GiantSnowman (talk | contribs) →Basic Criteria #5: Reply Tag: Reply |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →Basic Criteria #5: reply |
||
Line 518: | Line 518: | ||
:::::#Without ''in-depth'' sources, we can't write a complete article; it'd be a perma-stub, and that would violate WP:NOT |
:::::#Without ''in-depth'' sources, we can't write a complete article; it'd be a perma-stub, and that would violate WP:NOT |
||
:::::Over the years, the community has at times made some exceptions, such as NPROF. The exceptions are few and narrow, and they're policy-compliant per [[WP:IAR]]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 04:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC) |
:::::Over the years, the community has at times made some exceptions, such as NPROF. The exceptions are few and narrow, and they're policy-compliant per [[WP:IAR]]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 04:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::: I was asking for reasons rooted in the community's guidelines, not your personal opinions. (I know you have opinions.) Some of these opinions do not have community support - e.g., there is no "rule" against perma-stubs (that isn't what NOT says, for example). And your "rule" that at least three sources are required to triangulate NPOV is pretty hilarious and would be IAR if you tried to apply it in practice - but I think you know that. And I also think you know that the community support for GEOLAND and PROF is based in other pillars than IAR. |
|||
:::::: As far as your first four points go, which are less original, their logic do not require {{tq|two GNG sources}}, as the GNG itself does not. SIGCOV allows these qualities to be distributed among sources (as opposed to SIRS, which requires them to be present in each source) which means that, strictly speaking, all these GNG requirements can be met with no "GNG sources" at all. You have moved the unit of analysis where it does not belong, according to the guideline, and you have also set the actual sourcing in the article as the criterion for deletion, which violates ATA. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 11:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comment''' - the existing text is not great, IMO, but the replacement text doesn't seem better to me. Specifically, {{tq|does not indicate}} doesn't seem quite right to me, and seems to be based on an unusual understanding of what "indicate" means - I think {{tq|does not guarantee}} would get the point across better. |
'''Comment''' - the existing text is not great, IMO, but the replacement text doesn't seem better to me. Specifically, {{tq|does not indicate}} doesn't seem quite right to me, and seems to be based on an unusual understanding of what "indicate" means - I think {{tq|does not guarantee}} would get the point across better. |
||
But {{tq|indicates that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article}} means exactly the same thing as {{tq|indicates notability}}, so whatever hair is being split between this and GNG/NBASIC, or between presumptive Notability and AfD outcomes, this proposed text doesn't make sense of it, at least to this (reasonably experienced) reader. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 23:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC) |
But {{tq|indicates that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article}} means exactly the same thing as {{tq|indicates notability}}, so whatever hair is being split between this and GNG/NBASIC, or between presumptive Notability and AfD outcomes, this proposed text doesn't make sense of it, at least to this (reasonably experienced) reader. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 23:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:16, 29 April 2022
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Sport by sport review
What this needs, then, is a sport by sport review. For some sports it's obvious that the criteria are indeed "merely participate in one game"; for others less so, but this annoying cycle of reverts isn't going to stop until an agreement can be made about which sports are and which ones aren't. So, starting from the top: RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with a sport by sport review but, while it is ongoing, I propose no changes to any SNG until agreed below or, as with the Olympics above, evidence of pre-agreement can be demonstrated. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The first step of BRD is B, not D. If some of the changes are controversial, sure, discuss them below, but others are very obvious and shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- As the R of BRD has been done, we're now in the D phase. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- This seems like an unnecessary restriction since many of the criteria are straightforward and have not been objected to on participation-related grounds. I don't think it's right to revert the whole thing en masse and then insist that every change must now be discussed. –dlthewave ☎ 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- As the R of BRD has been done, we're now in the D phase. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The first step of BRD is B, not D. If some of the changes are controversial, sure, discuss them below, but others are very obvious and shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent idea, RandomCanadian. To keep everyone in sync I would suggest using this version, from before any of the criteria were removed, for reference. –dlthewave ☎ 14:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
American football/Canadian football
Removed. NGRIDIRON was the example given in RFC #3 of an SNG that would be removed if participation-based criteria were removed. There was consensus in the RFC to do that, and that's been re-affirmed here. Levivich 17:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
The only criteria is indeed purely and rather explicitly "participation in one game",
|
Association football (soccer)
Removed. There is consensus, though not unanimous, that both NFOOTY is participation-based criteria. The argument, "remove but only with replacement" contradicts the RFC result; local consensus here can't override the outcome of that RFC, which was to "remove", not "discuss a replacement". There is nothing wrong with discussing a replacement, and those discussions are ongoing, but there is no justification for not removing it per the RFC until a replacement is agreed-upon. Arguments about whether NFOOTY was or was not an accurate predictor of GNG are irrelevant at this stage; that's what was discussed at the RFC. Arguments about the NFL are also irrelevant here. The only relevant question is whether NFOOTY is "merit based" or "participation based", and consensus, though not unanimous, is that it's the latter. Levivich 17:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
Here again, both criteria are rather obviously "participation in one game",
|
Athletics
This one is just too complex. I'd be open to a suggestion to rewrite this entirely, independently of the "participation" issue (the numbers about which races might be notable, for example, seem quite arbitrary). Some sub-criteria might need removing (for example, there was consensus to remove mere participation at the Olympics without medaling, this should be expanded to the other similar stuff). In short, partial remove. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think cutting the list from people who finish top 8 in events to top 3 would seem reasonable (and be in line with the Olympic guidelines). I'm not convinced everyone who finishes 8th in a World Marathon Majors passes GNG, but the top 3 always do in my experience. And all of these are merit rather than participation based, which seems to be what people want. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Australian rules football
Removed. Levivich 17:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
Being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 48#Protected edit request on 29 March 2022 (2). Seems with linking to the discussion here for consistency, but please comment at that discussion instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC) |
Baseball
(for reference, version before removal before this was written) No. 2-5 are obvious participation-only criteria (although no. 4, not being about players, might be a special case). Implicit approval, thus, of removing that which has already been removed. On the other hand, given the removal of mere participation, there'd probably be grounds to list stuff such as participation in the yearly all-star games. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Remove #2-#5, these are participation-based. –dlthewave ☎ 14:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Remove 2 through 5, per consensus of Subproposal #3. Ravenswing 18:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep parts of 2 and 4. We have a lot of AfDs of National League and American League players who have played in only 1 Major League game over the years. And as far as I can tell, the only ones for which enough sources to at least marginally meet GNG have not been found (including 19th century players and very recent players) have been a handful whose first names were not known. Since those have now been collected in a separate article there is no good reason to presume that National and American league players, managers and commissioners who have played in or managed (or commissioned for) at least 1 major league game are not notable. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Remove 2 to 5. They're still just participation criteria, and if many of one category are notable then this is redundant anyway, probably belongs in a wikiproject essay instead. Avilich (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Which MLB players have not met GNG? If Rlendog is correct, there is no reason not to include MLB players in the SNG. --Enos733 (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse removal of 2-5 as 'mere' participation criteria. The core of RFC #3 is that appearing in one game is not sufficient, and it doesn't really matter in what league, or what tournament, that game is played. "Merit-based" means the individual had some kind of recognized individual accomplishment that sets the individual apart from their peers, and "appearing in a game" is not such an accomplishment, because all of the individual's peers will also have had that "accomplishment". (If you're an MLB player, then your peers are other MLB players, and every MLB player will have played in an MLB game.) If it were otherwise, we'd be saying that every player in a given league, or a given tournament, was likely to be notable, and that's exactly what the community decided not to do by eliminating participation-based criteria in RFC #3. Levivich 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- The same could be said for any achievement. If you are an MLB MVP then your peers are other MLB MVPs and every MLB MVP would have won an MVP. The point is that we have been able to find sources for every MLB player whose first name has been known that has come up at AfD that I am aware of (and if you are aware of a counterexample, please let me know), including many 19th century and dead ball players who played in one or very few AL or NL games. If that is the case then the statement that "Significant coverage is likely to exist for baseball figures if they played in at least one AL or NL game" is correct and there is no reason to eliminate that. Not acknowledging that is just adding unnecessary bureaucracy and any such nuances in the previous discussion were buried in the massive scope.Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- "The point is ..." I disagree, that's not the point. The point here is about whether criteria are merit-based or participation-based. "the statement that ... is correct and there is no reason to eliminate that." I disagree, and I see this as re-arguing the RFC. The RFC decided that "played in at least one AL or NL game" is not sufficient criteria. There's no point in discussing that further, here.
- What you said about peers is true, but it's about calibrating the level at which we group 'peers'. So if a criteria was, "Was an MLB MVP", then that would be a merit-based criteria. Being an MVP isn't about participating in anything, it's about winning something (the MVP award). So it's not participation-based at all. Whereas, playing in a game in the majors, is participation-based.
- "Played in at least one AL or NL game" is participation-based. "Drafted in the MLB" is merit-based. "Called up from the minor leagues" is merit-based. It may be that everyone who played in at least one AL or NL game was drafted or called up... but still, the former is participation-based, the latter two are merit-based. Levivich 21:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree the past RfC reached a general consensus, but it did not discuss each individual sport and so did not decide on the specific validity of "played in at least one AL or NL game". Now that the general discussion is over, each individual sport can proceed to discuss new proposals based on the predictor principle. If a criterion can be demonstrated to be a highly accurate predictor of suitable coverage satisfying the general notability guideline, then we can evaluate it on its own merits. isaacl (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- The same could be said for any achievement. If you are an MLB MVP then your peers are other MLB MVPs and every MLB MVP would have won an MVP. The point is that we have been able to find sources for every MLB player whose first name has been known that has come up at AfD that I am aware of (and if you are aware of a counterexample, please let me know), including many 19th century and dead ball players who played in one or very few AL or NL games. If that is the case then the statement that "Significant coverage is likely to exist for baseball figures if they played in at least one AL or NL game" is correct and there is no reason to eliminate that. Not acknowledging that is just adding unnecessary bureaucracy and any such nuances in the previous discussion were buried in the massive scope.Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Remove #2-#5 - I agree with the previous points made above, regarding those criteria, as they were often used for automatic keep votes even in the absence of passing GNG. Lose them. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Curling
Regarding this edit: participants in the world championships are national champions, and so have been selected on the basis of merit. Participation in the Canadian Olympic curling trials is also based on merit—winning specific elite events or accumulating sufficient Canadian Team Ranking System points. (Due to the large numbers of elite Canadian curlers, the Olympic trials are sometimes described as the world's most difficult bonspiel to win.) Thus I feel these criteria ought to remain for the present. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have notified the curling WikiProject of this discussion. isaacl (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that participants in World Championships should stay. It could be rephrased as notability is presumed if the curler has won a national championship; however, you will actually open up the guidelines for more curlers because there are curlers who win their national championships who do not make it to the World Championships. For example, in 2016 Anne Malmi won the Finnish Women's Curling Championship; however, Finland did not qualify for the 2016 World Women's Curling Championship; having said that, I have no issue with that expansion to all nation champions. It seems if you win a national tournament like that WP:GNG would not be difficult to meet. TartarTorte 13:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- These days, many countries do not send the winner of their national championship to the World Championship, and therefore many national championships aren't that important. However, one national championship that is important is the Canadian championships (Brier and Scotties), which arguably get more coverage than the Worlds. I saw that participation in those events was removed as well from the criteria, and I think we should discuss that a bit further. To get to the Brier/Scotties, a team has to win a provincial championship (unless they are a Wild Card team), which usually comes with significant coverage (less so for the Territories though). I would think that we should change the Brier/Scotties criteria to have finished in the top 3 in those events, or skipped a provincial championship team at the Brier/Scotties. A similar criteria should be for the Worlds, the curler should have won a medal, or skipped a national championship team at the Worlds, or something along those lines. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I did consider saying something about the Brier and Scotties, but due to the varying levels of elite curlers across the provinces and in particular the territories, I didn't want to make a proposal without more supporting evidence. I agree that national champion in itself isn't a good standard. Nations have to go through a qualifying process to participate in the world championships so I think it is a better indication of the existence of suitable coverage meeting the general notability guideline. Although there are some national curling associations that can appoint a team other than the national champion, I think it can be generally assumed this team is at least of equivalent level as the national champion, and so still feel it's reasonable to consider the team to have earned their spot through merit. (That being said, with winning a medal at the World Senior Curling Championships being in the current criteria, at a minimum it makes sense to also include winning a medal at the world championships.) isaacl (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I guess with regards to curling I'm a bit of an inclusionist, but I am fine with any skip who won a provincial/territorial Briers or Scotties making it in. Presumably the wild card team(s) for any given year would also be notable from likely having won a previous year's provincial/territorial tournament. It's likely adding 10 skips per year which seems reasonable. TartarTorte 20:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've done quite a bit of research for historical articles on Briers/Scotties and curlers, and the skips will usually get significant coverage, no matter where they're from, though that's not always the case for other players. In any event, making the playoffs / finishing top 3 should be enough to qualify for notability at the very least. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- That's good info to know—if you can show some of that work (demonstrating significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources) using a randomized sample across history, it would help with convincing the broader community. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've randomly picked 10 Brier skips over the course of its history, and got three skips without articles: Gerry Glinz (NS, 1955)[1]), Bob Charlebois (ON, 1971 [2]), John S. Malcolm (NB, 1933 [3]). The rest have articles: Bruce Lohnes, Don Duguid, Brad Gushue, James Grattan, Peter Corner, Steve Laycock, Glenn Howard. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's good info to know—if you can show some of that work (demonstrating significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources) using a randomized sample across history, it would help with convincing the broader community. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've done quite a bit of research for historical articles on Briers/Scotties and curlers, and the skips will usually get significant coverage, no matter where they're from, though that's not always the case for other players. In any event, making the playoffs / finishing top 3 should be enough to qualify for notability at the very least. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I guess with regards to curling I'm a bit of an inclusionist, but I am fine with any skip who won a provincial/territorial Briers or Scotties making it in. Presumably the wild card team(s) for any given year would also be notable from likely having won a previous year's provincial/territorial tournament. It's likely adding 10 skips per year which seems reasonable. TartarTorte 20:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I did consider saying something about the Brier and Scotties, but due to the varying levels of elite curlers across the provinces and in particular the territories, I didn't want to make a proposal without more supporting evidence. I agree that national champion in itself isn't a good standard. Nations have to go through a qualifying process to participate in the world championships so I think it is a better indication of the existence of suitable coverage meeting the general notability guideline. Although there are some national curling associations that can appoint a team other than the national champion, I think it can be generally assumed this team is at least of equivalent level as the national champion, and so still feel it's reasonable to consider the team to have earned their spot through merit. (That being said, with winning a medal at the World Senior Curling Championships being in the current criteria, at a minimum it makes sense to also include winning a medal at the world championships.) isaacl (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- These days, many countries do not send the winner of their national championship to the World Championship, and therefore many national championships aren't that important. However, one national championship that is important is the Canadian championships (Brier and Scotties), which arguably get more coverage than the Worlds. I saw that participation in those events was removed as well from the criteria, and I think we should discuss that a bit further. To get to the Brier/Scotties, a team has to win a provincial championship (unless they are a Wild Card team), which usually comes with significant coverage (less so for the Territories though). I would think that we should change the Brier/Scotties criteria to have finished in the top 3 in those events, or skipped a provincial championship team at the Brier/Scotties. A similar criteria should be for the Worlds, the curler should have won a medal, or skipped a national championship team at the Worlds, or something along those lines. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse removal in the linked edit, basically for the same reasons I wrote in the baseball section. "Participated in X" is, in my view, participation-based, and not merit-based, even if "X" is an exclusive level of competition. Winning "X", or placing in the top 3, or something like that... that's merit-based. It has to be based on something beyond just playing in a game. Levivich 20:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate this viewpoint (in particular, there's a bit of a gap between a curling team and its members). Just a note, though: participating in the World Championships or in the Canadian Olympic trials is not the same as just playing in a game. You have to compete and win a lot to qualify. isaacl (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is a general comment that applies to multiple sports: Yes, but every level of competition requires success at the prior level of competition. Everyone in the finals did well in the tournament; everyone in the tournament did well in the season; everyone in the major leagues did well in the minor leagues; every pro player did well as an amateur; etc. "Played in the Finals" is participation-based criteria; "won the Semi-Finals" is merit-based. Now, it may be true that (almost) everyone who plays in the Finals has won the Semi-Finals, but still, the former is participation-based and the latter is merit-based. This is especially a concern for team sports, where "played in the finals" means the team won the semi-finals, but not necessarily the player (and notability is not inherited, etc.). Levivich 21:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but now that we are discussing specific sports, we can examine specific circumstances. These are the two of the three highest level bonspiels in curling. As Earl Andrew suggested, the qualifying championship victory can be explicitly included, such as won a national championship for a country participating in the world championships. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree with "won a national championship" as a criteria. For the criteria that were removed in the edit you linked, I'd support changing "participated in" to "won" in each case. Levivich 21:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not prepared to even go that far at this point; I've only discussed the world championships and the Canadian Olympic trials. As I mentioned above, I think "won a national championship" may be a bit too broad, and so think narrowing the candidate countries to those participating in the World Championships during the same curling season may be better. Let's see what others think. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me, though I think we need to include winning a World Championship medal to the list (for the cases of teams that didn't win a national championship).-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not prepared to even go that far at this point; I've only discussed the world championships and the Canadian Olympic trials. As I mentioned above, I think "won a national championship" may be a bit too broad, and so think narrowing the candidate countries to those participating in the World Championships during the same curling season may be better. Let's see what others think. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree with "won a national championship" as a criteria. For the criteria that were removed in the edit you linked, I'd support changing "participated in" to "won" in each case. Levivich 21:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but now that we are discussing specific sports, we can examine specific circumstances. These are the two of the three highest level bonspiels in curling. As Earl Andrew suggested, the qualifying championship victory can be explicitly included, such as won a national championship for a country participating in the world championships. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is a general comment that applies to multiple sports: Yes, but every level of competition requires success at the prior level of competition. Everyone in the finals did well in the tournament; everyone in the tournament did well in the season; everyone in the major leagues did well in the minor leagues; every pro player did well as an amateur; etc. "Played in the Finals" is participation-based criteria; "won the Semi-Finals" is merit-based. Now, it may be true that (almost) everyone who plays in the Finals has won the Semi-Finals, but still, the former is participation-based and the latter is merit-based. This is especially a concern for team sports, where "played in the finals" means the team won the semi-finals, but not necessarily the player (and notability is not inherited, etc.). Levivich 21:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate this viewpoint (in particular, there's a bit of a gap between a curling team and its members). Just a note, though: participating in the World Championships or in the Canadian Olympic trials is not the same as just playing in a game. You have to compete and win a lot to qualify. isaacl (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Based on the discussion so far, I propose the following changes: copy edited on April 13 to specify specific championship events
- Modify item 2 to the following:
Have won a medal at one of the following World Curling Federation sanctioned events: the Men's and Women's World Curling Championships, the World Mixed Doubles Curling Championship, the World Junior Curling Championships, World Senior Curling Championships, European Curling Championships, World Mixed Curling Championship, or Pacific-Asia Curling Championships.
- Insert a new item 3:
Have won a national men's or women's curling championship for a country who participated in the corresponding World Curling Championship during the same curling season.
On a separate note, I propose either deleting item 1 entirely, or at least removing or participated in a Grand Slam of Curling event
. It's not clear to me that winning an individual tour event is an adequate predictor of appropriate coverage meeting the general notability guideline. From a practical point of view, the history of the World Curling Tour spans a period where there is less of a need for buffer time to find adequate sources meeting the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- What about winning a Grand Slam event? If we're thinking of removing winning a tour event, we might want to replace it with winning a major bonspiel, perhaps one worth at least $50,000? Also, we need to include something about the Brier and Scotties still. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Here is my counter proposal:
- A curler is presumed notable if he or she
- Has won a Grand Slam of Curling event, has won a major cash bonspiel with a purse of at least $100,000 or has won a cash spiel of at least $50,000 as a skip.
- Has skipped a team at the World Curling Championships (Men's and Women's)
- Has won a medal at one of the following World Curling Federation sanctioned events: the World Mixed Doubles Curling Championship, World Junior Curling Championships, World Senior Curling Championships, European Curling Championships, World Mixed Curling Championship, Pacific-Asia Curling Championships (or Pan-Continental championship), or World Wheelchair Curling Championship.
- Has skipped a team in the Brier or the Tournament of Hearts, or has made the playoffs at the Brier or Hearts.
- Has won a medal at the Canadian Junior Curling Championships.
- Has won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championship, Canadian Senior Curling Championship or Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Trials.
- Has skipped a team at the Canadian Olympic Curling Trials, TSN Skins Game or Canada Cup of Curling.
- Is a member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't like an open-ended criterion of a bonspiel with a purse of X. I prefer specific lists where the predictor principle can be evaluated and tested. Regarding Brier participation, seven out of ten wasn't a great percentage, and the coverage links you provided for the three was event-related coverage. It did provide a bit of background, but in my view, wasn't sufficient evidence of appropriate sources meeting the general notability guideline. Without more evidence that the predictor principle is met, I'm not prepared to support adding in the various other events in your proposal. I'm personally inclined to have more restrictive criteria, particularly when it comes to criteria that only apply over the last few decades. Skips in, say, the TSN Skins games don't need any extra buffer time to determine that the general notability guideline can be met. isaacl (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is going to come with event coverage. Expecting significant coverage outside of actual events is being way too strict in my opinion, and I don't think is necessary. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the bigger picture: at present, English Wikipedia consensus is for athletes biographies to be more than a retelling of "X happened during event Y", and thus to meet the general notability guideline, there must be sources beyond routine event coverage. A few background sentences introducing each player at an event isn't enough by itself. In-depth player profiles, or enough information across sources to add up to an in-depth profile is the goal. I appreciate the shortcomings to this approach, but so far it's what the community has been able to agree upon. isaacl (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the sources I provided on the random skips amount to more than "a few background sentences", they constitute significant coverage on them, and coupled with other sources can amount to in-depth profiles. We need to have some sort of Brier and Scotties inclusion criteria, because they have been for most of their history the highest level of curling in the world. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- The link for Bob Charlebois has one sentence about him personally: "Born in Brandon, Man., Charlebois moved to Toronto in 1960 and is the youngest member of his rink which averaged 2 years and rated as the youngest foursome in the group of predominantly young men." The link for John Malcolm lists his father and son, but does provide a brief assessment of his competition overseas: "... the Scottish and English skips were impressed by the sensational work of J.S. Malcolm." I agree the link for Gerry Glinz is to a mini-profile of the skip and so provides more source material for a biography.
- For better or worse, the standards for having an article on English Wikipedia are not based on achievements, but suitable coverage. With the latest RfC, the community has stated it no longer wants to have criteria solely based on being in the highest level of competition. (Personally, I think a case can be made if the predictor principle can be shown to hold, but that still remains to be seen.) Regarding need, as discussed by others, if there is appropriate sourcing available such that the general notability guideline is met, the wording of the curling-specific notability guidelines is moot, anyway. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- If I had easy access to some Toronto newspapers I could probably find significant coverage (this seems to hint at something), but doing a quick search at newspapers.com I could find some coverage like the previous source that together could piece together a well sourced article. [4][5][6][7][8] -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the sources I provided on the random skips amount to more than "a few background sentences", they constitute significant coverage on them, and coupled with other sources can amount to in-depth profiles. We need to have some sort of Brier and Scotties inclusion criteria, because they have been for most of their history the highest level of curling in the world. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the bigger picture: at present, English Wikipedia consensus is for athletes biographies to be more than a retelling of "X happened during event Y", and thus to meet the general notability guideline, there must be sources beyond routine event coverage. A few background sentences introducing each player at an event isn't enough by itself. In-depth player profiles, or enough information across sources to add up to an in-depth profile is the goal. I appreciate the shortcomings to this approach, but so far it's what the community has been able to agree upon. isaacl (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Significant coverage is going to come with event coverage. Expecting significant coverage outside of actual events is being way too strict in my opinion, and I don't think is necessary. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey everyone, just reading the discussion now. I have a few questions about the notability guidelines before I share my thoughts. Firstly, what will happen with all the players articles that are now not notable with the new guidelines? Will they be deleted, or remain? Next, as much as skips get the most coverage, curling is a team sport with four players on a team. I don't love the idea of only using "skipped" in the guidelines because curling is a team sport and skips don't achieve their accomplishments without their three other teammates behind them. Also, by changing from "participated in" to "won X," it significantly limits the amount of articles that can be created. This is fine if this is the direction we are heading, but there are lots of good curlers who get close to winning many major events but can't finish it off. Personally, I don't mind the highest level events, such as the Olympics, World Championships, and Grand Slams staying as "participated in" because teams have to either win a big event to reach those events, or be consistently at the top of their game in order to secure qualification. -- TracyFleuryFan (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- The first point is easy to answer. Worth reading NSPORT. It doesn't define who is notable and who is not. So the new guidelines don't make any changes as to who is notable and who is not. Nigej (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I figured adding skipped as criteria might be a good idea, because over the course of my research, it has become quite obvious that skips get quite a bit more coverage than anyone else on the team. To the point where the skip will get regular significant coverage, while the rest of the team doesn't. I'm happy with including everyone on the team for notability purposes, but I thought I'd stake some sort of middle ground. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Ultimately, if a curler meets GNG but not SNG, they're still notable and a properly-referenced article can still be made. (I think Margot Flemming is an example under the new proposed criteria.) And yes, there's certainly plenty of discussion in curling about how skips get all the attention, but the fact is that skips do get more coverage than non-skips, and notability requires significant coverage. I think the proposal looks good – #4 and #7 could be combined (and Skins taken out, per Isaac's comment): "Has skipped a team or made the playoffs at the Brier, Hearts, Canadian Olympic Curling Trials, or Canada Cup of Curling." This makes the guideline slightly more lenient, but if you look at any Trials/Canada Cup team list, meeting GNG is not an issue. Re: winning a bonspiel with a purse of X, even $50,000 is a lot, looking at prize purses in the last several seasons. As far as I can tell, this really hasn't conflicted with GNG, so I think #1 is still fine as proposed. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mind removing the Skins game criteria, it would presumably fall under any cash spiel criteria we set up. I can understand the hesitancy of adding an actual cash value to the criteria, especially considering exchange rates and whatnot, but I think given the fact that the WCT has only existed for 30 years, and it seems to be in the process of being replaced anyway (not to mention the fact that it includes a lot of tournaments with very small purses), means we should look at some other way of determining inclusion criteria for cash spiels.-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't feel that it's worth arguing about the Brier, Hearts, Canadian Olympic Curling Trials, and Canada Cup of Curling with all of those who are against participation-based criteria. Particularly for the last two, there is so much sourcing available meeting the general notability guideline that a curling-specific guideline isn't needed for the affected curlers. isaacl (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Ultimately, if a curler meets GNG but not SNG, they're still notable and a properly-referenced article can still be made. (I think Margot Flemming is an example under the new proposed criteria.) And yes, there's certainly plenty of discussion in curling about how skips get all the attention, but the fact is that skips do get more coverage than non-skips, and notability requires significant coverage. I think the proposal looks good – #4 and #7 could be combined (and Skins taken out, per Isaac's comment): "Has skipped a team or made the playoffs at the Brier, Hearts, Canadian Olympic Curling Trials, or Canada Cup of Curling." This makes the guideline slightly more lenient, but if you look at any Trials/Canada Cup team list, meeting GNG is not an issue. Re: winning a bonspiel with a purse of X, even $50,000 is a lot, looking at prize purses in the last several seasons. As far as I can tell, this really hasn't conflicted with GNG, so I think #1 is still fine as proposed. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Cricket
RandomCanadian proposed these guidelines on the WikiProject Cricket talk page:
Proposal
|
---|
Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they:
Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket,[a] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.
|
What do you think of it? --Techie3 (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have already put my thoughts on the other page- it seems good to me.
Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation
this is the top level of international cricket and so is a merit-based participation, we should probably list the years that teams have had Test status though. There are only 12 teams of each gender that meet this criteria, and this removes all the rubbish T20 International matches between minor countries. Elite Panel of ICC Umpires is also a merit-based participation (as there are many levels of umpiring below it, from domestic cricket, then the lower level Development Panel of ICC Umpires and International Panel of ICC Umpires- only c.30 people have ever reached the Elite Panel). I support listing the "may be notable, but coverage must be found" with a link to WP:OFFICIALCRICKET (which itself did a massive pruning of its scope last year), as a project based guideline that explicitly tells people to look for sources- that link itself may need modifications to make this message clear too. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC) - @Techie3: You implemented this proposal? Shouldn't it get consensus first? Levivich 20:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Cycling
Male
- Remove #1-#3, (participation based), Keep #4-#5 (merit based). –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, no. 2 might be partly on merit (there are only 3 Grand Tours: Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a Espana), and the "Monuments" are to the number of five, and include such stuff like Paris-Roubaix or other really well known races. A more obvious solution, however, instead of removing no. 2, would be to change it from mere participation to actually winning something (either an individual stage, or a race classification [for multi-stage races which award different classifications]; or finishing on the podium [for stuff like Paris-Roubaix]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree that for #2, the winner of a stage/top 3 of a one-day race seems sensible. #1 and #3 could just have "competed at" replaced with "won" and I'm sure that would be acceptable too. Seems like a simple fix to me, and way more sensible than just deleting it all. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, no. 2 might be partly on merit (there are only 3 Grand Tours: Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a Espana), and the "Monuments" are to the number of five, and include such stuff like Paris-Roubaix or other really well known races. A more obvious solution, however, instead of removing no. 2, would be to change it from mere participation to actually winning something (either an individual stage, or a race classification [for multi-stage races which award different classifications]; or finishing on the podium [for stuff like Paris-Roubaix]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Female
- Remove #1-2, Keep #3-4. –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've altered no. 2 to read "won" (like with the men's competitions); otherwise I've gone ahead and implemented both as discussed here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Figure skating
There is already consensus to remove simple Olympic participation at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_46#Figure_skating. I am proposing:
- Merge #1, #2, #4 and #5 to "Medaled at an international senior-level event or the World Junior Figure Skating Championships"
- Keep #3
There was also some talk about including "competed at an Olympics since 1992" in the above discussion, but it went nowhere because although 1992 did seem to correlate with increased coverage of skaters, the date seemed arbitrary. What wasn't mentioned in that previous discussion is that 1992 was the first Olympics after figure skating eliminated "compulsory figures", which drastically altered the sport and made it much more media friendly. Therefore, I feel that it's inclusion as a cutoff date makes perfect sense. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support but could we also clarify in there what a "senior-level event" (for people who may be unfamiliar with it). For most other sports, we either list the competitions, or at least provide a link to where someone could find what qualifies or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse current version (which appears to implement the suggestion above). WP:NSKATE looks good to me now, with all criteria being merit-based. Levivich 20:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Tennis
- Remove #2 and #3 which are participation based. –dlthewave ☎ 03:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- 2 are a few international competitions. The solution might be to limit these to the highest level (the Fed Cup has multiple tiers; so does the Davis Cup; the Hopman cup can probably be kept as is due to limited numbers); but that's a bit of a more complex idea, so I'd support removing for the time being. For no. 3, changing "competed" to "won" likely solves the issue with minimal fuss (I could figure even some Grand Slam participants might not be reliably notable, especially in the early years and when travel to distant locations like Australia was not as practical as today). So remove 2, modify 3. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Since the writing is very specific there is no need for removal at all. Participation at the WTA/ATP level is usually a guarantee of notability but it's not automatic with the change of NSPORT wording. The higher levels of BillieJeanCup/DavisCup is not a bad idea. For the most part these are used for new tennis players so early years with no ATP/WTA don't really come into play. Only at the four majors and even then almost all are notable. This is why it says "Though it is not a substitute for proper sourcing, significant coverage is likely to exist for tennis figures if they" etc etc etc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click), aren't you the one who added "though it is not a substitute for proper sourcing"? The consensus is to remove participation-based criteria, not keep it and soften the language. –dlthewave ☎ 04:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave No, it is to "remove simple or mere "participation" criteria, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. "
- As said by Mesem, "On the other hand, holding a record, winning an individual championship, or awarded a well-recognized award, are things that are generally assured that more coverage about the person will come in time." Techie3 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted the edit by Fyunck, as this is still under discussion here. The language should not be unnecessarily softened in a bid to keep the criteria as is.
Participation at the WTA/ATP level
- I'd guess that might be true for modern times, maybe for the very top tournaments (Grand Slams, major ATP/WTA tournaments, maybe Olympics as well), but that has not always (particularly in the olden days before the Open era) or everywhere been the case, and it still is a participation-based criteria. Replacing the word "competed" with "won" would solve most of the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)- Um... Pre-Open level had no ATP/WTA tournaments. That happened actually a few years after the Open Era started, so no issue there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Grand Slams still existed (as did tennis at the first few Olympics). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Um... Pre-Open level had no ATP/WTA tournaments. That happened actually a few years after the Open Era started, so no issue there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted the edit by Fyunck, as this is still under discussion here. The language should not be unnecessarily softened in a bid to keep the criteria as is.
- I did add that. I did it because NSPORTS itself was softening the language. From what I am reading in all the posts on the talk page is that NSPORTS no longer guarantees notability in forming an article. Is that true or not? It always has been but it seems to have changed from using NSPORTS as the basis for creating an article to using NSPORTS as a framework for creating an article. Which is it now? We can't have it both ways. If it is used as a framework then participation is perfectly fine. If it's to use as endowing notability then it's not. Administrator @331dot: even started a topic on this very issue that this guideline has changed from "presumed to have notability" to "presumed to have received significant coverage." Those have completely different meanings. I would never have changed NSPORTS nutshell had I seen differently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- NSPORTS never "guaranteed" notability. At least, that's never what the text of the guideline said (from the very first sentence) nor how it's been interpreted in practice (plenty of instances of meeting one of the many criteria of NSPORTS but still not being notable). NSPORT is supposed to be an indicator of whether a subject is likely to have enough coverage to sustain an article. If the criteria are not accurate indicators of this, they need to be adjusted, and one of the most common reasons behind this problem is the proliferation of participation-based criteria which, except at the highest levels, do not usually have that strong of a correlation with reliable source coverage. There's a consensus to remove them. If you wish to come up with something better, you're free to do so (I'd suggest discussing it at the WP:TENNIS project); but as it stands the current criteria are flawed. Beyond the obvious fix (changing "competed" to "won"), there are still other issues outstanding which likely shouldn't be addressed here (to keep the conversation focused - as I said, go to WP:TENNIS and have a chat there if you wish to propose new, better criteria). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- NSPORTS was always portrayed as "presumed notable." It said it right up front for over a decade. Written by many many editors to refine it through the years. Now it seems to be portrayed as "presumed significant coverage." Those are totally different. Which is it? WP:Tennis is fine with their guidelines, it's here that we need to be clear what is changing. As 331dot said it is very confusing just what is happening and clarity on those two totally different phrases would help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- We had an RfC which resulted in consensus to change all instances of the long-standing text, "presumed to be notable", to "significant coverage is likely to exist" (Subproposal #8) and remove all simple or mere participation criteria (Subproposal #3). The sport-specific sections have already been updated to "significant coverage is likely to exist", and in this discussion we're trying to decide which criteria are actually based purely on participation since there are some grey areas. You're welcome to give your input on that specific question but if you need further explanation of how and why long-standing guidelines are changed and the role of Wikiprojects in that process, I would suggest asking at the WP:TEAHOUSE. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- As you write: "presumed to be notable. Presumed to be notable≠is notable. It was a rebutable presumption. There have been many instances of subjects that were presumed to be notable according to these guidelines, but on closer inspection turned put not to actually be notable.Tvx1 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- There will always be some that slip through but that far outweighs the mess it creates with edit wars, and overall bad feelings between editors. Here's the problem with the above. Presuming Notability created hard criteria that doesn't really exist for significant coverage. NSPORTS got watered down when "presumed notable" got removed so that it barely resembles anything with any kind of power anymore. It's not really a guideline but a "here's what will probably work" article. If you then water down even the suggestion of significant coverage by going from what will probably work to removal of items that very likely have significant coverage, this article become useless. Is that really what people want? An article at wikipedia that is powerless and useless? Why even have it anymore since SNGs can pick up the slack. I'm really dumbfounded as to why we don't remove it altogether. It really doesn't help us anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- NSPORTS was always portrayed as "presumed notable." It said it right up front for over a decade. Written by many many editors to refine it through the years. Now it seems to be portrayed as "presumed significant coverage." Those are totally different. Which is it? WP:Tennis is fine with their guidelines, it's here that we need to be clear what is changing. As 331dot said it is very confusing just what is happening and clarity on those two totally different phrases would help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- NSPORTS never "guaranteed" notability. At least, that's never what the text of the guideline said (from the very first sentence) nor how it's been interpreted in practice (plenty of instances of meeting one of the many criteria of NSPORTS but still not being notable). NSPORT is supposed to be an indicator of whether a subject is likely to have enough coverage to sustain an article. If the criteria are not accurate indicators of this, they need to be adjusted, and one of the most common reasons behind this problem is the proliferation of participation-based criteria which, except at the highest levels, do not usually have that strong of a correlation with reliable source coverage. There's a consensus to remove them. If you wish to come up with something better, you're free to do so (I'd suggest discussing it at the WP:TENNIS project); but as it stands the current criteria are flawed. Beyond the obvious fix (changing "competed" to "won"), there are still other issues outstanding which likely shouldn't be addressed here (to keep the conversation focused - as I said, go to WP:TENNIS and have a chat there if you wish to propose new, better criteria). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click), aren't you the one who added "though it is not a substitute for proper sourcing"? The consensus is to remove participation-based criteria, not keep it and soften the language. –dlthewave ☎ 04:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree that 2 and 3 need to be removed. In fact, there already was a discussion last October resulting in the decision that 2 had to removed which was done back then. No idea why this was returned. As for 3, I strongly contend that every single tennis player who played in one single match of a grand slam tournament (which has 128 players every year) gets significant coverage. Certainly when you delve into players who only made one ever appearance through a wild card only to suffer a straight set loss. And the claim certainly does not hold true for all first round participants all the way down in the lower tier ATP/WTA 250 tournaments. Better to remove this point now and write a new one here that actually reflects reality and have it supported by community consensus. Another thing that needs to be removed is the sentence claiming that the situation is equal for singles and doubles players. The reality is that doubles gathers considerably less coverage than singles and is about high time that the tennis project finally accepts this.Tvx1 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- "2 and 3" have become confused. In the revision of the page from when this talk subsection was started [9], 2 and 3 referred to participation in "international team competitions" (2) and "main draw in one of the highest-level professional tournaments" (3), but this version was after Fyunck(click) had replaced the tennis notability guideline on this page with the notability essay at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Notability, claiming "someone removed some events that usually have significant coverage", an action which has since been reverted by Tvx1 and RandomCanadian. Now the only participation-based criteria is 2 i.e. the old 3. I think the WikiProject Tennis essay should be replaced with the the guidelines from this page to stop the confusion, and per WP:CONLEVEL. Letcord (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- As for 2 (the old 3), participation in a Grand Slam tournament in singles *in the Open Era* basically guarantees notability. Before then, but particularly in their early years, the majors and especially the Australian Championships were more regional tournaments, with near-100% local players (example). I would support a narrowing of the guideline to Open Era-only (1968-present) for Grand Slams. For tournaments on the ATP and WTA Tours (~1970-present), it's true that an occasional local talent is thrown in as a wildcard and loses easily, never to be heard from again. The guideline could be narrowed to having participated in at least 2 tournaments to avoid this scenario. I agree with Tvx1 that "This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players" should be removed as doubles does not receive near the coverage of singles. Letcord (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Or write a new guideline where having won particular matches, rather than just starting them is the norm. I strongly conte
ndst that every of the 128 players starting each grand slam tournament is notable. Ask the average layperson who Ryuso Tsujino is and they will not have any idea. And that is missing the point even, since were not discussing notability but the existence of significant coverage now.Tvx1 18:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)- Yes won a main draw ATP/WTA tour match would be a reasonable alternative. "Notability" I'm using in the Wikipedia sense (passes WP:GNG), not the "layperson has heard of them" sense, which would be a terrible test for an encyclopedia as the average person knows very little about anything. I do believe all 128 singles players in both men and women's singles in the Open Era would have significant coverage, including Tsujino, whose Japanese article is more substantially sourced. There are only a couple hundred players who meet that criteria and are yet to have an article anyway, so we're not talking large numbers. Letcord (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, the average layperson is the perfect. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a sports fansite. The average layperson is our audience. The claim that Tsujino has significant coverage is simply false. His article solely exists because some people believed that playing one grand slam match makes one notable.Tvx1 20:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, the average layperson is the worst criteria imaginable for a useful encyclopedia. Has the average layperson heard of a Muon, or an Abelian group, or Ploidy? Obviously not, but these are fundamental topics within their respective fields, with thousands of reliable sources covering them in-depth. Within tennis, has the average layperson heard of Alice Marble or Pancho Gonzales or Jack Kramer or Helen Wills? No again - most non-fans would only know the Big Four, the Williams sisters, and a handful of others like Kyrgios. Enforcing an "average layperson" criteria would strip the encyclopedia down to fewer than fifty thousand articles, and what point would there be in reading one if you already knew every topic in it? That to one side, are you a Japanese speaker, and/or have you searched newspaper archives for Tsujino? If not, how do you know he didn't receive more significant coverage in Japan, or in old newspapers not accessible to Google? Letcord (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Completely agree with Letcord. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, the average layperson is the worst criteria imaginable for a useful encyclopedia. Has the average layperson heard of a Muon, or an Abelian group, or Ploidy? Obviously not, but these are fundamental topics within their respective fields, with thousands of reliable sources covering them in-depth. Within tennis, has the average layperson heard of Alice Marble or Pancho Gonzales or Jack Kramer or Helen Wills? No again - most non-fans would only know the Big Four, the Williams sisters, and a handful of others like Kyrgios. Enforcing an "average layperson" criteria would strip the encyclopedia down to fewer than fifty thousand articles, and what point would there be in reading one if you already knew every topic in it? That to one side, are you a Japanese speaker, and/or have you searched newspaper archives for Tsujino? If not, how do you know he didn't receive more significant coverage in Japan, or in old newspapers not accessible to Google? Letcord (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, the average layperson is the perfect. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a sports fansite. The average layperson is our audience. The claim that Tsujino has significant coverage is simply false. His article solely exists because some people believed that playing one grand slam match makes one notable.Tvx1 20:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Or write a new guideline where having won particular matches, rather than just starting them is the norm. I strongly conte
- Endorse removal of 3, change 2 to "won" or remove. "Has competed in" is participation-based; changing it to "won" would make it merit-based and I think that's a noncontroversial proposition (that anyone who won one of these tournaments would likely be the subject of sigcov). But if there isn't consensus to change it to "won", then it should be removed altogether per RFC #3. Levivich 20:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- While having won any of the listed tournamemts is likely to yield players with significant coverage, the current text deals with with playing just one match in them. If you change that to won one match in such a tournament, you get a claim that probably holds true to players winning a match in grand slam tournament, but I strongly contest it does for players who only ever won one match in a WTA/ATP 250 tournament.Tvx1 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would bet it does. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Changing it to "Have won at least one title" (to clarify what is "won") would avoid any such confusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Won at least one title" would be very odd for criterion 2, as criteria 3 and 4 are "won at least one title" and they are for the lower leagues. You're not going to win an ATP Tour tournament and especially not a Grand Slam if you haven't even won a challenger, as you need to be winning challengers to start qualifying for the main tour. "Won at least one match" would be a reasonable tightening for 2 if a change is absolutely necessary. But this whole participation- vs. merit-based criteria debate is an absolutely false dichotomy; to participate in many leagues, you have to have serious merit - you're not participating in the NBA All-Stars game or ATP Finals for example unless you're the best of the best. Letcord (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- And yet, despite what you call an "obviously false dichotomy", there are many cases of players participating in "many leagues" and having no reliable source coverage with which to write an encyclopedia. This extends to far more than just tennis, and even on occasion includes footballers (which is a far more popular sport than tennis). Not going to argue the RfC result again, but mere participation is not a reliable indicator of significant coverage, anywhere. And in tennis, where half of all involved players do not proceed past the first round no matter the tournament, insisting on mere participation in one match (take the archetypical qualifier who loses in the first round as an example) would be even more dubious. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I'm late to the party, so still trying to understand the logic behind these changes. My view would have been that if there are leagues with non-notable players who've participated in them, then participation in those specific leagues should be removed as criteria for presumed notability, rather than overcompensating and removing all participation criteria. But assuming the RFC outcome has to be enforced, I would remove "This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players" and change 2 to "won at least one match in singles or one title in doubles in...". Letcord (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- And yet, despite what you call an "obviously false dichotomy", there are many cases of players participating in "many leagues" and having no reliable source coverage with which to write an encyclopedia. This extends to far more than just tennis, and even on occasion includes footballers (which is a far more popular sport than tennis). Not going to argue the RfC result again, but mere participation is not a reliable indicator of significant coverage, anywhere. And in tennis, where half of all involved players do not proceed past the first round no matter the tournament, insisting on mere participation in one match (take the archetypical qualifier who loses in the first round as an example) would be even more dubious. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Won at least one title" would be very odd for criterion 2, as criteria 3 and 4 are "won at least one title" and they are for the lower leagues. You're not going to win an ATP Tour tournament and especially not a Grand Slam if you haven't even won a challenger, as you need to be winning challengers to start qualifying for the main tour. "Won at least one match" would be a reasonable tightening for 2 if a change is absolutely necessary. But this whole participation- vs. merit-based criteria debate is an absolutely false dichotomy; to participate in many leagues, you have to have serious merit - you're not participating in the NBA All-Stars game or ATP Finals for example unless you're the best of the best. Letcord (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- While having won any of the listed tournamemts is likely to yield players with significant coverage, the current text deals with with playing just one match in them. If you change that to won one match in such a tournament, you get a claim that probably holds true to players winning a match in grand slam tournament, but I strongly contest it does for players who only ever won one match in a WTA/ATP 250 tournament.Tvx1 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Whatever is decided in terms of a more restrictive criteria, I like the idea of having lists in a similar format to this that we can redirect articles found not to meet the notability criteria, albeit with shorter bios than in that link. So for example List of ATP Tour players from the Netherlands (or something like that). Inclusion criteria would then detail that to be listed they need to have made a main draw. Without lists like these we would often have no obvious redirect targets for most players as they will be linked to from more than one tournament draw. Jevansen (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
General discussion
- On a discussion organizational note, I feel it is better to have separate top-level sections for each sport, allowing each discussion to be monitored separately. Thus I had placed my original comment in a separate section. Is there any objection to separating it again? isaacl (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keeping them as sub-sections allows it to be made explicit what the discussions are part of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the intent of each section is self-explanatory, and I don't think the preceding discussion matters. (My decision to start a discussion to review the changes is not a consequence of it.) Personally, I don't want to subscribe to changes for the whole section, including all sports. isaacl (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The idea isn't linking the outcome of any discussion with another. The idea is that these are discussing the same broad topic (the removal or non-removal of certain participation-based criteria) and they should be grouped together as a result of that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Several times editors have said that interested editors in each sport are welcome to start discussions on how to further refine the changes being made. I don't think there is much advantage in arbitrarily grouping discussion on all sports together under a parent heading, and I do see advantages in having separate sections. isaacl (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The same thing's been done with Olympics just previously (Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 46#Proposal to clarify Olympic participation as an indicator of notability), I don't see why it couldn't be done here... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, sometimes things get discussed in an omnibus fashion, for better or worse. But if the interested editors for each sport are going to start discussing how to refine the criteria for the sport, as has been suggested, then I think we can let the editors in each area independently choose their own set of important topics to discuss. It's not important that they be slotted underneath a "Content removed again" heading (and personally I would prefer a clean break from the arguing about reverting). isaacl (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The same thing's been done with Olympics just previously (Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 46#Proposal to clarify Olympic participation as an indicator of notability), I don't see why it couldn't be done here... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Several times editors have said that interested editors in each sport are welcome to start discussions on how to further refine the changes being made. I don't think there is much advantage in arbitrarily grouping discussion on all sports together under a parent heading, and I do see advantages in having separate sections. isaacl (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The idea isn't linking the outcome of any discussion with another. The idea is that these are discussing the same broad topic (the removal or non-removal of certain participation-based criteria) and they should be grouped together as a result of that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the intent of each section is self-explanatory, and I don't think the preceding discussion matters. (My decision to start a discussion to review the changes is not a consequence of it.) Personally, I don't want to subscribe to changes for the whole section, including all sports. isaacl (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keeping them as sub-sections allows it to be made explicit what the discussions are part of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Gymnastics
Is there a reason why the gymnastics criteria only applies to artistic gymnastics and not to rhythmic gymnastics? I know very little about the sport, but I would imagine that their World Championships provide similar levels of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Artistic gets orders of magnitude more coverage than rhythmic. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Came here to say the same thing as Wjemather. GauchoDude (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Nutshell
@Fyunck(click): Can you explain why you made this edit in light of the RFC (specifically, the consensus to change "presumed" to "likely" and to remove participation criteria)? Levivich 20:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've restored it. "presumed" is just a very bad idea to include back at this point. Does anybody object to me swapping "won" with "achieved"? At least, some of the stuff which is listed (like the Baseball hall of fame; or taking part in a top level competition where notability is essentially 100% guaranteed) remain major achievements without necessarily implying anything has been won. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- All notability guidelines are presumptions that allow for good faith challenges, so removing that is a bad idea. It needs to be put back in. --Masem (t) 22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- There was consensus at the RfC to replace "presumed to be notable" with "likely to have significant coverage". The nutshell should be a proper summary of this and not be at odds with it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- There isn't much difference between 'presumed notable' and 'significant coverage is likely to exist' except that the former makes it easier for piles of vaguewaves to carry an AfD discussion. Ultimately it's right that 'presumed notable' be reserved for the sigcov requirement itself (as in WP:SPORTCRIT) and that 'significant coverage is likely to exist' be applied to all other criteria, because those criteria are simply means to that end. This doesn't prevent good faith challenges from being made. Avilich (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- All notability guidelines are presumptions that allow for good faith challenges, so removing that is a bad idea. It needs to be put back in. --Masem (t) 22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- The current version
"An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage if the person has achieved a significant honor in a major amateur or professional competition, as listed on this page. It should be understood that articles still require reliable sources that meet the threshold of Wikipedia GNG."
neatly summarizes the current consensus. Some SNGs presume notability, others don't, and this one doesn't. It's as simple as that. –dlthewave ☎ 01:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)- Wait, did I really allow the mispelling of honour to remain there unchanged? Oops, I'll have to go change that... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think there a huge difference between those two items... like night and day. Significant coverage really softens and pretty much makes this Guideline un-needed. And yet when other individual items are softened people complained. There's a bit of hypocrisy going on here that seems strange. If you are going to soften the language that makes this guide simply advisory rather than presumptive, then why on earth wouldn't we leave in participation? It's only advisory. If you leave in presumed then the participation issue makes some sense, because the other items have some real teeth. Why is this guideline even here anymore? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thus has already been explained to you: We can't leave in participation because we had an RfC that reached consensus to remove it. –dlthewave ☎ 01:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- If I understand it correctly, the change from "presumed notable" to "likely to have received significant coverage" has stripped any power this page once had in AFDs (i.e. no more "Keep per N:Tennis"). As such, I think this page should be downgraded from guideline to essay status, as it is now just a list of criteria that *might* indicate significant coverage, and nothing more. Letcord (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly this. We need "presumed" because any criteria - not just the NSPORTS ones but any SNG or even the GNG - are all meant to be rebuttable presumptions. We allow a standalone to be created if they meet basic levels so that they can be developed on the open wiki in good faith that significant sourcing exists, but if it becomes clear that there's really not that much significant coverage after a thorough source search, then it should be eligible for deletion, hence why "presumption" is critical. --Masem (t) 02:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Downgrading to essay status and/or keeping "presumed" are both things that you all could have advocated for at the RfC, and you're welcome to propose those changes in a new discussion if you'd like. Right now we're talking about how to write the nutshell to match current consensus and it would be much appreciated if folks could focus on that task. –dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Already before the RfC there was a requirement that GNG be met, so the spirit of it doesn't change much with the new wording. And it's not like the 'presumption' was being used in the manner you say it should, anyway. Avilich (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Already before the RfC there was a requirement that GNG be met
: Not true. Per the RfC close:
—Bagumba (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)To the extent that the first part of this proposal would create a requirement that a sports biography meet the GNG (i.e., must), there is no consensus. Proposal 1 was better attended and did not find consensus, so proposal 8 is not sufficient to overturn that.
- That there was "no consensus" on an RfC proposal to "create" (i.e. in quotes because it already exists) a formal requirement doesn't mean much when the guideline as it stands says stuff (i.e. the status quo before the RfC, and thus the existing consensus, since "no consensus" defaults to "existing consensus remains in place") like
If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? No.
Very crystal clear that a sports figure still needs to meet GNG. Doubly so if it's any WP:BLP... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)- Yes, NSPORTS is supposed to reflect that significant coverage exists. It's up to AfD participants whether they choose to keep per NSPORTS or delete becuase they don't think GNG can be met. I oppose any wording that allows a minority "delete per GNG" position to procedurally override a "keep per NSPORTS" majority view. WP:N states that either GNG or SNG provides a presumption of notability. We've removed the 1-game participation of questionable leagues (and non-questionable ones as well, unfortuantely). That was the main problem.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
GNG or SNG
That does not mean that the SNG needs to be independent of GNG (for example, NASTRO, which is essentially "the criteria is SIGCOV, but here are some criteria to help you judge whether something is likely or not to meet it"; or NBIO, which states quite explicitly that the basic criteria is [essentially, a variant of] SIGCOV). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, NSPORTS is supposed to reflect that significant coverage exists. It's up to AfD participants whether they choose to keep per NSPORTS or delete becuase they don't think GNG can be met. I oppose any wording that allows a minority "delete per GNG" position to procedurally override a "keep per NSPORTS" majority view. WP:N states that either GNG or SNG provides a presumption of notability. We've removed the 1-game participation of questionable leagues (and non-questionable ones as well, unfortuantely). That was the main problem.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- That there was "no consensus" on an RfC proposal to "create" (i.e. in quotes because it already exists) a formal requirement doesn't mean much when the guideline as it stands says stuff (i.e. the status quo before the RfC, and thus the existing consensus, since "no consensus" defaults to "existing consensus remains in place") like
- Exactly this. We need "presumed" because any criteria - not just the NSPORTS ones but any SNG or even the GNG - are all meant to be rebuttable presumptions. We allow a standalone to be created if they meet basic levels so that they can be developed on the open wiki in good faith that significant sourcing exists, but if it becomes clear that there's really not that much significant coverage after a thorough source search, then it should be eligible for deletion, hence why "presumption" is critical. --Masem (t) 02:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- If I understand it correctly, the change from "presumed notable" to "likely to have received significant coverage" has stripped any power this page once had in AFDs (i.e. no more "Keep per N:Tennis"). As such, I think this page should be downgraded from guideline to essay status, as it is now just a list of criteria that *might* indicate significant coverage, and nothing more. Letcord (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thus has already been explained to you: We can't leave in participation because we had an RfC that reached consensus to remove it. –dlthewave ☎ 01:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think there a huge difference between those two items... like night and day. Significant coverage really softens and pretty much makes this Guideline un-needed. And yet when other individual items are softened people complained. There's a bit of hypocrisy going on here that seems strange. If you are going to soften the language that makes this guide simply advisory rather than presumptive, then why on earth wouldn't we leave in participation? It's only advisory. If you leave in presumed then the participation issue makes some sense, because the other items have some real teeth. Why is this guideline even here anymore? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
For reference, the previous stable version of the nutshell (as of 08:23, 31 March 2022 UTC[10]) was
An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
Please discuss the various proposed changes—exact before and after wording preferred—so we can have a clear consensus. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- My proposal, changes in bold or in strikethrough:
An athlete is
The second bolded bit is open to better suggestions if you have them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)presumed tolikely to have received significant coverage, and thus be notable, if the person hasactively participated in orachieved a significant honour in or won a major amateur or professional competition, as listed on this page. - The intent of this particular wording is to establish a clear cause/consequence relationship: the athlete is notable if they have received significant coverage, not if they are "likely" to have received such coverage. This also avoids having to repeat this later on. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Accurate summary of the current guideline. –dlthewave ☎ 05:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, sort of - the wording is much too clunky. First, why do we need bolding? Second why say "likely to have received significant coverage, and thus be notable" when we can simply say "presumed notable?" The rest is ok but I should point out that the word "major" does cause troubles in tennis and golf. the term "major" does not mean important in those two sports where it specifically means one of the four most important tournaments those sports have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- The bolding was only there to highlight the changes. "presumed notable" was explicitly changed by the RfC, so should be changed in the nutshell too. The oddities of the usage of the word "major" is some sports isn't really an issue given that the common, natural non-jargon meaning of the word ("more important, bigger, or more serious than others of the same type" [11]) is not really obscure... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Masem's points above regarding keeping presumed. It is consistent with WP:N that an SNG can also provides a presumption of notability. My proposal removes the particpation verbiage:
An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has
actively participatedwon a significant honor in a major amateur or professional competitionor won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Consistency with WP:N doesn't matter. N says that topics should meet GNG or SNG, but how each particular SNG works is decided on a case to case basis. There's nothing in N preventing SNGs from being what the RfC-approved wording entails. Avilich (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - This does not accurately reflect the current guideline, which does not presume notability in most cases. –dlthewave ☎ 05:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave: Can you clarify? This proposal only removed "actively participated" from the prior stable version. Where does your assertion that we do "not presume notability in most cases" stem from?—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- It stems from the fact that when I scroll through the list of criteria, all of them except the Olympics say that "coverage is likely to exist". They do not say "presumed to be notable". –dlthewave ☎ 12:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- But that's because they were all recently changed from presumed notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - I feel the previous stable version is the best, but if not, this guideline should presume notability as per Bagumba. If we aren't presuming notability then there is no reason whatsoever to remove participation. That's overkill to the extreme and turns NSPORTS into uselessness. Sure we have project SNGs to pick up the slack but we shouldn't gut this longstanding guideline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I am unconvinced of the "need" to retain presumption, which would be inconsistent with the RFC consensus to replace such wording, but "...won a significant honor in a major amateur or professional competition" is awkward and doesn't adequately encapsulate things. Replacing participation with success would be simpler and better? i.e.
An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has
actively participatedbeen successful in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
or for consistency with the RFC:
An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject
presumed to be notableif the person hasactively participatedbeen successful in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
wjematherplease leave a message... 11:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I posted this in another section, but I want to bring this back as we think about the purpose of the SNG.
I saw several reasons for sub-proposal 3. First, there was a feeling there were too many articles about athletes. Second, that too many articles were sourced only to databases. Third, there was a feeling that too many editors would cite "Keep: passes NSPORT" at AFD without examining the sources. To me, sub-proposal 3 used a broad brush to try to solve these problems. ... That all said, I do not think the community necessarily has a problem with recognizing that it is strongly likely that a person who participates in an elite league (or in a league that regularly receives substantive press coverage) would likely pass NBASIC.
I generally believe that playing in an elite sports league should be considered a success and an honor, that there are elite leagues where all* players receive coverage in independent sources, and that the SNG should provide guidance to editors about which subjects are likely to meet our community's standard for notability. To the extent that I would rewrite the section, I would go with something like (strikethroughs omitted):
--Enos733 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Athletes who won or medaled in a major amateur or professional competition (as listed on this page) or won a significant honor (such as election to a hall of fame) are likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Professional athletes in team sports may also be likely to receive significant coverage, especially in elite professional leagues, but all articles must contain references to more than a statistical database.
We had a successful RfC to replace presumption of notability with likelihood of SIGCOV. Proposals retaining the presumption wording are directly incompatible with this very clear-cut result. I think the nutshell should also reflect the requirement for at least one IRS containing SIGCOV to be present in articles, which is a much stronger statement than "non-database ref". JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is now that without "presumption", that breaks the entire structure of how notability is supposed to work on WP, and going to make the problem of when NSPORTS articles reach AFD. I had participated in RFC proposal #8 but if I had seen it, I would have been insistant that removing "presumption" breaks too many things. --Masem (t) 18:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Removing the presumption breaks absolutely nothing. It simply makes it clearer how this page is a mean to an end. It's not an alternative to GNG or to NBASIC (hence why you shouldn't presume that something is notable based on it), but simply a list of criteria to help judge whether a topic is likely to meet those, as the first sentence has been saying since I guess forever:
This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.
) And, with the well known issues which led to the current situation, removing any language which can be easily misinterpreted should be a priority. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)- Even if changing "presumed" to "likely" did break something, the community decided to break it, so whatever is "broken" has consensus to be "broken". Levivich 19:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Masem's statement above. It seems to me that SNGs are a binary thing: either it is an SNG and it lets an NPP reviewer presume notability for a list of criteria without checking GNG, or it is not an SNG and GNG must be checked. To call something an SNG and then not have it presume notability is confusing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae: Have you ever seen WP:NCORP or WP:NASTRO? Both of these ultimately require GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- NCORP adds restrictions on top of GNG. That's not what we're doing here so doesn't seem relevant. NASTRO#Criteria gives criteria for
presumed notable
so seems like a normal SNG. This NSPORTS attempt to have criteria that don't presume notability is my concern. It is confusing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)- The NASTRO criteria still make clear the requirement for actual SIGCOV (
Whether an object meets these criteria must be established through independent reliable sources, following WP:NRV. This means independent of the scientist(s) who discovered the object, or others who may have a conflict of interest in promoting it.
orNotability is determined solely by coverage in reliable sources, not whether editors personally believe an astronomical object is important.
). There's no reason why we can't do the same thing for NSPORTS, i.e. make it absolutely clear the ultimate criteria is SIGCOV, while giving a few set criteria which generally correlate with high-likelihood/ near-certain SIGCOV for guidance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- The NASTRO criteria still make clear the requirement for actual SIGCOV (
- NCORP adds restrictions on top of GNG. That's not what we're doing here so doesn't seem relevant. NASTRO#Criteria gives criteria for
- @Novem Linguae: Have you ever seen WP:NCORP or WP:NASTRO? Both of these ultimately require GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Masem's statement above. It seems to me that SNGs are a binary thing: either it is an SNG and it lets an NPP reviewer presume notability for a list of criteria without checking GNG, or it is not an SNG and GNG must be checked. To call something an SNG and then not have it presume notability is confusing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Even if changing "presumed" to "likely" did break something, the community decided to break it, so whatever is "broken" has consensus to be "broken". Levivich 19:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Removing the presumption breaks absolutely nothing. It simply makes it clearer how this page is a mean to an end. It's not an alternative to GNG or to NBASIC (hence why you shouldn't presume that something is notable based on it), but simply a list of criteria to help judge whether a topic is likely to meet those, as the first sentence has been saying since I guess forever:
- Subproposal 8 passed by a razor-thin margin with minimal participation. The closure endorsing it was seriously flawed. There was nothing clearcut about it. Cbl62 (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- And yet it's not been overturned, despite such claims. If you think the closure was seriously flawed, that boat has sailed, and even if it hadn't this wouldn't be the right port of call for such a complaint. I also find it rather staggering that this line of reasoning is still ongoing despite the fact that, even well before the RfC, the guideline made it clear that yes, SIGCOV is required:
If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? No
. That's not new, and hasn't been overturned by anything, so it remains the consensus, and, combined with the recent clarifications stemming from the RfC, gives plenty of justification for these changes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- And yet it's not been overturned, despite such claims. If you think the closure was seriously flawed, that boat has sailed, and even if it hadn't this wouldn't be the right port of call for such a complaint. I also find it rather staggering that this line of reasoning is still ongoing despite the fact that, even well before the RfC, the guideline made it clear that yes, SIGCOV is required:
- It is still completely possible to rewrite the lead to meet the close of #8 and then add the reminder that this is still a presumption of notability. "Presumption" has to be mentioned somewhere early on on NSPORTS otherwise you are going to make it impossible for any NSPORTS articles to have a sane discussion at AFD, since some will claim the changed wording (sans "presumped") means notability can never be challenged. There's no issue with saying overall that these are setting out conditions when significant coverage is likely to exist, but you still really need to address tht this is not forever protection from being deleted. --Masem (t) 01:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- As per Englsh Wikipedia's guidance on closing discussions, closers are evaluating the arguments that are being made in each individual discussion. So it continues to be up to the discussion participants to make a sufficiently well-reasoned argument that an article should be kept, whether through identifying appropriate citations, or through other arguments regarding the notability of the subject. This can include an evaluation of whether or not there has been sufficient time and effort spent yet on finding sources, and how likely such a search will be fruitful. Just as always, participants can decide that further efforts are warranted and that the article should be kept for now, or that they are unlikely to uncover new suitable sources and that the article should be deleted. isaacl (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Huh. I wouldn't describe 29-20 as "razor-thin." Close, but not "razor-thin." Beyond that, Cbl62, what was "seriously flawed" about the close, above and beyond that you didn't like the result? Are you alleging there were procedural errors, and if so, what, exactly? Ravenswing 21:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ravenswing: The initial proposal and subproposal 1, trying to achieve similar results, received mass participation from well over 100 editors. Those efforts with mass participation resulted in a clear consensus against downgrading NSPORTS. By the time subproposals 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. came along, things became a "mess" (to be kind) and participation levels dwindled greatly. The closer mentioned that consensus was difficult to find from the later subproposals with lower participation levels. Given the closer's own reasoning, no consensus should have been found. Cbl62 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- THAT is deeply flawed reasoning. First off, you know full well that no consensus is eternally binding, and can be overturned or rejected by another one. Nor is it a numbers game, where whichever discussion has the largest number of editors automatically "wins." Nor, generally speaking, would anyone on Wikipedia disparage a consensus where fifty editors registered opinions -- except, also generally speaking, against a result they didn't like -- there's many a consensus in play reached with a tenth that many participants. Nor are the words "consensus was difficult to find" equal to "consensus cannot be found." Hell's bells, the whole thing was contentious from start to finish, but even so, decisions are made by those who show up.
The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes you're going to be on the losing side, and it's incumbent on those who are to accept the fact, lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 05:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- THAT is the reasoning espoused by the closer himself, yet ignored when it came to this particular point. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- On that point, I agree with you: there do seem to be some parties intent on ignoring the consensus as expressed in the close, and not seemingly capable of losing gracefully and moving on. Ravenswing 11:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- THAT is the reasoning espoused by the closer himself, yet ignored when it came to this particular point. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed with @Ravenswing. And you know full well there was not "a clear consensus against downgrading NSPORTS" from subproposal 1. JoelleJay (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- THAT is deeply flawed reasoning. First off, you know full well that no consensus is eternally binding, and can be overturned or rejected by another one. Nor is it a numbers game, where whichever discussion has the largest number of editors automatically "wins." Nor, generally speaking, would anyone on Wikipedia disparage a consensus where fifty editors registered opinions -- except, also generally speaking, against a result they didn't like -- there's many a consensus in play reached with a tenth that many participants. Nor are the words "consensus was difficult to find" equal to "consensus cannot be found." Hell's bells, the whole thing was contentious from start to finish, but even so, decisions are made by those who show up.
- @Ravenswing: The initial proposal and subproposal 1, trying to achieve similar results, received mass participation from well over 100 editors. Those efforts with mass participation resulted in a clear consensus against downgrading NSPORTS. By the time subproposals 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. came along, things became a "mess" (to be kind) and participation levels dwindled greatly. The closer mentioned that consensus was difficult to find from the later subproposals with lower participation levels. Given the closer's own reasoning, no consensus should have been found. Cbl62 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is still completely possible to rewrite the lead to meet the close of #8 and then add the reminder that this is still a presumption of notability. "Presumption" has to be mentioned somewhere early on on NSPORTS otherwise you are going to make it impossible for any NSPORTS articles to have a sane discussion at AFD, since some will claim the changed wording (sans "presumped") means notability can never be challenged. There's no issue with saying overall that these are setting out conditions when significant coverage is likely to exist, but you still really need to address tht this is not forever protection from being deleted. --Masem (t) 01:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- note Unless an administrator puts the breaks on discussion, someone smack dab in the middle of these discussions shouldn't just close a section of the discussion, whether they agree or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest attempt
I've put in An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page.
; based on a few of the proposals above. Hopefully, this is either an acceptable compromise, and can be left as is, or, worst case, it sparks renewed discussion so we can find something better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: I don't think "no consensus" would apply. An apparently acceptable solution (which nobody objects to so far) appears to have been reached. This is a rather high-traffic page and I'd be surprised if this was simply because people didn't notice it. At some point, if nobody objects to it, the current status quo becomes the new consensus: since the discussion seems to have reached its natural end, with no new comments in a significant enough amount of time, that would be the logical conclusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
No new comments in 27 days. I don't see a reason to have the {{discuss}} tag on the nutshell. @Bagumba: unless you have something new for us to consider here or want to launch an RFC or something about the nutshell, I think you should self revert. I agree with RC that under no circumstances would we go back to the old nutshell (that would contradict the RfC and no longer accurately summarize the page), and the outcome of this thread isn't "no consensus", the outcome is the current version, which appears to have been stable for weeks. We can't just stay "stuck" on these issues forever. Levivich 14:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich@RandomCanadian I see at least four other proposals above, not including the live version, and even that version was contested via edits and ongoing discussion here. I agree that the old nutshell is obsolete, but I don't see a consensus yet for its replacement. Hence, a discussion tag seems appropriate. I don't think an RfC will draw more than the usual suspects here, but that remains an option too. —Bagumba (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps try WP:VPI? In general it is better to bring any proposals for substantial change to WP:VPP rather than here due to the "usual suspects" issue, and it may also help in more general discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest attempt II
Looking at the current version, I'd propose this reordering:
An athlete is presumed to be notable
likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and thus be notable,if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources.
For comparison, this was the stable version before the RfC:[12]
An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
I believe "presumed to be notable" should come first, as that states the purpose of an SNG upfront. "likely to have received significant coverage", which defends how this criteria determines notability, is secondary and is placed later. It is also consistent with the general format pre-RfC.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - This implies that an athlete can be presumed notabile based on achievement, but the actual text of the guideline presumes notability only if there is significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 12:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Exact same concern as Dlthewave RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support, without a presumption of notability, this guideline is completely worthless IMO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- That requirement for a "presumption of notability" was very much rejected at the RfC, and as shown elsewhere, there are plenty of guidelines where the main part of the presumption is meeting GNG. The nutshell needs to be updated to match with the new consensus from the RfC, not used as yet another attempt to delay it. This guideline currently does not presume notability based on solely participation or awards; it states that "significant coverage is likely to exist for a sports figure if"... The nutshell must accurately reflect that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- We're discussing how to briefly summarize the current guideline, to reflect the RfC consensus which removed presumption of notability. If you would like to overturn the RfC result, you may open a separate proposal. Please refrain from disrupting this discussion with out-of-state suggestions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I support a proposal, and that makes me a disruptive editor? Hah. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- yes –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree, making or supporting a proposal that directly contradicts an RfC result is disruptive because it wastes editor time because there is no chance it'll be implemented because local consensus can't trump global consensus. Levivich 17:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I support a proposal, and that makes me a disruptive editor? Hah. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- We're all here trying to implement the result of WP:NSPORTS2022. Subproposal #8, second part, was to replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "likely to receive significant coverage", and that had "clear consensus". So any proposed language that includes "presumed to be notable" is dead on arrival, and a waste of our time to consider. Levivich 17:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Question for the experts here on snow skiing
(asked for NPP work) I see don't skiing (down hill or cross country) in either the current guidline or in the version before the recent evolution. Is there some portion of nsports that typically gets applied to this or does it just go by wP:GNG? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's the Olympic guideline which applies. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) § Basic criteria provides a little bit of additional guidance on interpreting the general notability guideline, by providing some examples of what doesn't meet the standard of suitable sources. isaacl (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Gymnastics criterion for junior gymnasts
In criteria #2 for junior gymnasts, why is there nothing about junior boy gymnasts winning gold at their national junior championships? Yes, the female gymnasts from USA, Russia, China and Romania are very strong, but equivalently, China, Japan and Russia are very dominant in male artistic gymnastics. Should boys who won gold at Chinese, Japanese or Russian junior championships be able to meet the "Nobility" requirements? NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Numbered list
@Isaacl: I disagree with the statement items provide guidance on interpreting the general notability guideline, and are not individual criteria
, as some of them are individual criteria; for example, #5. BilledMammal (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is of course the newest entry that was added based on the recent RfC. The first four items are not standalone criteria, but further interpretation guidance. The fifth item is not a presumption of notability criterion, either, but a requirement for articles. Thus it isn't really a "basic criterion" for establishing that the standards for having an article are met. isaacl (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then we should create a new section for it; either way, we need a simple way to refer to it - either as WP:SPORTCRIT #5, or WP:SPORTMIN. BilledMammal (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I support using a numbered list, as it makes it easier to refer to the items in discussions. Levivich 00:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- To-date, the absence of numbers hasn't hampered discussion about the inadequacy of trivial coverage, database coverage, fan blogs, primary sources, or routine game coverage. They all trace back to statements in Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline; the items in that section aren't numbered, and discussion still proceeds without issue. isaacl (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Professional Athletes - lede
The section on "professional athletes", I propose, should begin with this language:
Athletes who won or medaled in a major amateur or professional competition (as listed in this section) or won a significant amateur or professional honor are likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Professional athletes in team sports may also be likely to receive significant coverage, especially in elite professional leagues, but all articles must contain at least one reference to a source containing significant coverage.
When the community decided to roll back the participation requirement, the standard used is GNG. As of yet, no specific guidance has been created for the many professional athletes who played professionally in team sports but may not won a significant honor. I believe that my proposed language provides important guidance without equivocating that participation in a professional league equals notability while recognizing that many professional athletes may meet GNG. Placing this before the sport-specific guidelines provides a nice overview for what any sport-specific guideline might say.
I might also suggest that language could be added here along the lines of "Professional athletes not independently notable may be redirected to a team page (such as 2022 Los Angeles Dodgers season) or a list of players from a league, country, or era (such as List of players who played only one game in the NHL. --Enos733 (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the whole page would benefit by having a criteria that applies to multiple sports, like a PROBASIC section. I think for pretty much any pro sport, pro athletes are likely to meet GNG if they have certain achievements in their sport, such as being inducted into the hall of fame, winning a major season award (MVP, Rookie of the Year, etc.), setting an all-time record (most points in a game or season, etc.), or similar accolades. The sport-specific sections could then list the accolades specific to that sport. This would reduce the size of the page, be easier to follow and apply, and be entirely merit based and not participation based. Levivich 01:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- The motivation behind replacing the old athlete guidance with the individual sports-specific guidance was that one-size-fits-all guidance didn't apply well across all sports. When a set of criteria is limited to a specific sport, it's easier to demonstrate that the criteria are highly accurate predictors that the standards of having an article are met, versus trying to craft criteria accurate across multiple sports. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Obsolete criteria
RandomCanadian, the reason I added the Obsolete criteria section was that without it, editors following old redirects (and those who knew of their previous existence but not the recent discussions) would be confused and left none the wiser as to what happened to their intended targets. If you think it doesn't belong, you might want to consider nominating the redirects WP:AFL/N, WP:AFLN, WP:FOOTBALLER, WP:GRIDIRON, WP:NAFL, WP:NAFOOT, WP:NFOOT, WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:NFOOTIE, WP:NFOOTY, WP:NFUTBOL, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:Ngridiron and WP:NSOCCER for deletion until replacements targets are created for them. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: the section was added to be a target for various redirects that no longer point to an existing section. I feel it is a reasonable approach so anyone following any of the many, many past uses can land on an explanation. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- People looking for obsolete criteria should probably be redirected to the criteria which replaces them (i.e. this), until such time, if and when, there are more up-to-date replacements. That seems simpler and less confusing than adding section which does not make clear what they are replaced with. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Readers of old deletion discussions don't know the criteria they are looking for have now been deleted. Redirecting them to a different section may lead them to misunderstand the past discussions. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I remember the solution taken with WP:NSOLDIER was to move those to a separate page marked with {{historical}}, although in that case there was not any expectation of a replacement (and indeed, there is none apart from GNG). If that's not feasible here, a replacement section which at least makes it explicit the replacement is GNG/NBASIC would be a better solution than the one that was attempted so far. 22:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- So a section such as the one that WP:NSOLDIER currently points to? Sure, once there is a target section, its text can be copyedited. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The other solution is to leave a note in an existing section and use {{anchor}}; if that's simpler, or if the main idea can be expressed succinctly enough to not warrant a separate section. What would you think of putting
Criteria for several sports were removed following an RfC from January–March 2022. Questions about the notability of figures from such sports, or from other sports which do not have criteria listed here, should defer to the basic criteria, listed immediately below.
in the #Applicable policies and guidelines section? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The other solution is to leave a note in an existing section and use {{anchor}}; if that's simpler, or if the main idea can be expressed succinctly enough to not warrant a separate section. What would you think of putting
- So a section such as the one that WP:NSOLDIER currently points to? Sure, once there is a target section, its text can be copyedited. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I remember the solution taken with WP:NSOLDIER was to move those to a separate page marked with {{historical}}, although in that case there was not any expectation of a replacement (and indeed, there is none apart from GNG). If that's not feasible here, a replacement section which at least makes it explicit the replacement is GNG/NBASIC would be a better solution than the one that was attempted so far. 22:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Readers of old deletion discussions don't know the criteria they are looking for have now been deleted. Redirecting them to a different section may lead them to misunderstand the past discussions. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe a soft redirect? Levivich 01:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich: Currently (click on any of the links given as example above), you get sent to Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Obsolete_criteria, which answers any question readers or those clicking on the links from an AfD might have. Also, and more importantly, if not a straight redirect to there, where would a soft redirect be to? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- To NSPORTS but not a specific section, but the status quo anchor is probably better than the soft redirect idea anyhow... forget that idea :-) Levivich 02:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: I don't see any logical flow problem. All sports not listed includes that were previously on the page but are now removed. I feel it is more cumbersome (particularly over the long run) to call out removed sports. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Sports that are not listed on this page[2] should defer to the § Basic criteria for guidance.
, with the ref note keeping this explicit mention while the main text remains free of this cumbersome distraction? At least, since the point of having this is so that people using redirects from before can "land on an explanation", it would make sense for that explanation to be there somewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Bolded sentence, now in RfC form
What should be done with the bolded sentence, that is:
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously, I now realise, discussion about this might also affect FAQ no. 5 (which is specifically about this sentence). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Discussion/brainstorming
The previous discussion on this seems to have died out without a clear consensus for anything. So, despite misgivings about this whole series of events, given nothing else seems to work, hopefully this exercise in brain-storming will attract a bit more attention. As it stands (and as it previously stood, before the larger RfC), the second sentence is at odds with the rest of the guideline, since it seems to imply that subjects do not need to meet GNG if they "meet the sport specific criteria set forth below". The fact it is bolded also brings a lot of attention to this somewhat misleading statement. Previous discussion on this does not seem to have yielded any positive consensus (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_48#Bolded_sentence_again). There are multiple possible courses of action, and I'm not quite sure which to pick. I think, at the minimal, that the sentence should be unbolded, no matter what else is done (to remove the extra emphasis this gives on it). After that, there are multiple possible choices, which include: removing it entirely (it is somewhat redundant with the next two paragraphs, in particular the third one, which mentions the necessity for articles to still meet basic policies such as WP:V - i.e., the need to be based on reliable sources); rewriting it, either partially or entirely from scratch; or even moving it elsewhere on the page (for example, to that Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8#Applicable policies and guidelines section). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm of the "remove it entirely" camp. Shorter is better for PAGs and this is no exception, and the sentence has generated more confusion than clarity in AFDs. Levivich 01:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I too would prefer to see removed a sentence that requires its own FAQ (#5) to clarify and which is at odds with several other parts of the guideline. If it needs to stay in some form, then it should summarize the kind of sourcing required by SPORTCRIT, given that it already starts with 'The article should provide reliable sources' (probably something like 'The article should provide significant coverage in multiple and independent reliable sources'). Avilich (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest removing it. It tries to tackle the impossible job (and in the wrong place) of codifying & summarizing wp:notability, the relation of SNG's to it and wp:GNG and inevitably fails, and conflicts. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- It should stay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I feel it would be best to remove it as it mostly just generates confusion in AFD's. Alvaldi (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Remove it. Redundant and only serves to facilitate gaming by confusing matters. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Surely it would be prudent to change it to
? Either that or remove it. GiantSnowman 18:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline .
- I'd oppose that version. It conflicts with the beginning of wp:notability and / or completely cancels / negates the Sports GNG.North8000 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Great intention and philosophy (which I agree with) but I stand by what I wrote. The proposed statement in essence makes the SNG say "make sure it meets GNG" North8000 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- What is the problem with that? Levivich 19:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- My comments follow the reality of the structure of wikipedia notability whereas my preferences align with yours and GiantSnowman's. So you are asking me to debate against myself! :-)
- 6/12 the SNGs listed at WP:N ultimately require GNG or equivalent (i.e. restate SIGCOV in multiple SIRS). The function of an SNG is therefore not, and never has been, necessarily inherently notability-granting. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- What is the problem with that? Levivich 19:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Great intention and philosophy (which I agree with) but I stand by what I wrote. The proposed statement in essence makes the SNG say "make sure it meets GNG" North8000 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed with this. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- As noted in the following section, I don't understand why SPORTBASIC could not be made sufficiently specific/contextualized that it would take the place of this rather inelegant (and possibly policy-defying) reference to the GNG at the top of the guideline. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep some semblance, reword as needed. Unless I'm missing something, a majority citing NSPORTS being met at an AfD should be sufficient to keep. Otherwise, one dissenter saying GNG is not demonstrated overrules it all, and the SNG is worthless. At the same time, a majority can demand GNG be met now (e.g. it's one of the, say, 5% of cases where the SNG "fails" for a given bio), and that would be OK too. Participants should have the flexibility to use common sense to apply SNG or GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly, that's WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES for you, if people claim that sources exist but can't be bothered to find them, then their arguments are essentially a proof by assertion, which is no proof at all. There's a clear community consensus (as evidenced by the changes introduced by the latest RfC) that notability is not automatic and that sources must be presented (not assumed to exist) when challenged at AfD, and that this SNG does not override GNG (and that does not make it "worthless"). The guideline should reflect that, not muddy the waters with a confusing and bolded second sentence which seems to imply that merely meeting the criteria but not having acceptable sourcing is OK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, exactly...
: Sorry, I'm not sure if your response is in agreement with what I posted or not. Are you referring to THEREMUSTBESOURCES when a subject meets NSPORTS, or when they don't even meet an SNG? —Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)- THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an argument to avoid (if you clicked through), hence, yes, exactly, people claiming that "NSPORTS" is met but which do not show any source to substantiate this should have their !votes pretty heavily discounted at an AfD. One person merely "saying" GNG is not met wouldn't necessarily be enough, but if there is evidence of a proper source search, and a lack of results, then, yes, I'd be inclined to give that one !vote far much weight than the others. Otherwise the AfD problem which was identified and was one of the root causes for the recent RfC (namely the no-effort "Keep passes N[insert sport here]" spam) hasn't actually been resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- We've removed all the one-game thresholds from questionable leagues (and unfortunately a few truly notable ones). Meeting NSPORTS is no longer flimsy as before. The gray area is what level of presumption of notability should meeting NSPORTS now buy? If an SNG is met, THEREMUSTBESOURCES should be a plausible argument, more often than not. Otherwise, what is the benefit of an SNG over an essay? —Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- The point of SNGs is providing guidance on what kind of article should or shouldn't be created, so as the prevent the waste of everyone's time (both the creator's, but also that of everybody else on the encyclopedia). An SNG doesn't need to override GNG to be useful; see the example of WP:NASTRO (which, while providing a few [and note, only a few, not a boatload] bright-line criteria, repeats the fact that notability is not inherent or inherited and that it must essentially still be confirmed by reliable sources) or WP:NORG (whose "primary criteria" is a restatement of GNG, with the rest of the guideline giving help on how to apply that and identify proper sources in its specific topic area). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Based on your proposed direction for NSPORTS, should it ever be suitable to !vote by simply stating "meets NSPORTS" at an AfD? —Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- That would be a typical WP:VAGUEWAVE and would not be acceptable, no. In the same way, "fails NSPORTS" would not be a valid argument at an AfD either. The AfD should focus on the existence of suitable sources and on whether the topic under discussion does not otherwise warrant not being included (for example, if it fails NOT): both of these aspects require a bit more effort than simply waving arbitrary criteria around. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I trust that "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" !votes are equally
waving arbitrary criteria around
and VAGUEWAVES. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)- If no evidence has been presented to support either, yes (although I have seen the latter one used as a nomination rationale: the outcome tends not to depend too much on the nominator's !vote, in those cases). With the caveat that at least GNG is a criteria directly related to writing the encyclopedia (we need sources from which to write an encyclopedia...), so it isn't quite as arbitrary as some others/previous ones. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I trust that "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" !votes are equally
- That would be a typical WP:VAGUEWAVE and would not be acceptable, no. In the same way, "fails NSPORTS" would not be a valid argument at an AfD either. The AfD should focus on the existence of suitable sources and on whether the topic under discussion does not otherwise warrant not being included (for example, if it fails NOT): both of these aspects require a bit more effort than simply waving arbitrary criteria around. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Based on your proposed direction for NSPORTS, should it ever be suitable to !vote by simply stating "meets NSPORTS" at an AfD? —Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- The point of SNGs is providing guidance on what kind of article should or shouldn't be created, so as the prevent the waste of everyone's time (both the creator's, but also that of everybody else on the encyclopedia). An SNG doesn't need to override GNG to be useful; see the example of WP:NASTRO (which, while providing a few [and note, only a few, not a boatload] bright-line criteria, repeats the fact that notability is not inherent or inherited and that it must essentially still be confirmed by reliable sources) or WP:NORG (whose "primary criteria" is a restatement of GNG, with the rest of the guideline giving help on how to apply that and identify proper sources in its specific topic area). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- We've removed all the one-game thresholds from questionable leagues (and unfortunately a few truly notable ones). Meeting NSPORTS is no longer flimsy as before. The gray area is what level of presumption of notability should meeting NSPORTS now buy? If an SNG is met, THEREMUSTBESOURCES should be a plausible argument, more often than not. Otherwise, what is the benefit of an SNG over an essay? —Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an argument to avoid (if you clicked through), hence, yes, exactly, people claiming that "NSPORTS" is met but which do not show any source to substantiate this should have their !votes pretty heavily discounted at an AfD. One person merely "saying" GNG is not met wouldn't necessarily be enough, but if there is evidence of a proper source search, and a lack of results, then, yes, I'd be inclined to give that one !vote far much weight than the others. Otherwise the AfD problem which was identified and was one of the root causes for the recent RfC (namely the no-effort "Keep passes N[insert sport here]" spam) hasn't actually been resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly, that's WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES for you, if people claim that sources exist but can't be bothered to find them, then their arguments are essentially a proof by assertion, which is no proof at all. There's a clear community consensus (as evidenced by the changes introduced by the latest RfC) that notability is not automatic and that sources must be presented (not assumed to exist) when challenged at AfD, and that this SNG does not override GNG (and that does not make it "worthless"). The guideline should reflect that, not muddy the waters with a confusing and bolded second sentence which seems to imply that merely meeting the criteria but not having acceptable sourcing is OK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
or remove per GiantSnowman. This reflects the current state of the guideline and RfC outcome. –dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline .
GNG vs NBASIC
Comment - since the relevant Notability guideline for athletes, in the absence of an SNG os NBASIC rather than the GNG, I wonder if we could avoid replacing one inaccurate statement with another? If people really can't bear to reference NBASIC for some reason, there is a readily available alternative, which is to bolster SPORTBASIC with sufficient precision that nobody feels the need to reference a standard external to NSPORTS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are the only editor I know of who makes this "GNG doesn't apply to biographies" argument... JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't technically true; "everyone knows" that some biographies, like NPROF ones, are notable independent of GNG. But anyway, since NBASIC is stricter than GNG, I don't see why you see this as a problem. Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Let me juxtapose two things, the first is a quote from the top of WP:Notability, the second is my condensed paraphrasing of what's included in the current and proposed version of the sentence:
- "If it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)..."
- And the SNG says "Must meet GNG"
See my point? North8000 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Guidelines are created by editors for their convenience, and not editors for the convenience of guidelines. If there's a consensus that the best way to provide guidance for a specific subject is to have criteria that predict if the general notability guideline is met, while still deferring to it, so be it. The guidelines should be adjusted as needed to match consensus. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- The thing is, if any biographies sneak into Notability on the basis of the small differences between GNG and ANYBIO (which mostly deal with a stricter reading of IND for biographies), I think that is the opposite of
convenience
for editors. There is nothing about sports biographies that means that the adjudication rules that apply to all other biographies should not aly to them, and WP:CONLEVEL suggests that any LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary is, from a policy standpoint, null and void. Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)- The point is that just because the notability guideline refers generically to subject-specific guidelines, each specific subject-specific guideline is not compelled to be an independent guideline. Editors can still reach a consensus that a given subject-specific guideline can defer to another guideline. isaacl (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Right, they can absolutely defer to a higher-level guideline. But athletes are a subset of biographies, and LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't give NSPORTS the "right" to default to a more permissive higher-level guideline than the one that applies already at a higher CONLEVEL than NSPORTS. I mean, I would rather that the same were true of sports teams as well - but sports teams are explicitly carved out of NORG. Nothing comparable was ever done for athletes, though, so ANYBIO applies.
- Obviously, one way to resolve the current glitch would be for NBIO to exclude sports biographies from ANYBIO, but I haven't ever heard a plausible argument why that would be a good idea - and it would require that consensus be reached at NBIO's Talk page, not here, again per CONLEVEL. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- The point is that just because the notability guideline refers generically to subject-specific guidelines, each specific subject-specific guideline is not compelled to be an independent guideline. Editors can still reach a consensus that a given subject-specific guideline can defer to another guideline. isaacl (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- The thing is, if any biographies sneak into Notability on the basis of the small differences between GNG and ANYBIO (which mostly deal with a stricter reading of IND for biographies), I think that is the opposite of
- I do see it, North8000, but your reading of (1), if followed through, would suggest that corporations need only meet either NCORP or GNG, but "everyone knows" that NCORP must be met without exception. Therefore your reading cannot be followed rigidly without producing conclusions known to be false.
- My own reading of that sentence is that each topic must meet either SNG or GNG, depending on the subject matter domain. Some topics are either/or, others (NNUMBER and NCORP come to mind) are "SNG required", and others (notably the residual) are "GNG required". They all meet either SNG or GNG (or both), but which one they have to meet...well, that depends. And the rest of WP:N backs me up on that.
- For biographies, I don't see any part of NBIO that suggests that GNG ever applies to them where it differs from ANYBIO; rules like BLP1E reinforce my conclusion that within NBIO, GNG is set aside (with ANYBIO taking its place for practical purposes).
- So I get that the status quo text of NSPORTS makes reference to GNG for athletes, to whom ANYBIO applies instead, but I regard this simply as a long-lasting error (of little practical consequence, since the guidelines on question are so similar, but one that I find profoundly irritating nevertheless). Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- The way that I reconcile it is that Ncorp calibrates the sourcing criteria for GNG. Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works What you said would directly and explicitly conflict with the lead in WP:Notability Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- There was a time, years ago, when I believed in this "calibration" notion, but it is like the sanity clause: the evidence for it just isn't there; it seems to be a largely ineffective post-hoc rationalization. I find it much more plausible that the phrase (
depending on the subject matter domain
) is missing from but presupposed by the opening of WP:N - a belief that happens to fit seamlessly with the rest of the Notability ecosystem - than to believe in "calibration", which doesn't have explicit policy support anywhere and which is directly contradicted by the way a good deal of policy language around Notability actually works. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)- About a year and some ago, I introduced language at WP:N to try to explain that the SNGs have various functions and that led to a big mess of a discussion of what the relationship of the SNGs were to the GNG, ultimately leading to this change which tried to capture the complex relationship of SNGs with the GNG. It is not as simple as the one statement above "If it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)..." (which never should be taken and read in isolation of the rest of WP:N, as this new change identifies that close reading of the other SNGs can lead to cases like NPROF or NCORP where the GNG is overriden. --Masem (t) 01:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- My essay and "calibration" concept were not based on finding some (non-existent) structure in the fuzzy herd of cats of the Wikipedia notability ecosystem, it is based on how the fuzzy herd actually functions. On the point at hand, it's quite common to pass a corp under GNG, except with applying the tougher nature-of-source standard from NCorp. And I don't think it ever happens that if a corp passes GNG while applying that tougher source standard that somebody says "no go.....the GNG route in is not available". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- What difference do you see between passing
under GNG, except with applying the tougher nature-of-source standard from NCorp
, and passing NCORP? More precisely, what element of NCORP do you think these corps might be failing? TBH, this sounds like a semantic rather than a real difference. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)- My statement didn't argue that, it was basically to say that your statement that in essence said "corporations can't get under GNG" was incorrect.North8000 (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- But that wasn't my argument. My argument was (in essence) that a corp that passes generic GNG but not NCORP isn't to be (correctly) presumed notable. So are we in agreement? Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- My statement didn't argue that, it was basically to say that your statement that in essence said "corporations can't get under GNG" was incorrect.North8000 (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- What difference do you see between passing
- My essay and "calibration" concept were not based on finding some (non-existent) structure in the fuzzy herd of cats of the Wikipedia notability ecosystem, it is based on how the fuzzy herd actually functions. On the point at hand, it's quite common to pass a corp under GNG, except with applying the tougher nature-of-source standard from NCorp. And I don't think it ever happens that if a corp passes GNG while applying that tougher source standard that somebody says "no go.....the GNG route in is not available". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- About a year and some ago, I introduced language at WP:N to try to explain that the SNGs have various functions and that led to a big mess of a discussion of what the relationship of the SNGs were to the GNG, ultimately leading to this change which tried to capture the complex relationship of SNGs with the GNG. It is not as simple as the one statement above "If it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)..." (which never should be taken and read in isolation of the rest of WP:N, as this new change identifies that close reading of the other SNGs can lead to cases like NPROF or NCORP where the GNG is overriden. --Masem (t) 01:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- There was a time, years ago, when I believed in this "calibration" notion, but it is like the sanity clause: the evidence for it just isn't there; it seems to be a largely ineffective post-hoc rationalization. I find it much more plausible that the phrase (
- The way that I reconcile it is that Ncorp calibrates the sourcing criteria for GNG. Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works What you said would directly and explicitly conflict with the lead in WP:Notability Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Summary/continued discussion
In short, in the initial section above, there seem to be two options which have garnered significant support (with some being ambivalent about which one exactly should be preferred):
- Remove the sentence entirely
- Keep the sentence, but remove the last bit, so that it reads
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline.
It would be good if we good iron out which one is best. I think, in either case, FAQ no. 5 will be rendered obsolete: whether the number should be kept (to preserve historical links) and how exactly to implement that will also require a bit of tinkering. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Basic Criteria #5
Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article
Despite the second sentence editors are using this to argue that one source providing significant coverage is sufficient to keep an article. Given that is not the intent of this line, I believe we need to reword the second sentence to make it clearer that while one source is enough to create the article and contest a prod, this paragraph doesn't make that sufficient to keep the article if challenged at AFD.
I propose:
Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirements indicates that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article and is enough to justify contesting a WP:PROD or creating the article, but it is not sufficient to justify keeping the article if challenged at WP:AFD
BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. We went from using caps on certain teams for presuming notability, to at least having one good GNG reference. At the same time, as this isn't a firm rule, the use of the word "must" seems poor to me. I propose maintaining the original wording and changing must to should. Besides, a subject can be notable if sources exist, even if they have not been named yet - which surely makes the entire sentence unnecessary. Nfitz (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a long-standing WP:ATA, and the final paragraph is worth quoting here:
We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.
Levivich 05:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)- With all the policies and guidelines involved in this mess, I don't think getting into essays like WP:ATD is going to help. Bottom line is there are many, many policies and guidelines that contradict each other. There is no firm rule, one way or another. I keep feeling that those pushing for these changes, and trying to impose a very black & white lens where it is inappropriate. Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, absent an WP:IAR argument (which
should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area
) this is a firm rule. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)- This is part of the problem. You think there are such things as firm rules in Wikipedia; and there simply isn't. That's not a guideline. That's not a policy. That's a pillar - WP:5P5. You are using the wrong lens. For any player from this millennia in G8 or primarily English-speaking countries - which is most of the articles - IAR wouldn't apply. It's only when we get into countries or time-periods where we have a lack of available information - and that is the situation where IAR comes into play. Applying this as a firm rule, only favours further systemic bias and WP:Recentism issues. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- The only recentism/presentism issue here is assuming that the same kind of coverage we get about modern sportpeople existed in the past. In fact, even with modern coverage, there are plenty of athletes whom the only thing that can be said is "oh, they played sport x for team(s) y (and z). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think quality coverage has changed all that much in the last couple of decades - if anything it's gotten more sparse, as coverage moves from established print media outlets, and gets into blogs and tweets. In many places, there's little trace of coverage from 10 years ago, and only 20 years ago, there simply wasn't online coverage to archive somewhere. There's huge recentism issues. Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is part of the problem. You think there are such things as firm rules in Wikipedia; and there simply isn't. That's not a guideline. That's not a policy. That's a pillar - WP:5P5. You are using the wrong lens. For any player from this millennia in G8 or primarily English-speaking countries - which is most of the articles - IAR wouldn't apply. It's only when we get into countries or time-periods where we have a lack of available information - and that is the situation where IAR comes into play. Applying this as a firm rule, only favours further systemic bias and WP:Recentism issues. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, absent an WP:IAR argument (which
- With all the policies and guidelines involved in this mess, I don't think getting into essays like WP:ATD is going to help. Bottom line is there are many, many policies and guidelines that contradict each other. There is no firm rule, one way or another. I keep feeling that those pushing for these changes, and trying to impose a very black & white lens where it is inappropriate. Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a long-standing WP:ATA, and the final paragraph is worth quoting here:
- The root problem is that the requirement to have a reference doesn't fit in the "Basic criteria" section, as it isn't a criterion to establish that a subject meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article. I think it would fit better in the "Applicable policies and guidelines" section, as a followup to the requirements that the verifiability policy and the general notability guideline must be met. isaacl (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- That appears to be an uncontroversial change; done, though I don't think it will resolve the situation. It also gives a chance to address #Numbered list. If editors disagree with this change, or how I have done it, please revert. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reverted myself; I'm not sure it fits better there, as this is part of the basic criteria for an article. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- From your description (perhaps you could link to a few relevant discussions), it sounds like editors are considering "have a reference" to be a sufficient criterion for demonstrating notability. But it's not a criterion for demonstrating notability; it's a requirement to document the existence of a source that demonstrates notability. isaacl (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- See this diff and this diff. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- The first diff is about the number of references required; the second diff aligns with my understanding from your description. Moving the requirement to document sources out of the basic criteria section will avoid implying that documenting is a sufficient criterion to demonstrate notability. isaacl (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- See this diff and this diff. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- From your description (perhaps you could link to a few relevant discussions), it sounds like editors are considering "have a reference" to be a sufficient criterion for demonstrating notability. But it's not a criterion for demonstrating notability; it's a requirement to document the existence of a source that demonstrates notability. isaacl (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reverted myself; I'm not sure it fits better there, as this is part of the basic criteria for an article. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- That appears to be an uncontroversial change; done, though I don't think it will resolve the situation. It also gives a chance to address #Numbered list. If editors disagree with this change, or how I have done it, please revert. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- This "at least one reference" requirement is toothless. The page still must go through AfD if it is not notable, and the nominator is expected to perform WP:BEFORE, whether there is 0, 1, 2, etc. existing cites to significant coverage. Or we can continue this bureauracy and quibble over a "requirement" which adds nothing.—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the explicit adding of the phrase "excluding database surces" will make it clearer to all what sources are and are not acceptable, and will hopefully end the creation of new articles sources only to database sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with the proposal change. A PROD can be contested for any reason (while BLPPROD requires a source to contest), so the new language is misleading. If editors are misinterpreting the clear meaning of the current language at AfD, then that should be pointed out there. I have noticed a significant improvement in AfD discussions where editors no longer robotically !vote keep per NFOOTY. :) Jogurney (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NSPORTS2022 #5 is global consensus now:
AFD !votes at odds with this should be discounted, and AFDs that are closed against this should be taken to DRV. I'm not convinced we should respond to people ignoring the RFC with language revisions here. At some point it's time to start calling out individual editors (and closers, if need be) for ignoring the plain language of the RFC (and NSPORTS). "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability" is pretty clear, and I think adding "it is not sufficient to justify keeping the article if challenged at WP:AFD" is superfluous because it means literally the exact same thing. If some editors didn't listen when we say it once, I don't think saying it twice is going to make them listen. We could however save a lot of time by just replacing the vast majority of this page with one sentence:This was the best-attended proposal and had the most agreement. There is a rough consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. This is meaningfully different from the proposal; the original proposal required that the source be present from inception, but editors in opposition pointed out the problems with this. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG. Supporters point out that it has the added benefit of reducing the number of one-sentence biographies based on database entries.
Levivich 15:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)To be kept at AFD, an article must have at least two GNG sources.
- That's broadly true of every article and not unique of sports; also we need to be clear that the existence of sources is the key matter; not citations. It's not that the article must cite two sources; it is that the subject of the article must have been written about in at least two sources. I'm sympathetic to wanting to be sure that sports articles are created about subjects about which a good encyclopedia article can be written, but I also don't want to swing too far in the other direction; we shouldn't imply that more is required of sports articles than other articles. We should only create articles about subjects that have enough source material to fill the article with enough well-referenced high-quality prose writing. No more, and no less, than just that. --Jayron32 15:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see why the notability guideline for athletes shouldn't be explicit about the ultimate GNG requirement just because other SNGs don't (necessarily) also have that language. Sports (and geo) articles are uniquely conducive to pseudoautomated article creation from databases, so rapid stub proliferation is much more of a problem in these areas than elsewhere. So it makes sense to clarify/reiterate our notability expectations here to preempt creation, rather than pass off all assessment of notability to time- and effort-consuming future AfDs. Why should sportspeople be afforded special benefit from "we think there are probably sources somewhere offline" vaguewaving just because they meet some "GNG presuming criteria" when those criteria have never been proven to actually predict GNG? Or worse, criteria that have been decided by consensus to be worthless at predicting GNG? Indulging such sourcing claims is requiring less of sportsperson articles. It's not like we see history editors pushing for all ancient orators to get a free stay of deletion just because they appear as professional orators in censuses. JoelleJay (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Re:
To be kept at AFD, an article must have at least two GNG sources
- there isn't any policy supporting such a statement for any type of article, so I don't know why we would suddenly insert this for NSPORTS. It certainly doesn't represent the consensus of the last NSPORTS RfC in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)- There isn't any policy about notability at all, WP:N is a guideline. But the guidelines WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:SPORTBASIC all say that multiple (which means at least two) GNG sources = meets WP:N. The policies that underpin that are V, NPOV, and NOR, our three core content policies (and for living people, add BLP). We can't--can't--write a policy-compliant article without two GNG sources. That's the policy behind GNG in the first place. Levivich 17:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is a brief section on notability in WP:V#notability, which starts with "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". What's interesting in this, is that it doesn't use the word significant (or routine for that matter). In many of the NSPORTS AFD, reliable and independent are normally easy to find. It's the significant and routine that becomes the subject of (too) much debate. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Levivich, I don't see any part of WP:N (or, for that matter, WP:V) that supports your claim that
We can't--can't--write a policy-compliant article without two GNG sources
. We have whole domains of articles, documented in WP:NPROF and WP:GEOLAND, where there is quite explicitly no expectation thattwo GNG sources
are required for a policy-compliant article. What is more, WP:SIGCOV differs from WP:SIRS precisely in allowing that sourcing requirements can be met globally through multiple sources carrying different elements, so that there may not be twoGNG sources
- possibly not even one - that meet all the requirements including depth. Perhaps what you meant byGNG sources
is something different from my understanding, but there is no requirement for two magic sources to grant Notability on Wikipedia. Two reviews grant NBOOK Notability and two SIRS sources grant NORG Notability, but that seems rather tangential to what you're saying. And as I understand the NSPORTS RfC, the proposal was made that two "GNG sources" must be included in each sports article to pass AfD, and there was no consensus for this (fairly novel) proposal. Please let me know if I'm wrong about that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)- I assume Levivich was talking about subjects who fall under the scope of this guideline or under GNG in general, not about those that are governed by the two non-GNG-based SNGs. I don't know what your point is about SIGCOV vs SIRS, did you mean to link BASIC instead? JoelleJay (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did not understand Levivich to be
talking about subjects who fall under the scope of this guideline or under GNG in general
, based on the actual words they used. I was therefore referring to SIRS, precisely - the gap between NBASIC and GNG is small, but the difference between SIGCOV and SIRS is enormous. Newimpartial (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I did not understand Levivich to be
- Without two WP:GNG sources, a policy-compliant article cannot be written because:
- Without any sources at all, an article will violate WP:V and WP:NOR
- Without any reliable sources, an article will violate V
- Without any secondary sources, the article will violate WP:NOR (if there is any context/analysis it will be based on an editor's interpretation of a primary source) or WP:NOT (if it just reproduces the primary source data with no context/analysis)
- Without any independent sources, the article will violate WP:NPOV as it will only present the non-independent POV (the POV of the subject)
- Without multiple sources, the article will also violate NPOV because it will only present one POV. It takes at least three independent sources to determine a majority and a minority view for any conflicts between the sources. Two sources are required to at least have an article that isn't just a summary of one source. If our articles were just summarizing one source, that might even be plagiarism and/or copyvio in some jurisdictions, as we'd just be restating what one source wrote about something, which would also violate NOT.
- Without in-depth sources, we can't write a complete article; it'd be a perma-stub, and that would violate WP:NOT
- Over the years, the community has at times made some exceptions, such as NPROF. The exceptions are few and narrow, and they're policy-compliant per WP:IAR. Levivich 04:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I was asking for reasons rooted in the community's guidelines, not your personal opinions. (I know you have opinions.) Some of these opinions do not have community support - e.g., there is no "rule" against perma-stubs (that isn't what NOT says, for example). And your "rule" that at least three sources are required to triangulate NPOV is pretty hilarious and would be IAR if you tried to apply it in practice - but I think you know that. And I also think you know that the community support for GEOLAND and PROF is based in other pillars than IAR.
- As far as your first four points go, which are less original, their logic do not require
two GNG sources
, as the GNG itself does not. SIGCOV allows these qualities to be distributed among sources (as opposed to SIRS, which requires them to be present in each source) which means that, strictly speaking, all these GNG requirements can be met with no "GNG sources" at all. You have moved the unit of analysis where it does not belong, according to the guideline, and you have also set the actual sourcing in the article as the criterion for deletion, which violates ATA. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I assume Levivich was talking about subjects who fall under the scope of this guideline or under GNG in general, not about those that are governed by the two non-GNG-based SNGs. I don't know what your point is about SIGCOV vs SIRS, did you mean to link BASIC instead? JoelleJay (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- There isn't any policy about notability at all, WP:N is a guideline. But the guidelines WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:SPORTBASIC all say that multiple (which means at least two) GNG sources = meets WP:N. The policies that underpin that are V, NPOV, and NOR, our three core content policies (and for living people, add BLP). We can't--can't--write a policy-compliant article without two GNG sources. That's the policy behind GNG in the first place. Levivich 17:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's broadly true of every article and not unique of sports; also we need to be clear that the existence of sources is the key matter; not citations. It's not that the article must cite two sources; it is that the subject of the article must have been written about in at least two sources. I'm sympathetic to wanting to be sure that sports articles are created about subjects about which a good encyclopedia article can be written, but I also don't want to swing too far in the other direction; we shouldn't imply that more is required of sports articles than other articles. We should only create articles about subjects that have enough source material to fill the article with enough well-referenced high-quality prose writing. No more, and no less, than just that. --Jayron32 15:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment - the existing text is not great, IMO, but the replacement text doesn't seem better to me. Specifically, does not indicate
doesn't seem quite right to me, and seems to be based on an unusual understanding of what "indicate" means - I think does not guarantee
would get the point across better.
But indicates that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article
means exactly the same thing as indicates notability
, so whatever hair is being split between this and GNG/NBASIC, or between presumptive Notability and AfD outcomes, this proposed text doesn't make sense of it, at least to this (reasonably experienced) reader. Newimpartial (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)