include relevant criteria into the guideline by keeping all discussion in a single place.--ClubOranje^T 10:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Our project-specific guideline, WP:FOOTYN, states that for a club to be assumed notable they must "have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists)". However, when it comes to minor English clubs many editors seem to disregard this, claiming that playing at Level 10 of the English football league system is enough to infer notability. A couple of recent AFD discussions (1, 2 and probably more) show that the guideline that was supposedly a result of consensus between the members of this project is considered meaningless. The reason for this is apparently that Level 10 clubs are eligible to play in the FA Cup, but that is not enough to establish notability according to NFOOTY. It's time to start following the rules we set out on that page, or get some consensus to change the wording of them and clear this up once and for all. Big Dom 16:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

An early but close variant to the club notability at FOOTYN was added by King of the North East (talk · contribs) back in April 2009 - my memory doesn't stretch that far so I'm not sure if that was the result of a discussion here or not. I'm no expert on club notability AT ALL so somebody who is (ChrisTheDude? Number57?) will be able to explain how/why we reached the Level 10 cut-off point. Giant Snowman 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A historical memoir: That page is an essay, more's the pity, not a guideline. The players section was discussed to death, in possibly the last serious policy discussion this project ever had, and unfortunately, when editors here assumed it'd actually mean something if used at AfD/DRv, the big people at WP:BIO told us to go away and play nicely amongst ourselves. You'll notice that the players section bears little relation to that at WP:NFOOTY, which is what counts. The clubs section which you've quoted from, was formulated one day by someone, agreed to by I think one other person, and boldly added. Many of the football editors at the time had lost so much motivation when the guideline they'd thrashed out at length, and which had got consensus, was summarily ignored, that nobody much cared. A consensus certainly used to exist, since before my time, that what is currently called level 10 (but wasn't always) confers notability, because it's the level at which clubs are eligible for national cups.

As to the actual wording of WP:FOOTYN#Club notability, you've misread it slightly. The first thing it says, is that "teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists)" are assumed notable. The second is that teams "that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria". It doesn't speak at all on teams that are eligible for national cups but haven't played in one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad calling it a guideline when I meant essay, but I didn't misread it at all. I saw that the second part about teams passing WP:N if ineligible for cups. The fact that there was nothing in place to deal with teams in the intermediate situation of being eligible but choosing not to play was what finally persuaded me that it needed bringing up here. Nobody can deny that if these clubs played in a different country outside the UK and hadn't played in the national cup their articles would not be kept, so I really think that we need to get something written down that can be followed and applied in future. Big Dom 17:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have read too much into your suggesting we should follow the rules as set out on that page despite their being indeterminate. I do agree that when consensus is reached on something, we should write it down, it'd save a lot of hot air being expended to no effect. Are you aware that club notability was raised recently at WT:NSPORT#Association football clubs and Leagues? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that it had been discussed there, I don't have that page on my watchlist. There isn't really anything there that expands on what we have though. Cheers, Big Dom 18:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

One problem with the "eligible for the national cup" criteria is that everyone had best get very busy in order to cover every team that played in this year's Coupe de France. About 7,500 teams took part. Maybe a "one size fits all" solution is not viable? Are we making a guideline that works for english clubs but not ones from other countries? I'd like to see the argument when an team article is spared deletion because they once played in the first round of the 1987 Burundian Cup...
One other problem is the definition of "national cup". Some counties have many cups: in England there's the FA Cup, League Cup, FA Trophy, FA Vase, FA Interleague Cup. I would say that the FA Cup is the national cup, but others believe that entering the FA Vase denotes notability. Dom makes a good point about if it were not England. If there was a cup for level 9-11 clubs in another country (e.g. Egypt, Mongolia, Ecuador) would that give notability or are we being biased towards english teams?
Finally, the guideline seems to be missing info on the point at which a season article become notable. I assume it's the same level at which leagues become notable i.e. to the level that gives eligibility to enter the national cup. Delusion23 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Level 10 was agreed after extensive discussion on here a couple of years or so back. TerriersFan (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I could accept level 10 as a cut-off point for English clubs, but what about clubs in the other 200 or so countries? The "playing in a national cup" rule doesn't work – in France over 7,000 teams from as low as Level 14 are allowed to enter the Coupe de France, while only teams from the top 4 Italian leagues can enter the Coppa Italia. I found the discussion from almost 5 years ago when it appears that level 10 was agreed upon, specifically for English clubs. But much has changed in 5 years; there are many more WPF participants nowadays and most of the editors who discussed it there haven't been seen in years. Big Dom 19:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically any team can participate Estonian Cup also. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to do it on a country-by-country basis. For the United States, it's the top four levels (MLS, NASL, USL-Pro and PDL/NPSL) that are eligible for the cup each year, plus a handful of amateur teams which come through a complicated regional qualification process. We've pretty much come to the agreement that all clubs in the level 1-4 leagues are inherently notable, and then amateur teams are given articles as and when they make the final stages of the cup. JonBroxton (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

While a case-by-case basis is certainly a viable option, I'd like to make a few suggestions: For the entry into the domestic cup, we could use the number of teams that competed in a given round as an indicator of notability, for example: A team could be considered notable if it competed in the first round of the domestic cup in which 100 teams or fewer compete. Of course, this still has the Burundi problem brought up by Delusion23 and the multiple cup issue, but at least it would deal with cases like the Coup de France. The other option I had in mind was use league division in relation to the lowest fully-pro league in a country as an indicator, i.e. a team that has played three flights below the lowest fully pro league in a country, or in the top three flights if no fully pro league exists. Of course, this has some problems. For instance, I doubt that third division teams from Swaziland or Guam are particularly notable, but it might be a useful starting point. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts: 1. Eligibility for the national cup and an actual appearance in it are two separate things. The guideline - if it ever sees the light of day - should only be concerned with the latter, e.g. notability should be based on whether the club has played matches in the top national knockout competition. 2. If that would be the case we would obviously need a cut off point as cups with a massive number of entrants usually have a number of preliminary rounds before top level or second level clubs enter. Why wouldn't we take that as a rule and turn it into something like "a club is notable if it reached a stage in the national cup competition at which professional league/top flight teams enter"? I'm not sure which level in France is fully pro but I assume this would mean Round 5 or Round 7 in the current Coupe de France format; first round proper in the FA Cup, first round in the Croatian Cup, etc. 3. This rule would also render the "what is considered a cup?" issue irrelevant as basically if the competition is not entered by professional league teams then it simply does not contribute to the club's notability. Another criterion for determining what is a notable cup is if clubs can win spots in continental competitions through it. Timbouctou 01:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

End of moved section

I think the problem with using an arbitrary cut off point in the league system to determine notability is that the non-league football system has constantly changed over the last 40 years. I can easily verify, for example, that Wigan Rovers played in the FA Cup on four occasions during the late 60s/early 70s, but I have no clue what "level" the Lancashire Combination league would be considered to be at.

Obviously common sense has to be used for cases like France where thousands of teams enter every year, or a country like Germany where only 64 teams can enter the main cup, but if we use English club notability as a rough guide we should be able to come up with a sensible solution for most countries. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Would that be basing it on the currently "accepted" notability guidelines for english football or new ones? I think it isn't right that every english team that played in the FA Vase (even the qualifying rounds) automatically gets an article. It's an amateur competition, even if it is run by the FA. If we applied this to other countries (i.e. give an article to every team that plays in amateur cups in every nation) we would end up with an incredible number of stubs. Even if their appearance is verifiable, I don't think appearances in a amateur competition can make a team notable. Delusion23 (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I've never understood where the notion that FA Vase appearances make a club notable has come from. The FA Vase is clearly not the national cup of English football. Big Dom 17:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I never considered the FA Vase to be honest. It seems to be another unwritten consensus that was established at some point. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it's the unwritten consensus that keeps articles like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 (and many more) from being deleted. If these weren't English teams they'd have been deleted years ago, but because the they played in an amateur football competition in England they are deemed notable. Plus there's an unwritten consensus about keeping articles about teams that have at some point played in a league that was at that point considered level 10 in English football, regardless of whether they played in a national cup competition as seen here: Example. I personally think there should be a standard for each country, or at least a broad standard for counties with similar numbers of entrants into national cups. However, the one for English football teams currently stretches too far. It should be FA Cup (national cup) or GNG otherwise no article for English football. Delusion23 (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think clubs appearing in the FA Vase are notable. This is a major non-league tournament, and whilst it's not the premier cup in England, it receives a lot of coverage. Also, for new/reformed teams to enter the FA Cup they have to have first played a season in the Vase (or Trophy). I haven't checked the lists of entrants, but I think a fair proportion of Vase entrants have also played in the FA Cup so it's not like a huge number of extra teams would be allowed this way. My understanding is that Vase entrants need to have a floodlit ground, so it's not like these are real parks teams. I'm not sure there's much validity in trying to come up with an arbitrary cup competition/league level rule to be applied for all countries. I think case by case would be better. Eldumpo (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

While it's true that entrants need to have a floodlit ground (as well as a host of other requirements), the competition is open to level 11 teams. That is over 300 teams that aren't eligible for the FA Cup. Big Dom 12:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Does the eligibility criteria for the Vase stipulate what minimum level in the pyrmaid the team must be at? But in any case, notability should be placed on actually playing in the competition rather than eligibility. Eldumpo (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the FA website, the Vase is open to teams from Steps 5-7 of the non-league pyramid (i.e. Levels 9-11) as long as the club's ground meets the requirements. Big Dom 19:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability of college basketball players with large fanbase

There are some active AfD discussions involving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Watts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie McDonald that perhaps can be more directly addressed in NSPORTS to save from similar future prolonged AfD debates. At a very high level, the active college player has not won any major awards yet, but is argued to have gained sufficient coverage under WP:GNG. They play for the North Carolina Tar Heels, and the team receives a significant in-state coverage from multiple media outlets. However, there does not seem to be much non-trivial coverage from articles not based in North Carolina. The press includes heavy coverage about the recruiting of the athlete from high school, their eventual signing by the school, and then a few dedicated articles each year on the player's prospects coming off the bench and contributing more to the team or general interviews on how their season has progressed. Some of the issues are:

Can notability be diminished if sources are "local coverage" at a state level, and it is not limited to school or local city press where Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Indiscriminate_sources might more readliy apply?
Does a player that belongs to a school program with a large fanbase naturally inherit notability since a large number of sources who serve the team's fanbase are covering the team and inherently its players in a non-trivial manner? —Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this article covers this by saying that the coverage can not be WP:ROUTINE. Basically there are articles about all sorts of routine things, like an interview with a player right after they score a touchdown on a college team by the local paper. That does not mean they are notable. Its not that the articles can't be local (although they can't be college papers, due to independence rules) its that it can't be things like box scores, play by plays, and routine coverage of an event. If it is several in depth articles from multiple local papers that is fine. But I think articles about high school prospects in the local section of a sports paper and where they are going to college is routine coverage. I think there is a bit of gray area here. --MATThematical (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This basic issue was discussed when Wikipedia:Notability (sports) was adopted as a guideline, passing by the narrowest of margins. At that time, many editors (myself included) objected that the guideline could be interpreted to require national media coverage for athletes. In order to allay such concerns, the proponents of the guideline repeatedly assured us that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) would not prevent a college athlete from qualifying if they met the WP:GNG standards. Examples of the assurances provided include:

cbl62: "I'm opposed to any guideline that would set a higher notability standard for athletes than business people, academics, politicians, entertainers, etc. ... If someone meets GNG, that should suffice."
DJ Sasso in response to cbl62: "Please bare in mind that not meeting this page doesn't mean they can't have an article, they can still get an article if they meet the GNG. This page is just a guideline as to when someone is likely to already meet GNG."
MATThematical: "This article is to provide guidance saying when someone is extremely likely to have significant coverage. There will be many athletes that do not satisfy this article that may satisfy GNG. For these athletes sources must be in the article or presented at AfD in order to avoid deletion."
Royalbroil: "I Oppose any policy that requires a higher standard that GNG."
MATThematical in response to Royalbroil: "But it doesn't give a higher standard than GNG, anyone who passes GNG gets an article. This provides guidance to say when an athlete likely passes GNG (but sources are not blatently obvious in a Google search). Of course amateurs can be notable, this is why there is an amateur section, and as said before anyone who passes GNG is considered notable."

Watts is not the best test case, as he's not a starter for North Carolina. But there's a principle here that's much more important than him. Everyone (I think) agrees that coverage of an athlete in a small hometown newspaper (the oft-used example of the high school QB being written up in the local paper) isn't going to cut it. But substantial non-trivial coverage in major metropolitan dailies (e.g., The Washington Post, The New York times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, etc.) has always been considered enough to establish notability under WP:GNG. Athletes aren't and shouldn't be held to a different WP:GNG standard than others. The requirement is significant non-trivial coverage by independent news sources whether the subject is an athlete, TV personality or businessman. There's a fair amount of gray as to when news coverage is enough, and we need to exercise good judgment in such cases. But we clearly ought not to adopt a rule that requires athletes to have national news coverage. That would be contrary to WP:GNG and constitute a complete reversal of what was discussed when Wikipedia:Notability (sports) was adopted. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment The introduction of NSPORT states "[p]lease note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb..." The introduction also states "[f]ailing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways." While discussions tend to treat these criteria as absolute, these criteria are still merely rules of thumb.

This criteria serves as concrete guidelines to be used in establishing notability. This criteria tends to be more strict than necessary to ensure articles that meet this criteria are actually notable. More importantly, this criteria is generally objective. For example, did a rugby player compete in a test or first class match? This is a yes or no question that allows an editor to quickly establish notability.

I think this opens Pandora's Box. What is a 'large' fan base? Only the biggest of big (e.g., in college basketball - UNC, Kentucky, UCLA)? Only the Power Six conference (e.g., Northwestern would be notable but Butler and UNLV would not)? I dont know if you could make an appropriate objective guideline for this.

Therefore, I think its best to leave this to WP:GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I definitely did not intend to argue for adding a new criteria to automatically allow players from teams of large fanbases. I was merely pointing out that more sources are likely to exist for teams with large fanbases, thus making it more likely for "marginal" players on those teams to get notable coverage. —Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Im not sure how these quotes that have been mentioned are related to the issue here. The argument is that the athletes presented don't necessarily meet WP:GNG, WP:GNG says that the sources must not be WP:ROUTINE and must WP:DESRIMINATE. WP:GNG overrides anything here, all athletes who meet WP:GNG are notable, but for these test cases it is not clear that they actually meet WP:GNG, and that is the issue. --MATThematical (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The quotes I offered were relevant for two reasons. First, some participants in the Justin Watts debate argued that WP:GNG could not apply to save a college athlete if they failed WP:Notability (sports). That is inaccurate, as everyone here has confirmed. Second, some participants argued that an athlete (unlike any other class of person) must have coverage in the national news media. That also is inaccurate, as everyone here seems to agree. On that much, there appears to be agreement. There may be disagreement over what constitutes WP:ROUTINE (e.g., statistical reporting, passing references in game coverage) and WP:DISRIMINATE, but those are issues that are best sorted out on a case-by-case basis. Cbl62 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I like Cbl62's point in another page that if politicians are allowed articles if their notability is established in a single state's media outlets, then why should there be an exception for college athletes. However, whereas the high school section mentions "The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.", I think the college section would be served well to have a similar note. Also, if there are consistent theme's in Afd debates such as debate over what is WP:ROUTINE, I would think putting recommendations here—where feasible—would save everyone a lot of time better spent writing articles. —Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The college section already states "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Even the high school section does not preclude use of articles specifically about the player in local or sports specific publications. But high school athletes are much less likely to attract that level of attention than college athletes, so it is worth emphasizing the fact that most local or sports specific coverage is routine for high school athletes. Rlendog (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not looking to preclude any player that qualifies under WP:GNG. What I would like to see are improved guidelines to decrease ambiguities that crop up in AfDs. The noted differences in the HS verbage from college are specifically addressing "local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications" and "routine interviews". It's inclusion for HS is either valid and can equally apply to college, or should be stricken from the HS section as being too restrictive. —Bagumba (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a practical difference between the two versions. Nor is one more restrictive than the other. The HS version just adds a reminder that most local coverage of high school players fits routine. Since so much of teh local coverage for HS athletes is routine, it is worth reminding editors of that fact. This is less of an issue for college coverage, since college athletes are much more likely to get significant coverage. I would be concerned that adding the reminder to the college section could be interpreted as implying that even a full length story about a college athlete in local or sorts-specific media would be considered routine, and thus just add to the ambiguity. Rlendog (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If I remember the discussions when that part was added to the Highschool section, that was exactly the reason it was added. Almost all coverage of highschool sports is routine, whereas college athletes that isn't the case. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the routine coverage issue is more of a problem with high school than college. However, I think a lot of editors mistakenly or not limit college players to those who have won major honors. I am seeing college players with what IMO is "routine coverage", however they have multiple "local media" outlets due to the schools location in a major metropolitan city (e.g. Los Angeles with LA Times, ESPNLosAngeles.com, Los Angeles Daily News, Orange County Register, etc) or tremendous following within a state (e.g Ohio State, North Carolina). I think the key term that is often used in NSPORTS is "examples" so that they are not interpreted as blanket statements. Without some minor changes, I feel that fancruft from various large schools creeps into WP, which may or may not be the intent. The AfDs for those will have long discussions and disparate viewpoints because of the ambiguity in notability. —Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Bagumba. The vast majority of college athletes aren't notable, and they don't have feature stories written about them in major metropolitan newspapers. I gave examples above of AfD's that have appropriately resulted in "Delete" rulings. Another pending now is Roshon Vercher. He was a three-year starter at a BCS school, but there just isn't substantial coverage and the article will likely be deleted. But this notion that most college football players have feature stories written about them is wildly inaccurate. WP:ROUTINE suggests we discount coverage that consists of mere statistical summaries or passing references in game coverage. WP:DISCRIMINATE suggests we discount a source which provides indiscriminate coverage of every player (for example, a special insert to a local paper containing a short write-up about every player on a team). But I absolutely don't agree that we should be discounting feature stories about college athletes published in major metropolitan newspapers that exercise editorial independence. Players who have been the subject of such coverage are every bit as notable as anyone else. Feature stories in eminently reliable sources are most definitely not "Fancruft" as can be seen from a review of the article on that topic. In some cases, a "WP:ROUTINE" objection may have merit when an article does nothing more than announce that a player has committed to School A or signed with Team B. But it's inappropriate to ignore actual feature stories written about an athlete -- such stories are the antithesis of "routine" coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not an easy question. My instinct is that McDonald is OK for an article. He plays a lot, and I quickly found articles about him in a couple of sizable daily newspapers as well as various basketball sites. Watts is more of a borderline case. He only plays a few minutes a game, averages less than 2 points and most of the articles about him I saw in a quick search were about his recruitment to UNC when he graduated. On the other hand, I know that UNC has a huge and passionate fan base. Let's say Kendall Marshall gets hurt and Watts comes off the bench and score 25 points. A lot of people are going to be wondering "who is this guy?" and looking for information on him. So I guess these things have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Being on a big-time team doesn't mean someone should automatically get an article, but it should be part of the consideration. The fact that articles are in local papers rather than national media shouldn't disqualify them as sources. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think the problem is that for the most part all local coverage of HS athletes is routine. While the majority of local coverage may be routine for college athletes not "almost all" of it is. The geographic issue of local vs. regional vs. national is tough. For example lets take a small college town. This small college town has a local paper that is not a college paper but considering that half or more of the community is college students and employees the local paper pretty much reads similarly to a college paper. Do we then call feature stories in this paper coverage that goes towards notability. Similarly, what about a local section of a major paper like the LA times. My thought is that you don't need national coverage, but you do need coverage that is independent. I am not sure a paper talking about the "local team" which has a vested interest in promoting it is independent. Its really a tough issue and I don't seeing it being easily solved. --MATThematical (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of criteria

For the criteria mentioned in the second sentence in bold, is it referring to the criteria in WP:GNG or the criteria in WP:NSPORTS?

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria.

If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways.

I think the intention is that all articles must demonstrate GNG in the article and NSPORTS is just an indication whether GNG is likely to be met, as the article later says:

Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.

If my interpretation meets consensus, I propose adding the underlined text to avoid confusion in AfDs:

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria of the general notability guideline.

—Bagumba (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are basically right in what you say, however, community consensus in creating NSPORTS was against adding that line. Because the GNG is also just a guideline which on occasion can be ignored. And some sections of this guideline particularely about highschool sports is meant to limit people that pass GNG from getting articles even though they pass GNG. So its a bit of both. That specific sentence however, is talking about NSPORTS. It other words its saying you have to provide sources that it passes the criteria in NSPORTS, which may or may not mean it passes the GNG. ie while a source may proove you won the MVP, it may not proove you are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

GNG already has this criteria

Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.

I propose we use NSPORTS to detail criteria for sports where the presumption of GNG should be overruled, and thus have NSPORTS be fully compliant with GNG, and close a gap where there is ambiguity between whether GNG or NSPORTS should be followed. —Bagumba (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On that I wish you luck. We barely managed to get NSPORTS passed which is much stricter than the old ATHLETE. ie it only passed by like 55%. I forget the exact number. Trying to make it stronger is very much unlikely to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That would mean that NSPORTS establishes a presumption for overruling GNG. That is totally, 100% contrary to the proposal and discussion for the passage of NSPORTS. Cbl62 (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not looking to overrule GNG. I am proposing that NSPORTS requires GNG, but only serves to clarify for sports when it is likely a subject will have sources that can meet GNG, and when GNG's presumption might not be suitable. At a higher level, what I really want is to clarify NSPORTS for AfD discussions where there seems to be ambiguity and disjoint opinion about how GNG and NSPORTS coexist. But if nothing else, can we clarify if criteria in the sentence "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria" is referring to GNG or NSPORTS criteria? —Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The underlined text contradicts the next paragraph. The NSPORTS guidelines provide guidance for when GNG is likely to be met. Thus it is unnecessary to demonstrate that GNG is met separately. Rlendog (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a contradiction, as NSPORTS currently says it is "likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article", the key word being likely. In any event, even if there is no consensus to tie NSPORTS any closer or further to GNG, at the very least the criteria in the second sentence in bold should be clarified whether it is referring to the GNG criteria or the criteria in NSPORTS as it is ambiguous. —Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTY redefined

WP:NFOOTBALL's definition of notability for people involved in association football should be redefined. It relies on wikipedia's definition of whether a league is fully professional or not. A much better indication of notability is the UEFA coefficient http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Uefa_coefficients#Current_ranking Take Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, that league is ranked higher than the Finnish Veikkausliiga, yet wikipedia's definition of notability means that players in Bosnia and Herzegovina aren't notable while players in Finland are. I propose basing the notability requirement for players in European leagues around the UEFA Coefficients, 41st place and higher, i.e. including all leagues with a coefficient greater than 4.000 that have 1 UEFA Champions League place and 3 UEFA Europa League places. Hsetne (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you propose to do it for the rest of the world?--ClubOranje^T 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you could treat each continental governing body separately so that the above would stand for Europe/UEFA, maintaining the status quo for other continents until a solution for each of them is devised. An all-in-one global solution would be to use the IFFHS Top 100 Strongest National Leagues in the World: http://www.iffhs.de/?b6e28fa3002f71504e52d17f7370eff3702bb1c2bb11 Hsetne (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that if Bosnia falls below 41st we have to delete all their player articles as they're no longer notable? The ranking changes each year after all. Also, why 41 as a cutt-off point? seems a bit arbitrary. Delusion23 (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that Bosnia and Herzegovina will fall to 4.000 or lower in the next 5-10 years. 4.000 requires reasonably decent results over a 5 year period. Yeah, it's a dynamic system, but it's a far better way of determining whether a league's players are notable or not. If a club in a "fully-professional" league signs a player on a part-time contract, all the players in that league would have to be deleted. There's no absolutely perfect system, but basing notability off established ranking systems is a much better indicator of notability. Hsetne (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments? Hsetne (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not Bosnia as an example, say Montenegro or Iceland. I'd say that the fact that a league is professional is a better indicator of noatablity as any player that is good enough will play professionally anyway. Your system is too dynamic and I don't like the idea of having to delete many articles as they suddenly become un-notable when the league falls. Notability shouldn't be that dynamic, it shouldn't deteriorate. Delusion23 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Delusion23. In modern day football, notability should depend on professionalism. Basing it on an arbitrary coefficient that changes from year to year and only applies to about 50 of the countries in the world is too variable. – Pee Jay 00:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A ranking of leagues by official governing bodies such as UEFA, or rankings by the IFFHS which is recognised by FIFA, is a far better indicator of notability than some watery definition of whether a league is fully pro or not. Those coefficients aren't arbitrary, they're calculated based on the performances of a league's clubs, in the case of UEFA Coefficients it's based on results in the Champions League and Europa League. They are a measure of performance. If a club in a "fully-professional" league signs a player on a part-time contract, then the players in that league are no longer notable according to wikipedia, or if a semi-pro club gets promoted into the league it's the same story. There are some leagues which are highly ranked which aren't fully professional, they might have some clubs which are or were fully professional, but also have part-time players. As Phantomsteve said, "if a player was notable in the past, they are still notable". Hsetne (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the footy requirements need to get alot more stringent to bring them inline with all the other team sports which restrict notability to the top league(s) in the world and x number of games in the lower pro leagues. Not sure how this sport slid through when we made all the other team sports stricter. -DJSasso (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the question above (I have no comment to make on the issue as a whole): Does that mean that if Bosnia falls below 41st we have to delete all their player articles as they're no longer notable? - my understanding is that if a player was notable in the past, they are still notable. The fact that their team may not be at the same standing as before doesn't make them un-notable in the past, surely? Even if a player joined the team and played the day before Bosnia fell below 41st, the fact remains that when they played, they met the notability criteria, and so remains notable - it's the same as if they died, we don't say "hang on, they aren't doing anything now, they're not notable"... PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But then how do we prove in say 20 years time that a particular player played 1 game at a time when the Liechtenstein league happened to be above 4.0000 points in the UEFA coefficient league? Does that really make them notable or does playing football in a professional capacity/international appearence make them notable? I'd say the latter. It would be very complicated and muddy the waters even more if we consider how the UEFA coefficient table is updated throughout the year so a team could move above 4 points half way through a season. Delusion23 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But how do we prove in say 20 years time that a particular player played 1 game at a time when a certain league was fully professional? Does that really make them notable or does playing football for a club in a league ranked highly by official governing bodies due to performances in international competition make them notable? I'd say the latter. As Phantomsteve said, "if a player was notable in the past, they are still notable". Hsetne (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the statements above that, if anything, WP:NFOOTY is currently too generous. Sure, it makes for a useful resource, but I'm not entirely sure its encyclopaedic. It makes little sense now to alter it and go round deleting articles, but I also see no benefit in extending it further. By demanding professionalism, or some other form of notability (ie international caps), then we at least have some standard. Pretty Green (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why representing countries like Bhutan and Montserrat should be considered playing at the highest possible level, shouldn't that be playing for a professional club? Cattivi (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is probably reasonable to say that footballers who play in top-level leagues in countries such as Slovakia and Bosnia will generally be more notable than players who have played international football for one of the lowest-ranked countries Eldumpo (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion; professionalism or international play are suitable benchmarks for football player notability. Giant Snowman 14:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with GianSnowman. JonBroxton (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't every international match then not be notable as well. Can someone become notable by definition because he once competed in a match that isn't really notable? Cattivi (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What about players who've played as full-time pros in leagues which have/had a mix of full-time and part-time players? They're not notable according to wikipedia's definition. Also, there are semi-pro leagues which are ranked higher than fully-pro leagues, so fully-pro doesn't fit the bill with regards to determining notability. Hsetne (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Then we deal with those few on a case-by-case basis when questions arise. Changing the policy now away from professionalism to a fluctuating coefficient would be like using a bazooka to kill a fly. The problem really doesn't seem to be as widespread as you think it is, and WP:FOOTY members are very good at self-policing the standards. I've been involved in dozens of AfD discussions where the rules have been applied firmly and non-notable articles have been deleted. JonBroxton (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Professionalism can fluctuate as well, all it takes is one part-time/semi-pro player in a league to make it non-notable. The rankings (UEFA or IFFHS) fluctuate but not wildly. Wikipedia says Georgia is fully-pro, but Bosnia and Herzegovina is 7 places above it in the UEFA coefficient rankings, Bosnia and Herzegovina is slightly more notable but wiki says it's not notable at all. Right now the notability criteria is like using a bazooka to kill a fly, it's OTT and just plain wrong. My suggestion is to use a fly-swatter. Hsetne (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than trying to say that 'Fully professional' leagues or UEFA league rankings is the best way of determining league notability for player articles, wouldn't it be better to create a proper list of 'notable leagues' based on the two criteria above and also measures such as attendances, media interest, sources etc. I think most of us are aware that the 'Fully professional leagues' page listing is somewhat of a workaround and that the sources in such a list can't possibly confirm that each league is really 'fully professional', and in any case would we really want to say that only 100% fully confirmed professional leagues are eligible for player articles? Why is that regarded as the mark for 'notability'? Eldumpo (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the sources in the list of 'Fully professional leagues' are questionable at best. I have doubts about a number of those leagues. Professionalism is dynamic as well so the situations may have changed since those sources were initially published.Hsetne (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are a great many areas in which this bright line for "fully professional" falls down, not least where it concerns anything at all before the Second World War and such plainly notable and historically important leagues as the Scottish First Division. At one time we allowed for exceptions in NFOOTBALL to cover for these before for some bizarre reason people decided that it had to be strictly enforced. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with this thought. When I've worked on this list in the past, it's just to make it easier for us all to comply with existing guidelines; I don't necessarily think it's the best guideline at all. matt91486 (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The current guidelines are strict enough and if anything don't provide enough give and take. Changing them to the new idea could only male things worse and open the floodgates as far as im concerned. would be better to re look at te guidelines we have rather than starting again. 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)

This proposal doesn't cover clearly notable lower division leagues at all. Complete non-starter. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As Eldumpo was suggesting, maybe a modified proposal, "create a proper list of 'notable leagues' based on the two criteria above and also measures such as attendances, media interest, sources etc." This would take into account notable lower divisions. Hsetne (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the proposed change, however do think something needs to be be done, two often a person who clearly does not meet the WP:GNG has a article just because they have played a few games of soccer with nothing but WP:ROUTINE reports of matches, or even just pages on club sites and any deletion discussion about the person gets "meets NSPORTS". The answer is to make this guide better reflect who is likely to meet the WP:GNG and that goes for both the English Premier League as much as Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina Mtking (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Match reports are always going to be the main source of information about football players, even those playing at the very highest levels of the game. Hsetne (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, NSPORTS is less inclusive on individual matches and more inclusive on individual players than GNG. Historically the differences become much greater than they are today. The way the media report about football has changed a lot over the years, and there are also regional differences. Cattivi (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

But a match report whose only reference to the player is in the team list without any narrative on how he (or she) played is not coverage, this guideline says in essence playing 60 seconds of a professional football game ANYWARE makes you notable for article where however in other fields you need to have much more of an impact. This guideline is needs changing as it is not fit for purpose. Mtking (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a difficult thing to tie down, but you've got a very valid point. Hsetne (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is when an editor assess the suitability of a player for an article the "one professional" game test is not a good measure as to does that player meets the WP:GNG (which is the only thing that matters), there are players who have yet to play any game that have received far more coverage because they are (for example) a talented youth player than those who have played one or two games and then vanished with out a trace. If a "number of games" element is to be included then the bar should be set higher, say 5 or 10 appearances. And to pre-empt the argument that such a change will make x number of players currently notable, now not notable, it won't, as any player currently notable under the WP:GNG is still notable under the WP:GNG and even if a player has yet to play, they can still have an article if the player has "significant coverage (i.e. that address the subject directly in detail) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mtking (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability guidelines: Tennis

The notability gudelines for the above-referenced sport seem to be a good bit more stringent than the notability guidelines for golf, for example. As a result many lower level players are routinely considered for deletion. For example, take Greg Ouellette currently under consideration for deletion. He has been ranked as high as 293 in the world and has competed in many of the sports top events, albeit not getting very far. Tennis BLP's seem to be relatively less well-developed in Wikipedia. The purpose of this posting is to open a discussion among the top tennis editors to see how they feel about the need to broaden our guidelines for inclusion. (e.g. consider anyone who has ranked in the top 300 or some other number as notable.)--Hokeman (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered that an extensive discussion was held on this topic last summer (see Archive 5), but it appears no action was taken.--Hokeman (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I like most of those proposed tennis guidelines from back in archive 5, except anything involving prize money. Prize money changes year to year, and while 25,000 dollars may be a high amount now it might not be in the near future. We shouldn't have to adjust the standard based on inflation. --MATThematical (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the only money is for the ITF Woman's Tournaments. However, these are less about money and more about level. The amount of money shown is indicative of the level of the tournament. Just like an ATP World Tour 250 even indicates that 250 ranking points are available to the winner, the $25,000 tournaments are a level of tournament that has $25,000 as a metric. To put another way, the ITF could simply call a $25,000 tournament a 50 tournament (indicating 50 ranking points available to the winner - just like the men's world tour does). The $25,000 is used to identify the caliber of the tournament by level, not necessarily by money. I am sure as inflation goes along, the ITF would change the metrics and the guidelines will need updated. But its not as if there is some $24,000 tournament out there missing the cut. The tournaments missing the cut are $10,000 tournaments that are the next ranking level down (see WTA Rankings#Ranking method). While I completely see your point to generally stay away from money as a guide, since this is the nomenclature used by the ITF I think in this instance it should stay.RonSigPi (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this is historic referencing. Imagine a page that read something like "for players before X, $25,000, for players between X and Y $50,000, for players who played between Y and Z $75,000...etc". The list would have to go on and on and on in order for players to keep their notability through NSPORT, which we would be somewhat obligated to do because notability is permanent. Is there anyway we can label the tournaments without prize money. Could we do something like ITF tournaments that give the highest prize money, or ITF tournaments that are in the top X% of tournament (during the given calendar year) in terms of prize money given out. --MATThematical (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I looked through the archive and could not find why $25,000 tournament wins are in and $10,000 are not. My guess is that if you win a $25,000 tournament, you win $25,000. That is enough money for someone to live for one year and thus be a pro athlete. On the other hand $10,000 is not. That being said, maybe this should be changed to "[t]he player has won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's tournaments, except those with the lowest monetary designation"? Other alternatives could be a) just include the $10,000 tournaments, b) base this on points (much like the ATP World Tour 250 tournaments give 250 points, make it based on Woman's tournaments that give 50 or more points to the winner), but this might give similar problems is the points system is changed, c) leave as is if no solution is available. I don't have a solution right now, but figured I would comment.RonSigPi (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the, "of the lowest monetary prize" exception works, or the points system also work. I like these better than actually listing the money--MATThematical (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cricket section

The notability guideline at WP:CRIN was developed after lengthy discussion and solid consensus by participants at the cricket Wikiproject. Tweaks there though have caused this guideline to become mismatched. I boldly changed this one to rectify as well as making it more succinct but it's been suggested that I notify here before doing so. See my talk page. I don't see this as controversial, so will reapply the edit in a day or so, unless someone can give me a good reason not to. Moondyne (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

On closer examination of this change, I do have an issue with this change, (setting aside the one game requirement which I don't think is a good enough marker) First-class cricket is a better term than Major cricket which is "more of a colloquial than an official term". Mtking (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FC cricket does not include the modrn short versions of the game, eg. T20 and limited overs. Thye're quite different things, hence the use of Major cricket. Moondyne (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A few questions on the relationship between GNG and NSPORT

I've a few questions on how these are supposed to interact in practice. User:Bagumba above did ask some similar questions, but that thread has gone quiet and I'd also like to expand the queries:

I think there should be some explanation of the link (if any) between the 'Basic Criteria' paragraph and the 'Notability guidelines on sportspersons'/sport sub-division sections. The basic criteria is essentially re-iterating GNG, yet the sport-specific criteria does not relate to GNG so I think there should be some wording clarifying this link. The reason for the need for such clarification is the text in the second paragraph of the intro "...meet the criteria set forth below" but as far as I can tell the criteria are conflicting.
The first sentence of the intro says that NSPORT is to help evaluate whether sports topics meet GNG, and thus warrant an article. For current players/leagues etc couldn't it be argued that there should be more than enough web information on a topic, and that if it's not available on the web there is an argument that the article will not meet GNG? I accept this does not apply to topics before the internet era, although to what extent were historical sports topics being considered in the writing of this guideline?
The second sentence of the intro states "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The first part of this sentence refers back to my 1st point. However, what is meant by "the inclusion criteria" - is this also the criteria within NSPORTS or does this mean the GNG?

I'd be grateful for any input to these points. Eldumpo (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason why the relationship between GNG and NSPORT may appear confusing, and that's because NSPORT was created in a very disorganized way. Though on the same page, many of the guidelines for specific sports were developed essentially independently and occasionally defined themselves in relation to WP:GNG in wildly different ways. (For example, the original NTRACK guideline clearly tried to assert itself, and not GNG, as the definitive word on track notability, while at the same time offering "significant international coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" as a possible criterion to meet.)

To clarify the whole mess just a little bit, NSPORT was unified under the introduction you're currently confused by. This put GNG back in charge, and any mention of GNG was removed from sport-specific guidelines as unnecessary and even contradictory. NSPORT became a guide to notability as defined by the unified standard of GNG, rather than by itself or by bits of itself. This process was itself messy, happening bit by bit, and was only really completed when NSPORT was promoted to an official guideline. So it's not that surprising if some bits are hard to interpret... Sideways713 (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thats not true, WP:NTRACK never tried to assert itself as a definitive source for track notability anymore than any other sport. Every guideline is specifically tied to WP:GNG as to when an athlete is likely to have significant coverage. Many sports had the meets WP:GNG in their infancy, since a somewhat complete intro was not written until after many of the sport specific guidelines were created.--MATThematical (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, and I note you also think that some of the text is confusing. Do you agree it would be worth re-wording some of it to make clearer the connection with GNG? Eldumpo (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly, and I see you already did a bit; well done.

I think part of the problem is that while NSPORT is quite clear about what it is, it doesn't make enough of a point about what it isn't; more specifically, that NSPORT isn't an excuse to keep sports-related articles that fail to meet GNG. Sure, it already says that, but the people actually applying this guideline seem to need it in great big caps. Sideways713 (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The change I made was quite minor really, and before I consider any real changes to the text I wanted to clearly understand the consensus view as to what the guidance is trying to say. Hopefully a few more people will respond here, and between us some text changes can be made to clarify the relationship between GNG and NSPORTS. Eldumpo (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria its referring to is the GNG. This page exists to indicate that even though the sources may not be quick at hand that it is likely there are sources somewhere that will meet the GNG and that you should probably not delete purely on the fact that you can`t find the sources in a two second google search. This page definitely took into account more historical sports topics as its mostly for them that this page is necessary for, to protect them from editors who are too lazy to go to microfilm etc to look at the sources. It also would apply for current players/leagues in countries where the internet isn't as big a factor as it is in places like North America. There are many many countries where notability would be more likely proven through news papers than the internet. I am also curious as to what you see as conflicting. The text at the top of the page clearly indicates that the criteria below are just a guideline for when its likely that sources exist to meet the GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what the criteria is referring to. I have added a Wiki link to it from the article as I think it needs to be made clear. What evidence is there though that if a person meets the sports-specific criteria that "it is likely there are sources somewhere that will meet the GNG". Just taking three examples from different sports (Baseball - Dan Stearns, Association Football - Vince Jack and Athletics - Folke Fleetwood); at present each has a single source which does not cover the subject in "significant" detail. Can we be so sure that sufficient sources exist for these types of articles - they are just examples and I haven't done a web search to look for sources. You mention microfilm but what kinds of coverage might this include for 'run of the mill' sportsmen - brief mentions in match reports, team line-ups, results? This is the kind of coverage that is often dismissed in my experience at AfD as "routine, trivial". My concern is over double standards, that the NSPORTS wording is suggesting that sufficient coverage will exist elsewhere, when this is not proven. Then, other articles that do not meet the sport-specific criteria, have their references pored over in detail at AfD, with the various sources often provided being considered as insufficient to meet GNG (too local, not an in-depth profile, just a brief mention in match report etc), when there are probably thousands of 'NSPORTS approved' articles that are way off having sources anywhere as good as those being deleted at AfD. Eldumpo (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that there are "thousands of 'NSPORTS approved' articles that are way off having sources anywhere as good as those being deleted at AfD." It doesn't take that much coverage to meet WP:N. If a subject can't meet that, I'm not sure how they can possibly have "way" more coverage than, say, a baseball player who played even a single Major League game. Perhaps some have a little more coverage, but there will always be gray areas. Rlendog (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously I don't know the exact numbers and it's hard to show too many examples as by definition the articles disappear after being closed for deletion. However, to try and illustrate my points a little this [2] football AfD gives an indication of the poring over references that goes on if an article does not directly meet the sports-specific criteria, although I accept that in the case of fan organisations then there is no specific criteria. This hockey AfD [3] only has two independent sources, but that is one more than, for example, Corey Foster.

Neither of the sources on that article contain significant information about the subject. In fact they are just listing that he won some awards. So they are insufficient to provide notability. They aren't independent either as atleast one the website for the team he is on. As for Corey Foster, just because there are no sources on the page doesn't mean there aren't any. Its pretty easy to find sources for almost anyone in hockey even waaaaaay below the level that Nsports is set at. When creating the criteria most of them were selected to be at a point where it is almost 100% sure that there will be. Now of course it is never truly 100% so there are some that don't. -DJSasso (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My reference to two sources for the hockey AfD was including the external link. Yes, they are not in-depth profiles, but as I said above, nor are the single references for thousands of stub sportsmen. They are often database entries, which I don't necessarily have a problem with, but a number of others do at AfD, and will criticise those sources for player articles that don't meet NSPORTS but be quite happy that they count as a valid reference for articles meeting NSPORTS - double standards. Re my point above, what kinds of significant coverage do you think will be found in paper sources - will it be any more than brief mentions in match reports - again the kinds of detail that would be dismissed in non-NSPORTS articles. Perhaps a slightly better hockey example is Mike Keeler. Can we be sure that significant sources exist for him that are not 'just' database entries or brief match mentions, or a profile in a local paper? Eldumpo (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That NSPORT's wording should suggest sources are likely to exist someplace if NSPORT is met is hardly surprising - after all, evaluating when GNG is likely to be met (i.e. sources are likely to exist someplace) is what NSPORT is for!

Yes, I suppose it reinforces the guideline but I'm just not convinced how factual it is. I think I would prefer "may be" rather than "likely" but then perhaps that would reduce the effectiveness of the guidance. Eldumpo (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true AfD is rather too polite to sports articles in cases where NSPORT's criteria prove overly lenient. All in all, it's a hairy problem. Sideways713 (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Jack or Fleetwood, but there are plenty of sources available on Stearns. I have added some to his article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

To answer the last part of your response, now that I have added a link to show that "inclusion criteria" means GNG then it may be more appropriate for "inclusion criteria below" to specifically refer to the sport-specific section? Eldumpo (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also been trying to get a clearer understanding of NSPORTS. First of all, its clearly stated that meeting NSPORT means it is likely—not guaranteed— that a person meets GNG. Secondly, local sites should not be inherently discounted for establishing notability unless the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Some editors will discount local sources on the basis that they are indiscriminate sources, but editors vary on credibility given to "local coverage" depending on the perceived reliability of the source (e.g. Los Angeles Times coverage of a run-of-the-mill local athlete vs an obscure paper's coverage of a similar athlete. I do agree that there is a potential loophole of a player meeting NSPORT, lets say the athlete played one day at the highest level, but no significant, non-routine coverage can be found that would support GNG. This is less likely to happen now compared to early 1900s with media obsession with sports. —Bagumba (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that, say, a baseball stats website which includes stats for various players that have hit a certain threshold (e.g. played in specified baseball leagues) should be regarded as "only" providing routine coverage of the topic. I don't think accurate, often-quoted/linked, extensive stats/database sites should be dismissed as lightly as they are at AfD. Eldumpo (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If a reliable stat site showed the player played at the highest level, that alone would cover NSPORT. However, for purpose of GNG for say a college player who doesnt automatically qualify for NSPORT, an argument would be that a stat site indiscriminately will list any player that played a game, so it wouldn't be suitable for GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want a clearer understanding of the difficulties that arise when you do research I can recommend reading the post by soccerhistory here: [4]. This one's also interesting: A Scottish international that got 'lost' over the years: [5] Cattivi (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused, because the question in this discussion seems to be whether additional notability criteria for any subject (not just sports) are per the GNG? The answer is that the additional criteria are community-defined reasons why a subject is likely to be notable because it is community-believed that, if a subject meets the additional criteria, that it is very likely that they have sources out there about them that will also have them meet the GNG. I don't believe this has ever not been proven to be so, for people who have bothered to do the research. The Additional Criteria for all subjects are necessary because most subjects are pre-internet and it is unlikely that enough sources will be found about them by searching on the internet. We are not trying to make an encyclopedia only about subjects whose information can be found on the internet, we're trying to create an encyclopedia about all human knowledge. And more than 90% of that knowledge cannot be found on the internet. Silver seren^C 09:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Silver seren: "we're trying to create an encyclopedia about all human knowledge..." I agree straight-up that the Internet cannot and should not be the only basis for locating information by way of establishing what person is or is not notable. That is as it should be. But I am not certain I agree with the claim that we are trying to make an encyclopedia of all human knowledge. We all know the mantra: "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of everything." And it isn't. Some things should be here, and others-- many, many others-- should not. We establish what gets included on the verifiability of notability. Just saying "This person is notable and I am sure if you or someone else did the research through non-internet-based resources I am sure you would see," cannot be an argument for notability. If you think a person deserves an article, is notable by some objective standard, then for jezuz sake don't ask ME to go find out-- the burden of proof should be on the individual who claims the person or topic is notable, not on the reader who doubts such a claim. Otherwise we end up with an encyclopedia of everything. Do we agree that that is not the point? KDS4444^Talk 21:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on wording amendments

There's been some good feedback above. I wanted to try and move things forward with some suggested wording changes. I've split them so people can comment on the individual points.

In the first sentence can we simplify to say "sportsperson or sports league/organisation", and why is there only the amateur qualifier for sports organisation? Eldumpo (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain the difference intended in NSPORT between a league and an organization when it refers to "sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization"? Are they supposed to be different or the same? NSPORT has a link to Professional sports league organization which talks generally about how leagues are organized around the world.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess some sports organizations might not self-describe as "leagues". I would support changing that sentence to: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." Much simpler. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented Trptofish' suggested wording, although from a glance through the entries there is currently very little guidance relating to sports leagues and organisations, so should some text on these be added. Also, why does the guidance not extend to clubs and teams? Eldumpo (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the first sentence amend the bolded text to say "...meets the general notability or sport specific criteria below". This could then allow the first sentence of the second para to be deleted. Eldumpo (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I support adding the proposed text, but 1st sentence in the second paragraph should still remain as it explains that meeting NSPORT means that it is likely that GNG is met, which is not a repeat of your proposed text saying that either GNG or NSPORT needs to be met.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bagumba: modify the sentence in the first paragraph that way, but don't delete the material in the second paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with this change as it could wrongly imply that this is an alternative to the WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the existing text already imply that NSPORTS is an alternative to GNG? Either "the article does meet the criteria set forth below" or "notability will need to be established in other ways".

If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the issue, the page starts with :

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.

Thus making it clear that the WP:GNG is the standard and this guide is there to help indicate what to look for. Far too often this guide is wrongly used as an alternate to WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. The relationship between NSPORT and GNG should be made clearer, not less clear, like the proposed edit would probably do. I might support moving the bolded text from the end of the 1st paragraph to the beginning of the 2nd, though.

I'd like to see DJSasso weigh in. Sideways713 (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was worded the way it was for exactly the opposite reason you are trying to avoid. It is saying that sometimes it can over rule GNG and that GNG isn't the only way to an article. Because parts of this guideline are meant to override the GNG, the parts for highschoolers etc. I would suggest leaving it as is. -DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be exceptions to every rule (see WP:IGNORE) however, I believe that the intention for the majority of cases, is that WP:GNG is meant to be the primary test of notability and the current ambiguity has lead to the situation where this guideline is taken over the GNG to the point that someone meeting the GNG is not seen as notable because they don't meet this one. It should not be beyond the the abilities of us here to come up with a wording that simply says that, this is a aid to interpreting the GNG to see if sports persons are likely to have meet the GNG, it won't get it right ALL the time and in some exceptional cases a sports person should have an article even if on the face of it they don't meet the GNG. Mtking (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have gone and made the change I referred to in the bold text of the intro - clarifying which criteria is referred to. Bagumba, Tryptofish and Sideways appeared to be in agreement with the change. DJSasso's response to Sideways post suggested he was against the change, but I'm not clear of the rationale for this based on his response. His 2nd sentence appears to agree that both GNG/NSPORTS are ways for an article to stay, and hence the wording change I made to try and make this clearer. I note Mtking was against the change. Anyway, based on the above I have made the change and it may well be it gets reverted/edited but if so please include reasoning here. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'Basic criteria' section should have some re-naming and wording changes. The first part of it is essentially reiterating the GNG, which is already referred to in the article. The second part could potentially be expanded, where we clarify our views further on the kinds of coverage that are generally regarded as acceptable or not e.g. databases, local papers etc. I think it would also be helpful to have some kind of disclaimer here about not being too black and white at AfD. Eldumpo (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Basic Criteria" is a summary of WP:N, which I think is helpful for a high level view without necessarily having to navigate to another page for details.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I think the section is helpful, and I'd have to see more specifically what changes are being proposed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Trying to quantify what kinds of coverage is reliable would just be a reiteration of WP:Reliable Sources and doesn't belong on this page. Would bloat the page even more than it is already bloated. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the introduction

I've got a few suggested changes/questions below relating to the second paragraph.

In the first part of the first sentence add "sport-specific" before criteria to tie in with text above. Eldumpo (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the wording need to say "stand-alone" article. What other articles would there be? Eldumpo (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Stand alone emphasizes that the topic may be elligable for a section in another article, but not an article by iteslf--MATThematical (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence of the para appears redundant, considering the bold text above which already states that articles must meet GNG or the sport-specific criteria. In what ways other than these could an article demonstrate notability? Eldumpo (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier, there are some sub-guidelines which confer notability without meeting GNG. Both in sports and other topic areas. This emphasizes that there are ways to meet notability other than GNG. Alot of work was done when the rfc was being made a guideline to avoid saying that GNG was the only way to an article. I think the proposal would have likely failed had it been a case of GNG and nothing but GNG. A number of people were vocal about not linking this completely to GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

When you refer to "some sub-guidelines" do you mean in addition to GNG and the specific criteria already outlined at this page? If so, a wiki link should be added to this text. I understand that it is not a case of being GNG only, and the second para's basic premise is that if articles can meet the specific criteria they are presumed to meet GNG i.e. they don't have to demonstrate GNG directly themselves. Eldumpo (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean other than GNG and the specific criteria on this page. Athletes can be notable for things other than sports. You can't link to everything. ie an athlete might go on to be a politician and qualify under the politician criteria. Often sports figures whether or not they go on to something else are measured against the sports criteria which isn't always correct, this indicates that even if the person is an athlete they can still qualify as something else. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have amended the text being referred to, and added a link to the other topic-specific guidelines, as I believe the issue of how articles gain notability is a key one. To be honest, the sentence in question reads the wrong way really, as it almost encourages other ways of gaining notability, rather than stating clearly the only ways you can have notability, so maybe it needs a re-write. Eldumpo (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that the bolded sentence prior to your change wasn't talking about notability in general but about the guidelines below. In otherwords you need sources proving that a player won the MVP award. Its not enough to just say they did. Remember that the prior sentence talks about how this page is a guideline for when GNG is likely to be met. So to say that the GNG would likely be met when the GNG is met is redundant. The sentence and most of this page is referring just to the criteria on this page itself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point you're making, but have re-inserted the wording as there was some consensus on this above. The addition of "general notability" to the bolded text is not an incorrect statement, and it helps to reiterate that an article must meet either of these two, and that in any case must be reliably sourced. Also, as we are talking about GNG immediately prior to the bolded text it makes sense to include GNG for completeness/clarity, else it could be read that GNG is not part of the equation at all. Eldumpo (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see what both of you are saying. I made an edit that, perhaps, will make it acceptable from either perspective, by trying to make it clearer that GNG isn't here in this guideline, but somewhere else. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with your amended text. Eldumpo (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(Alls I knows is, there's still way too many articles about Ukrainian midfielders (cf. Volodymyr Konovalchuk et al.) whose inclusion is based solely on NSPORT by way of evading the GNG. And I think it detracts from the project.) KDS4444^Talk 07:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)