Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8

Mexican League

Some discussion has arisen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homar Rojas regarding whether or not playing in the Mexican League confers a presumption of notability. The league's status as a minor league vis-a-vis Major League Baseball has led some (myself included) to regard the league as not (or at least not since it entered into its working agreement with MLB) a top-level league, but others argue that because it is the highest level of pro ball in Mexico (in addition to meeting the other qualifications), it qualifies as a "top-level league". I think some clarification of the guideline is in order, and would appreciate some additional input into whether or not we intend for the LMB to confer notability. -Dewelar (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say it does not. The criteria clearly states "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues" Being AAA, clearly the Mexican League is a minor league and not a major league. Maybe the criteria should be changed, but as of the current criteria the Mexican League is not a major league as required.RonSigPi (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the criteria themselves need to be changed since so much debate went in to them originally. The question here should be.. does the Mexican League qualify as a "major league" and I'd day that since it is recognized as AAA level then no it doesn't. Obviously the top mexican ballplayers go to play in the U.S. leagues... which isnt necessarily the case with the Japanese and Korean leagues which definitely have more weight to them. Spanneraol (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Even that's not the issue under discussion. The guideline as written says "any one of the following active major leagues...or any other top-level national league." (Emphasis mine.) As such, if the LMB is "a top-level national league" (And how could it be otherwise? If not the LMB, then which league is the top league in Mexico?), then it meets the standard as written. Dewalar's only rebuttal to this point when it was raised in the AFD in question is that MLB is the top-level league in Mexico, which is certainly a novel position to take, given that there are no MLB teams in Mexico, and never have been. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would go further than taking LMB out of the "major league" equation. I question how much notability there is in playing for the European leagues. I nominated Jake Blalock for deletion a while ago, but it was kept because after he couldn't advance in the minor leagues, he went to play pro ball in Serie A1 (baseball). The way the definition is applied, everyone who plays in Serie A1 (baseball) is notable and should get an article. I don't agree with that. I say limit it to MLB, NPB, KBO and CPBL, unless there's another league I'm missing that should be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would think that given how the guideline is written at the moment, that the Mexican League is considered notable. Unless there's something else out there to contest it, how would it not be the top-level national league of Mexico? Particularly seeing as there it apparently has its own minor league system of some kind. Yes point 6 talks about minor leaguers not being inherently notable, but it's not like someone has to qualify under every point to have an article. There'd be cases of entertainers who might both sing and act, who would qualify as a singer but not as an actor (or vice versa), but who have articles. I wonder if the use of the term "major league" in this context is perhaps part of the problem, in that it has a different meaning to "Major League". Now maybe I'm just being the strange outsider, but my reading of it is as if the phrase could be replaced with "significant association governing a competition known by the same name" or something similar.

I also think that we need to be careful that we don't fall into the trap of "well I haven't heard of it so its not important enough". The various European leagues mean very little to me, but I think that they're as deserving of good quality articles as MLB is. Maybe I'm biased because if they get axed from notability then the Australian Baseball League might for the same reason. But I think the fact that "... or any other top-level national league" is present means that I'm not the only one who thinks that way, or at least thought that way.  Afaber012  (talk)  09:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that the Mexican League itself or its teams are notable. The question I'm presenting is whether or not a player should have a presumption of notability solely on the basis of having played there, as is true of the ones listed in the guideline. -Dewelar (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Players in top leagues in various countries are likely to get articles in their countries. We have to remember that this isn't a North America centered encyclopedia. So playing Seris A ball for example is a big deal in Italy and is followed in the Italian papers so to not allow players in it to have articles because they haven't played the top American level of baseball is a bit disingenuous. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on the IBL's Serie A1 since my knowledge of European baseball is limited. However, based on what I do know I'd support their players for presumed notability before post-agreement era LMB. -Dewelar (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's really no rational way to support that position. Sorry, but there it is. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the word "rational" means what you think it means (/Inigo) -Dewelar (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidently you don't, since if you did, you wouldn't have objected to my characterization of your comparison of those two top-level foreign leagues. LMB games are attended by a much larger number of fans than IBL ones. The LMB's caliber of play is much higher than that of the IBL. The LMB has a much more extensive history than the IBL. And the cultural history of baseball in Mexico is much stronger than that of baseball in Ireland. Yet in spite of this, you think that the IBL is notable, and the LMB is not, purely on the strength of three letters. What other conclusion can I draw? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but the conclusion that I draw is that you're apparently too emotionally attached to this subject to discuss the matter without resorting to taking shots at other editors. Also, that you're confusing Ireland with Italy. -Dewelar (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I am emotionally attached to this subject. I worked for years to help make that guideline as clear and unambiguous as possible, and now you're trying to twist the meaning of a fairly clear and unambiguous phrase ("top-level national league") into something that the community didn't review or approve because you're unhappy you didn't get your way in an AFD. I know that consensus can change, but after five years, it gets tiresome having to re-cover the same ground over and over and over and over and over and over and over, y'know? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from continuing to take shots at me of this nature. Ridiculing my motives for taking my position on top of ridiculing the position itself is not painting you in a favorable light.

That said, I The problem with the phrasing you chose here is only a problem as it applies to the LMB, because the LMB holds a unique status as being both the top league within its country AND AT THE SAME TIME recognizing that MLB is of a higher level. My take on the matter is that minor leagues (at least in their current configuration) do not confer notability, period. The LMB is a minor league, and the Italian League is not. As I said, I'm not sure why that's not a "rational" position. In any case, despite your original intention, it is obvious that there is significant disagreement over whether or not it should be recognized under these guidelines. I intend to abide by the consensus that is established by this discussion, whatever it may be. I hope you will do the same -Dewelar (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've provided links to some of the original discussion that fed into the formulation of the guideline, to show you that your interpretation of the phrase in question runs contrary to the original intent of the writers of that phrase. If you continue to press forward with your demonstrably incorrect interpretation of the guideline, then I think that illustrates your motives in starting this discussion better than any speculations about your motivation that I could hope to voice. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that your stated position vis-a-vis the relative notability of the LMB and the IBL is "irrational" because you're fixating on the label of "minor league" rather than the actual nature of the relationship between the LMB and MLB, which is nothing like that between MLB and any other "minor league". No other "minor league" is located in a foreign country with no MLB teams. No other "minor league" has teams that are free of affiliations with any MLB franchise. No other "minor league" has full autonomy on player transactions. No other "minor league" has had, during its time as a "minor league", its own fully-subordinate system of minor league affiliates used to develop its prospects. For these reasons, the LMB is not a de facto "minor league" team as the term is commonly understood in baseball. It is the top league in Mexico, and we would be grossly negligent if we did not give it the level of coverage appropriate for that status. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The relationship between MLB and the LMB is different from that of any other minor league today, but is not unprecedented. As recently as the 1950s, the PCL had a similar status. Prior to the rise of the modern farm system, every minor league had a similar status, if not even more independent than the LMB, with some of those being in foreign countries (Canada, Cuba, et al.). I believe the level of play in the current LMB is below that of the PCL during the greater part of the first half of the 20th century, if that is the argument, and nobody is currently pushing for the PCL to have the status for which you are currently arguing for the Mexican League.

As far as the intent of the creators of these guidelines...I don't believe I've ever made any argument about said intent, other than to ask you what it was back in the original Rojas discussion after you made an assertion of what your intent was. I believe you may be conflating some of what I've written with RonSigPi's contributions. Whatever the intent may have been at the time, as you yourself has said, consensus can change, and the impression I have had among current participants in the baseball project is that they are, for the most part, in agreement with my position vis-a-vis the LMB. I don't know for certain if that's true of course, and the limited participation in the Rojas discussion only brought us to a closure of "no consensus". Thus, this discussion.

I understand your frustration at what you perceive to be a continual assault on your contributions, but that comes with the territory here on Wikipedia. I know I've felt that before, and have taken the occasional wiki-break to clear my head and come back with a fresh perspective. -Dewelar (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The PCL once enjoyed a much greater degree of autonomy than it does today, but since the PCL was never the preeminent league in its own country, your example is hardly relevant. Your argument does speak to the original intent of the guidelines (by implication), insofar as you've tried to represent the term "major" as meaning one thing, when in fact it was intended to mean something completely different. You're attempting to retroactively alter the meaning of that term, and as such, I felt it was important to note that you were doing this. I'm not upset about "a continual assault on my contributions". This is Wikipedia, after all, and nothing is written in stone. Rather, I'm upset that you're attempting to change the guideline in a way that avoids any recognition of the current meaning and status of the guideline that you want to change. By attempting to frame your interpretation as identical to the current consensus, you'd skirt the review process necessary to actually change a guideline, violating policy in the process. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course LMB players are notable. It's the top-level league in Mexico, the league with which all Mexican players first sign, and the league in which the vast majority of high-level Mexican players play. Attempts to portray it as equivalent to the IL or PCL are based in a fairly fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of minor league baseball's affiliate structure. Unlike teams in the US minors, LMB teams are entirely independent and unaffiliated with any US franchise. They sign, trade, and release their players on their own authority. Its status as a AAA league is nominal. Moreover, the LMB is one of the top three non-US leagues in terms of quality of play, on a par with Nippon Professional Baseball and the Cuban National Series. To exclude it would be the functional equivalent of saying that NO non-US baseball is deserving of note or coverage, which is an incredibly biased and short-sighted position to take. Wikipedia is supposed to cover the world, not just the US. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The way the criteria stands, it requires that a league be a major league. I think its pretty cut and dry. Since the LMB is by definition a minor league (nominal or not, it is defined as a AAA league), it cannot be a major league and thus does not meet the criteria. It is irrelevant if it is portrayed as equivalent to the IL or PCL. It is relevant if the LMB is a minor league or not irregardless of its degree of equivalence to the IL or PCL. Not having the LMB notable is not the functional equivalent of saying NO non-US baseball is deserving of note or coverage. Clearly the Nippon Professional Baseball is notable and it is non-US baseball deserving of note or coverage. If the criteria should be changed, then that is one thing and I think a discussion can begin on what the criteria should read. However, as the criteria now reads the LMB is not covered since it is a minor league. RonSigPi (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would advise that you re-read the guideline, which clearly states "any one of the following active major leagues...or any other top-level national league." OR, not AND. As such, it does NOT require that a league be a "major" league (which in this case is used in any event as a descriptive term equivalent to "significant" or "notable", rather than a reference to the structure of affiliated ball, which would be nonsensical in that the LMB is the only foreign league with a nominal MLB affiliation), but simply that it be its nation's top-level team. Which the LMB clearly is. The intent in wording the guideline this way when it was first written was to keep top-level national leagues (like NPB, the LMB, the Serie Nacional, etc.) on one side of the line, and foreign minor leagues (like the aforementioned Mexican Northern League or the NPB Farm Leagues) and short-season winter leagues (like the Mexican Pacific League, the LMP) on the other. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to be condescending. I would advise YOU to re-read the guideline and to read a book of grammar regarding this issue (jerk way to be, dont you think?). A colon is used to signify a list (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm). Not that I am an expert on grammar, but just trying to get guidance. I dont think the sentence ending in OR saves the LMB. It merely makes the list a set of alternatives (played in one of: A, B or C). I could maybe see what you are saying if the guideline said "[h]ave appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, AND Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)." However, the list does not seem to end with the CPBL (since AND is not used to signify the end of the list) and continues with the 'or any other top-level national league.' RonSigPi (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

At best, the current guideline is ambiguous. Lets even say your interpretation is correct. Since MLB is a top-level national league in the U.S. why is it even listed? Wouldn't simply saying top-level national league include the four leagues called out? Shouldn't the guideline then just say "[h]ave appeared in at least one game in any top-level national league (active or defunct)." What does listing MLB, NPB, etc. actually buy the guidelines under your interpretation? I think the calling out of those four leagues gives examples of major leagues for use in determining status other major leagues (like evaluating Serie A). RonSigPi (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, look at other sports. In American Football, playing in the top level UK league British American Football League does not confer a presumption of notability. In ice hockey, playing in the top level Irish league Irish Ice Hockey League does not confer a presumption of notability. Even in soccer, being a top level league is not enough (see Chile). In all other sports, it take more than being a top league, it takes being a major league (generic term). Most notably, being a fully professional league. That is why the guideline requires being a major league. That way players of a top league baseball league of Cameroon are not notable due to the low level of the league despite it being the top national league. Thus, under my interpretation, guideline 2 would be consistent with other sports that a top level national major league would qualify while a top level national non-major league (amateur, minor, etc.) would not. RonSigPi (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am more than open to changing the guideline or having a consensus telling me Im wrong. Feel free to explain to me why I am wrong or why you think I am wrong (in a respectful manner). RonSigPi (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A colon IS used to signify a list. In this case, the list is a set of qualifying items: 1) Major League Baseball 2) Nippon Professional Baseball 3) Korea Baseball Organization 4) Chinese Professional Baseball League 5) any other top-level national league (active or defunct). Since the LMB is one of the five (i.e. number five, "any other top-level national league (active or defunct)"), it qualifies. If your interpretation were correct, there would be no need for the "or defunct" clause in the statement, since none of the leagues provided as examples are defunct. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

But that is the problem. You say 5 is included in the list (any other top-level national league (active or defunct)). However, the list starts with "[h]ave appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues:" Thus the leagues under level 5 must still be major leagues. The LMB is not a major league. To put another way, the LMB does not qualify because while it is a top-level national league, it is not a major league as the list requires (since the LMB is a minor league).

I already attempted to clarify this point once, but let me do so again. "Major", as used in that clause, is used to mean "significant" or "noteworthy", and not to imply any relative status as compared to MLB. That's why it's not capitalized, as the "Major" in "Major League Baseball" is. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In light of your interest in the LMB's nominal status as a minor league, I would be curious to hear your interpretation of the fact that in the not-so-distant past, the LMB had its own farm system. Unlike the relationship between LMB and MLB, however, those Mexican minor-league teams had affiliations with specific LMB clubs, and were entirely subordinate to their LMB affiliate when making player transactions. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

MLB is listed as an example of a prominent top-level national league. When we wrote the guideline, we provided several examples of top-level national leagues so that people would understand what we meant by "top-level national league" (and not think that we meant the VWL and the MPL and the like). The several leagues listed as examples are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all top-level national leagues - you will notice, for example, that Serie Nacional is not listed, either, even though it plainly qualifies and is significantly more notable than several of the leagues that are listed as examples. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines established for other sports are all well and good, but they have nothing to do with baseball. We didn't need to exclude the non-notable national baseball league of Cameroon because there IS no non-notable national baseball league of Cameroon. The baseball guideline was written by people who were familiar with baseball, and I fail to see how including the input of people who were not familiar with baseball would have improved it. Though if you want an example of top-level participants in all nations being treated equally, the equal notability of all Olympic athletes from all nations would seem to be a fairly strong rebuttal. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I come across as brusque in my responses, but I started working on the wording of the guideline five years ago (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Notability for examples), and I kind of resent the implication being made by some people, both here and in the Rojas AFD, that I don't understand the original intent behind a clause that I helped write. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Your resentment is ill-founded. First, no one is asking about the intent. What is important is what the guidelines say. If the guidelines do not represent the intent, then the guidelines need to be changed. If you intended to have the guidelines include LMB, but the guidelines actually expressly exclude LMB (due to it being a minor league), then the guidelines should be changed. You and other editors may not (and 100 years from now will not) be here to explain the intent. We must go on what the guidelines say and correct them if appropriate. Further, the guidelines are to help editors quickly determine notability. It is unreasonable to ask editors to go back in the archive and look at intent. All we can ask them to do is use the guidelines and have the guidelines be as accurate as possible. Second, as I am sure you know, this is a community of editors. Im sorry if you have a personal attachment to your work from five years ago, but when multiple people are questioning the current guidelines that means they should be evaluated. Your work (nor any other editors) is not beyond community evaluation. When multiple people question the tone of your response (see above where Italy was confused with Ireland), I think its time to take a step back. RonSigPi (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If we go by what the guidelines literally say, i.e. "other top-level national leagues", then it most definitely does qualify under the guidelines as written. Furthermore, I find the idea that in a discussion about the meaning of a phrase, the original intent of the people who wrote the phrase is irrelevant to be so bizarre that I'm not even sure how to respond. My objection is not about a personal attachment to my work - it's about the guideline being twisted to try and support an interpretation that's the exact opposite not only of its stated meaning but also the community consensus under which the guideline was originally approved. If you'd like to have a community discussion to see whether community sentiment on the notability of players in foreign leagues has changed, with a view toward altering the guideline to remove the LMB and other equivalent leagues, that's fine, but it's also an entirely separate issue and needs to be phrased and presented as such. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Now you are twisting what I am saying. I never said that intent is irrelevant. What I am saying is that the guideline must represent that intent. Having a guideline that contradicts the intent serves no one. RonSigPi (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding - I certainly did not intend to misrepresent your position in any way. If you do not object to my characterization of the discussion that led to the current guideline, but feel that the "major" in the guideline as currently written is misleading, we could certainly replace it with an equivalent term, or even remove it entirely. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel like this is going in circles. I am going to make my last point and be done with this, I think my feelings are quite clear. You keep mentioning about the "other top-level national leagues", but that is not the part I take issue with. I take issue with this list stating that it requires the top-level league to be a major league. LMB is not a major league, but a minor league. Thus, even if it is a top-level national league, under the guidelines it does not meet because it is a minor league. RonSigPi (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As for Italy and Ireland, that was quite obviously a Freudian slip, insofar as I had already referred to baseball in Italy during the AFD discussion that sparked this whole thing. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not 'calling you out' for making a mistake. We all make them. I was merely referencing another discussion area where people were questioning your tone.RonSigPi (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - sorry that I misunderstood. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of broadening the number of points of view in this discussion, I'm going to notify all the participants in the Rojas AFD of this discussion (regardless of their position on deletion), in case they'd like to contribute. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC) My view is that LMB is covered by the notability requirements as a "a top-level national league." I don't read the requirements to require that a a top-level national league is necessarily as strong as US MLB. If so, no other a top-level national league would qualify. And that does not seem to be an appropriate result. Many Mexican League stars go on to play in MLB, as do many Japanese stars. And most often, neither are stars at the MLB level. But they are still notable in their country, and thus they are notable. Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the arguement here appears to be between the two meanings of major and Major. In Mexico the top level league would be the major league in Mexico. But it would not be the Major league. The guideline doesn't require it to be a Major league, it requires it to be a major league. Having been around when that part of the guidelines were changed. It was if I recall correctly meant to signify the top level professional league in any country. Someone used the example of the Irish Ice Hockey League not conferring notability to someone even though its a top level national league. But they were wrong, the ice hockey guidelines most definately confer notability to all top level national leagues as long as they are fully professional. Having been heavily involved in the creation of the ice hockey ones I know those discussions by heart almost. They had been somewhat heated. -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• The "top level national league" tends to hold steady through a number of different sports, even when the leagues are of wildly disparate standards of play; no one in his right mind would equate the top level Trinidadian soccer league with the Premiership, nor the top level British hockey league with the NHL, but both arguments have been successful at AfD. What letter classification Major League Baseball wishes to assign to the Mexican League - or not - is its business, but that doesn't suddenly mean that the Mexican League is no longer a top-level national league. (Come to that, by what conceivable degree of sanity - for example - can anyone claim the Chinese Professional Baseball League to be a "major league," and dismiss the Mexican League in the same breath? How many of their homegrown players have made the majors? Six ever? Heck, Mexico has over thirty homegrown players active.)

  Frankly, I'm completely puzzled. Criterion #2 is quite explicit: "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)." (emphasis mine) Those editors claiming that the last clause somehow doesn't exist or count ... honestly, I wonder at their motivation for claiming any such thing, beyond a deep unwillingness to admit that they're wrong and move on.  Ravenswing  11:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • It's not a matter of trying to ignore a clause, it's a question about what "top-level" means. It's a vague sort of catch-all that can be used to incorporate leagues that are frankly not "top-level". This is most clear with the Mexican League, which is not top-level as they have a working agreement with MLB that makes them a minor league, and by definition not "top-level". I'd argue that many of the other leagues of the world are also not top-level because they don't play at nearly the level of the four aforementioned leagues, but I understand that position is less likely to carry the day than that LMB is not a top-level league. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Except that it says top-level national league. The league is the top level one can attain playing baseball in Mexico. Which is what that sentence was always intended to mean. The highest level a player can attain in X country. Thus meaning they are likely to be covered in their local country papers. It has nothing to do with quality of play. In terms of quality of play of course they are less than the top league. There really is only one top level league and thats MLB. However that is not what this guideline is trying to indicate. Its trying to indicate when a person is likely to receive press. And once they have played in the highest league in their country they are likely to receive press. -DJSasso (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • A vague catch-all that can incorporate leagues which aren't "top-level?" Only if you define it in terms of MLB. Frankly, though, if what you're claiming is that "top-level national league" doesn't really mean the highest league in a given nation, I don't foresee you winning consensus for that bit of Humpty-Dumpty logic. What this really seems to be is a systemic bias against the minor leagues, so that any league with a working agreement with MLB is somehow tainted by that association. Truth be told, other sports Wikiprojects have managed to come up with clear lists of what leagues they are, or are not, sanctioning. If there are members of the baseball project that wish to enshrine MLB as the sole valid "major" league, let them present a set of rewritten criteria and see if they can gain consensus for it.  Ravenswing  15:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The question (which, as I note below, is sort of moot) is: does "top-level" mean "the highest level within the country" or "a level which does not formally recognize another, higher level". The first definition includes the Mexican League. The second does not. Hence, the guideline needs clarifying. -Dewelar (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Reframing a bit

OK, I think we're kind of off on the wrong track here. We're arguing here about what the terminology in the current guideline is as though the current guideline is set in stone. Quite frankly, that really doesn't matter to the issue at hand. Whether or not the Mexican League is a "top-level national league" is obviously up for debate. There is no such question about Italy's Serie A1 league, as I've mentioned above, even though its quality of play is inferior to the LMB.

Rather than allowing the guidelines as written to dictate how the LMB should be treated, what we should instead be doing is FIRST deciding whether the LMB should be permitted to confer a presumption of notability, THEN rewriting the guidelines to codify the result of that discussion with as little ambiguity as possible. Can we at least agree on that? -Dewelar (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me, from the comments both in this thread and at the Rojas AFD, that there's a general consensus in favor of notability for LMB players (at a minimum, there seems to be no consensus to change the current guideline, which reflects that definition). If you feel that the current wording of the guideline is unclear in its reflection of this, we could discuss ways to alter it that would make the fundamental principle at work easier to understand. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that there's a fairly even split between those in favor of playing in the LMB conferring notability and those against. After all, the Rojas AfD closed with a result of neither Keep nor Delete, but No Consensus, and in this very discussion there appear to be four people who have spoken up on each side. If there's additionally no consensus to change the current guideline, it's because both sides of the Mexican League debate can use it to support their favored position. That's pretty much a sign that the current guideline MUST be changed. I will concede, however, that if the lack of consensus holds, then the direction in which the guideline must be rewritten would be to include LMB players. We'll have to include Serie A1 (and possibly the Australian) as well, since that qualifies under the guidelines as currently written. -Dewelar (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

See below. At the same time you made your comment, I added a discussion on if the guideline should be changed. Maybe that can help keep focus where it needs. RonSigPi (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If I understand your proposal, you are suggesting that each league be individually evaluated if its players should be deemed notable, and then the guideline adjusted accordingly (in which case, it may as well just contain an explicit list without any general rules). Whether or not this is feasible depends if the interested editors feel confident in their abilities to reach an informed consensus on the notability of the players in every league. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue with any of what you said, Isaac, although it's probably more of a hope than an actual suggestion for the reasons you cite. I just think it's in our best interest to remove as much of the ambiguity as we can. -Dewelar (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment as a participant in the Rojas AfD, and will do so briefly. The question in my mind is, are all ballplayers who ever played in the Mexican League automatically notable? That's basically what is being decided here. I'm not comfortable making that statement. It seems overly lenient to me in notability terms; how many of these players would actually prove to be notable without such a clause? What happens with players in Honkbal Hoofdklasse, for example. Are they all notable too? I feel like a specific list of leagues conferring notability is needed, and should be handled with care. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing. According to the current reading of the notability guideline, EVERYBODY who has played at least one game in Honkbal Hoofdklasse deserves a wikipedia article. Same for Serie A1. Same for all the other leagues that are the highest level of competition in that particular country. That is overly lenient. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to keep in mind that above all the sport-specific criteria, the guideline says at two points that this isn't the final say on whether an article should or should not exist. Maybe that hasn't been the case at various AfD's and the like, but it is what's there at the moment, and that's because there will always be examples that push the boundary. Now, someone said somewhere above me here, that someone having reached the national league of a sport in any given country is highly likely to receive press coverage at the national level, particularly if the sport in question is popular in that country, which seems right to me. So it would seem that even if we set a list of specific leagues that were and weren't considered notable, then well put together articles would pass WP:GNG. I think the current cut-off is fine, as long as it is worded to avoid the issue of Major/major. The top-level part needs to stay, as there's the potential for leagues that would be considered at least above a regional level if not at a national level that shouldn't have the same automatic inclusion.  Afaber012  (talk)  04:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability guidelines: Baseball (guideline #2)

Currently guideline # 2 reads "[h]ave appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)." A large amount of discussion is being generated related to the Mexican League under this guideline. To me (and others), a hang-up is the term 'major league' used in this guideline. Related to the Mexican League, it is classified as a minor league but is still the top-level national league for Mexico. However, it seems a lot of people also think that the Mexican League should qualify despite not being a major league. Thus, some discussion has occurred on if the guideline should change. Seems there are three schools:

• 1) keep as is;
• 2) remove term 'major' (would read 'one of the following leagues:' (remove 'major' designation and 'active' designation that contradicts with 'active or defunct' later in the guideline); or
• 3) change 'major' to a less specific word, such as 'professional (e.g., would read 'one of the following professional leagues:'). Note that professional is just an example and consensus can reach another word. As an FYI, the reason I recommend 'professional' is that it makes this guideline consistent with other guidelines (e.g., hockey, tennis, football, etc.) and still keeps a standard so the lowest of leagues do not gain a presumption of notability (e.g., the highest level of baseball in a small country could hypothetically be little league and this would likely not get enough coverage to gain the presumption).

Feel free to comment on a vote for the three choices (or come up with a fourth one I am not thinking of). RonSigPi (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not like any of the three. (1) is ambiguous. (2) and (3) increase ambiguity. To say "professional" opens it up to all levels of the minors all the way down to the Dominican Summer League and independent leagues like the Atlantic League of Professional Baseball. It needs to be kept as the "top-level" league for that reason, but the term needs to be better defined. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, can you please clarify why you think (2) increases ambiguity. I agree that (1) does increase ambiguity and I certainly see why you think (3) does, but I am not quite sure on why you think (2) does. Can you please explain? Thanks. RonSigPi (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing major I think would remove ambiguity because it would end the debate about what major means. ie major as in important/big league. vs Major League. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok you're right, I don't think I read it right earlier. Removing "major" might reduce some ambiguity, but the "top-level" thing will remain. I don't agree with it because "minor" leagues should not confer notability, and removing the word "major" opens that door. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally like the straightforward way it's handled in the American football guideline: "Note: Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues...are not presumed notable unless they meet another criterion, such as notability arising from their college football days." Players from minor leagues should not be presumed notable. The Mexican League is a minor league. -Dewelar (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that football is very different from baseball in that it pretty much has no minor leagues. (when compared to baseball). Another thing to consider is that American Football is really only played in one country. Two if you count the CFL. So while that works fine for football, I don't think it works for baseball because of baseballs international reach and extensive minor league system. In countries where baseball is a highly watched sport these players are going to be written about in their own countries. I worry that trying to restrict to things like the MLB puts way to much of a US/Canada bias into it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is why I think it's something of a mistake to try and rewrite the guidelines before we know what the consensus says the guidelines should say. Does the consensus want the guideline to include or exclude the LMB? If it wants to include the LMB, then the word "major" must be removed because the phrase "major league" has a specific meaning -- specifically, it means "not minor league". If we want to exclude the LMB, then we must remove the word "national" from the guideline, and somehow clarify the phrase "top-level". In fact, I'd go so far as to say we might just want to keep a list of what leagues should qualify, because beyond the ones listed there's perhaps no more than 2-3 active leagues that are even under discussion. Although that might be more difficult for defunct leagues...is there a consensus on which of the various Negro leagues are considered "top-level" or "major"? Also, what other Latin American leagues should be considered? Cuba? Dominican Republic? Puerto Rico? -Dewelar (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained at exhausting length, both in on this page and in the Rojas AFD, the LMB may be a de jure minor league, but it is emphatically NOT a de facto one. Maintaining a list of qualifying leagues also strikes me as a bad idea, given the issues of ambiguity associated with leagues that have been renamed, or leagues that changed status from primary national leagues to subordinate leagues, etc. Providing a simple textual rule for sorting the sheep from the goats provides a much more valuable tool for people interested in determining player notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, arguing about the definition of terms is continuing to get us nowhere. None of the other "top-level national league"s are de facto minor leagues either, but none of them have the de jure status of the LMB. That's why the word "major" must go, which you seem to admit in your other recent comment. The question then becomes, to use your idiom, if the LMB is a goat, are Honkbal Hoofdklasse and Serie A1 also goats? If not, how do we make a rule that excludes them while including the LMB? The Dutch league actually has a longer history than the LMB. -Dewelar (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the word "major" MUST go - it would be fairer to say that I don't think it'd really hurt anything to remove it. As far as notable leagues, I would tend to think that both Honkbal Hoofdklasse and Serie A1 are on the right side of the line. The only recent top-level national league about which I harbor any significant doubts is the Israel Baseball League, in that it wasn't a going concern (bankrupt within one season), didn't have a prominent place within the culture of its nation, and drew the vast majority of its player base from other countries. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that, of the leagues with which I have a passing familiarity, Israel's would be the most questionable. In addition to the reasons you cited, it also seemed to be created almost as a novelty rather than a serious concern. I'm also a little unclear on the various Australian leagues of the past 20+ years. The original ABL probably qualifies, but I'm a little less certain about the newly-resurrected version. Dave Nilsson's version of the league seems to be more akin to the winter leagues in the Dominican and Puerto Rico, so I'd say it wouldn't qualify. -Dewelar (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Along these same lines, what are your feelings on the German national league? -Dewelar (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The key question is if players for the top-most league in a country should be considered to have presumed notability. Whether or not that league is considered the minor league to another league shouldn't affect this presumption; if the players were receiving notable coverage prior to a league becoming affiliated with another, then they should continue to receive that notable coverage afterwards. Alternatively, if the interested editors feel they are sufficiently informed about world-wide coverage of each league, they can try to decide on a case-by-case basis for every league, and the result codified in the notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to vote for keeping it as it is (though we could probably remove the duplicate use of "active" that RonSig mentioned). Let's decide the Mexican Leaguers on a case by case basis. Spanneraol (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think we can. There are some who feel all LMB'ers are inherently notable, and others who think they aren't. By saying "case by case", you might fall into the latter camp. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. Or typing. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fond of suggestions 2 or 3, because that would make players who spent one game in Single-A just as notable as a guy who has reached the majors. That is, players who only have data that can be synthesized from Baseball Reference would then merit articles (which, coincidentally, is contrary to WP:NOTSTATS). Wikipedia does not permit articles for non-notable actors who only have a few credits on IMDB, nor does it permit articles for movies of the same nature. Minor league players with limited, local coverage and data on Baseball Reference are comparable to those bit-actors and should therefore not have articles. I prefer #1. Though I'm not entirely fond of the rules as they are. However, I do believe the rules should be altered to clarify that the LMB is a minor (not top-level/major) league, considering both MLB and Mexico consider it as such. Alex (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Something along the lines of #2 seems the best to me, though not by changing "major" to "professional". Perhaps "significant"? Or maybe leaving it as is but some comment that clarifies that it isn't supposed to refer to "the Major Leagues" but "a major league".  Afaber012  (talk)  06:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the stated objections to the guideline as written, from people who had trouble understanding the intended meaning of "major", I'd be OK with removing the word "major" outright (since the "top-level national league" is the important discriminating factor there). I'd also be OK with replacing it with a reasonable synonym. And as a third possibility, we could simply pass the buck by leaving the wording of the clause the way that it is but listing the LMB as one of the explicitly stated examples of qualifying leagues, since there are currently no other unaffiliated minor leagues outside the US (and we could presumably revisit the issue if one were ever created). I do think that it's important that we preserve the distinction between the LMB and an affiliated foreign league like the Dominican Summer League, which doesn't have nearly the same degree of autonomy or national importance within its country. Granting inherent notability to all DSL players would be a disaster. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexsautographs, I dont quite follow your concern. You say under suggestion 2 players who spent one game in Single-A just as notable as a guy who has reached the majors. However, I dont think that is the case. The guideline would read "[h]ave appeared in at least one game in any one of the following leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)." Since a single-A league is not a listed league and would clearly not be a top-level national league, then I dont think single-A players would be notable under the guideline. Maybe I am not understanding your concern with proposal 2, but to me there is no way a player as you describe would qualify. Under guideline 2, IL and PCL players would not qualify because they are not top-level national leagues because in the US they are below MLB, but the LMB players would qualify because LMB is the top-level national league of Mexico. If I am missing something on your rationale, then please try to re-explain. RonSigPi (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Baseball participants in Pan American Games

This question is a direct fallout of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Orenduff. Orenduff is a career minor leaguer who retired at age 25. However, he did play for the silver medal-winning U.S. national team at the 2003 Pan American Games. On closer inspection, USA Baseball sent its collegiate team to the 2003 Pan Am Games, even though it had a professional team that year composed of minor-league players. Participation in the Pan Am Games was removed as a blanket qualifier for notability in May 2010 ([1]), and according to the Wikipedia article Pan American Games, the games have "lost status in the United States" and have been "neglected by the media" (I realize these statements in that article are unreferenced and I may have taken them out of context, therefore I include them here not as verified facts, but as a primer for discussion). So my question is, in light of the alleged lower status of the Pan Am Games, the fact that the U.S. sent its collegiate team instead of its professional team to the Games, and the advent of the World Baseball Classic, does participation in the Pan Am Games qualify a baseball player under the WP:ATHLETE criterion of "[participation] in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics" (emphasis added)? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts without right now actually having an opinion. First, while I understand that the Pan Am Games have "lost status in the United States", what about the rest of the region? If the games are heavily covered in other nations in the region, than there may be enough coverage to warrant an athlete such as Orenduff even if that is not coverage in U.S. media. I don't know the answer to this question, but I do not think loss in the U.S. is enough. Second, I know a number of editors don't like this approach, but I do try to look at other sports to get a gauge on how to approach this, especially in a multi-sport even like the Pan Am Games. It seems that mere participation in the Olympics or World Championships is enough to give a presumption of notability while earning a medal at a regional championship like the Pan Am Games is the needed standard (see Athletics, Gymnastics, Triathlon). One thing to note is the three sports I use as guides are all individual sports. This might be a case where if you medal as an individual in the Pan Am Games enough coverage is generated, but not if you win as a team. Something tells me this might be a case where the 2003 Pan Am Games US baseball team may merit their own article, but not the individual players that made up that team (since notability coverage is likely directed to the team itself and not the individual athletes of that team). RonSigPi (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

One thing that's worth considering in the case of Orenduff: He wasn't just a random participant. The US team won the silver medal that year. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sold on the idea, one way or the other. I don't particularly like the idea of eliminating anybody who has made an international team. However, WP:OR I personally was possibly the only American journalist covering baseball at the 2007 Pan Am Games. The absence of press coverage is probably something to take note of, but the Pan Am Games in general were treated as a throw away by most of the American press. As a general statement I was not very impressed with any of the teams there. The Cubans did not seem dominating, not like I expected them to be, but were marginally better than the others. Mexico beat them in the first round and and gave what I thought was a rather weak American team a close game. That after the American team, composed of college kids, blew through the opening round. Yes the Cubans won again in the final, but the Americans were competitive to the last inning. Most impressive was the Brazilian team, who played a fast brand of Japanese baseball that made their opponents work, though the absence of power hitting and pitching hurt. They looked like a bunch of Saturday afternoon players, who had full-time gainful employment during the week, but they held their own. I believe at least two of them were Doctors or Dentists. They were the one team that made a game interesting, because I was convinced offensively they were only a hit away from running circles around their confused opponents most of the time. It took the other teams about 4 innings to figure out the strange pitching, then it was over. On the other hand, the facilities and incompetent grounds crew were notable. The LOC was politically successful, but the mañana attitude makes me pessimistic about the 2016 Olympics they will be organizing. Drainage was not considered when designing the temporary, makeshift stadium in what was the audience area and parking lot for a huge outdoor concert arena. Ultimately they gave up and cancelled the consolation game (naming the bronze medal team in the tournament was THAT important) because they couldn't make the field playable before dark. And oops, they forgot about installing lights. Trackinfo (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Curling Guidelines way too lenient

Here are the current guidelines.

A curler is presumed notable if he or she

1. Has participated in a World Curling Tour sanctioned event.
2. Has participated in a World Curling Federation sanctioned event.
3. Has participated in the Brier, the Tournament of Hearts or received a podium finish for another countries' national championship.
4. Has participated in an Olympic qualifying event for any country.
5. Has participated in the Canadian Mixed, Junior or Senior championship.
6. Has participated in a provincial or territorial playdown leading to the Brier or Tournament of Hearts.
7. Has participated in a TSN Skins Game or Canada Cup of Curling game.
8. Has received a podium finish at a Canadian Wheelchair Curling Championship or the Canadian Masters Curling Championships.
9. Has participated at the Paralympics.
10. Are a member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame.

Wow these guidelines are really lenient. I particularly think #5 participation in a junior or senior (over 50) national championships being notable seems a bit strong. I can't imagine the mere participation in this competition means likely meeting GNG. Almost all of these guidelines need editing except 4, 9 and 10. I think changing a lot of these participated to won or podium finish would be a start. I am not an expert in curling though, so lets discuss. --MATThematical (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you are from but in a number of countries curling is an extremely popular sport. I would say most of these guidelines are pretty accurate from the perspective of Canada. If you meet them you will have an article in papers and be featured on tv programs etc. #5 in particular are definitely likely to get you news articles in Canada. Curling is only barely less popular than hockey here. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 are not even remotely questionable to get you articles in the press. Players at those levels are treated to the same coverage as baseball, basketball, hockey players etc. Sort of surprised if you aren't knowledgeable about the sport that you would question the criteria. The whole point of creating the NSPORTS in the way we did was so that people who are knowledgeable could create them at the most appropriate level for their particular sports interest. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

While I agree this is true for Canadian Curlers. This is not the case for curlers in countries where curling is less popular. The guidelines must hold for all countries. It is unlikely that mere participation in an Olympic qualifying tournament for a country where curling is not popular generates feature length articles on the athlete. This is a guideline that is suppose to basically guarantee non-routine coverage of the athlete for all countries. I surveyed the 2010 U.S.A. womens national championships and found non-routine coverage for only a very small portion of those athletes . Granted it was a google search but we are talking about athletes in 2010 and a lot of them.

In almost every other sport it boils down to participation in olympic or world championships, or meeting some sort of performance mark in championships that are not quite Olympic level. Do you think that for example Gymnastics, Figure Skating, and track and Field are too strict? Those sports are also quite popular in certain countries and have similar structures. Of course any gymnast who competes in the U.S.A. Olympic trials is probably notable, but this would not be the case for most countries (where gymnastics is not as popular), so we let GNG take care of the specific case of particular countries. Perhaps Curling is right on, but that means that almost all the other olympic sports on here need to be relaxed. --MATThematical (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

to be specific my comments on each item are

1. are all of these events equal and are the last place finishers from countries that don't have popular curling teams covered in featured articles?, propose adding something like a performance qualification here like what is done for most of the other olympic sports in NSPORT
2. same as above
3. change to won another countries national championship, participation is fine for the listed tournaments
4. delete or at least switch to won. Canadian athletes will qualify under other guidelines or GNG anyway, other countries will have a bunch of non-noatbles competing in their olympic qualifying events
5. for the junior and seniors competitions require a win, the rest of the guideline is fine
6. seems good to me
7. not familiar with this so no comment
8. think a win is more appropriate here
9. seems good to me
10. seems good to me

Well thats sort of the point and why most of the criteria are geared towards Canadian curlers and written this way. Because in Canada any of these things will get you the press. Pretty much every one of these criteria is for Canadian curlers and in a few cases only the top of the top curlers from other countries participate. In other countries the Olympics and World Championships are the bench marks. There is no reason why the criteria can't be explicit for mostly one country since thats mainly the country its played. No different than having the Gaelic Games criteria and Hurling criteria etc which are clearly geared for the small region that its played in. The point of NSPORTS was to be as specific as possible and remove having to go to GNG all the time. The reason people wanted to switch from ATHLETE (where it only said professional or olympics/world championships) was because it was too vague. Creation of NSPORTS was to try and get more specific on each sport. -DJSasso (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The only ones I would question as being borderline are #5 and #6. Provincial playdowns in some provinces are quite competitive and heated, whereas in others they are a foregone conclusion. One could likely easily find coverage that player x participated in the events, but anything beyond that would probably be hard to dig up in a few provinces. Other than that, I don't think they are too lenient. As far as mixed, seniors and juniors go - they could probably be dropped. Most of the juniors who are truly notable will be on the Scotties or Brier scene in a few years, and lots of the mixed or Seniors will already have gained notability. Canada Hky (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So would you then agree to the removal of "received a podium finish for another countries' national championship" in 3 (this non Canadian reference does not likely imply notability, a win might for many of the other countries, but perhaps not all of them), and for 5 changing it to only Canadian Olympic qualifiers (other countries likely only the Olympians are notable). We can always add other countries to this list too (if someone thinks that a particular country would apply here), but leaving it open to mere participation in a qualifier for "any country" seems like it may open a can of worms (not that the we are really being bogged down by people adding non notable curlers). --MATThematical (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not exceptionally familiar with other country's national championships or Olympic playdowns. I think "podium finishes" is strange, because until this past year, the Scotties and Brier didn't even have bronze medal games, so if other countries followed that playoff scheme, they wouldn't have the traditional gold, silver, bronze. Have you asked the curling project to weigh in? Canada Hky (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I just posted a request for the curling project to comment. We could remove the guidelines about other countries olympic lead ups and national championships, after all we can always just use GNG for these countries until people with more familiarity can comment on how much coverage curlers in other countries get in terms of non-olympians, and non-world tour event competitors. --MATThematical (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I wrote these guidelines to be quite inclusive, to make everyone happy, and because no AfD has come about that has passed to any article under this criteria. While I would be opposed to any changes to this list, I can live with participants in Canadian Mixed, Seniors and Juniors events not being notable for exclusion. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to why any participant of the South Korean Olympic qualifying tournament is automatically granted notability. I think the main complaint about the leniency of these guidelines is that it appears to be written from the view point that curling gets the same coverage in other countries as it gets in Canada. Remember that the guidelines are suppose to be written such that every (or almost every) athlete that meets these guidelines will have significant non-routine coverage in reliable secondary sources. I think that a lot of non-Canadians who meet the guideline as it is currently written would not make WP:GNG no matter how hard you looked for sources. I think that most of the Canadian guidelines are fine. --MATThematical (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, South Korea doesn't have an Olympic qualifying tournament. In fact, few countries do. Last Olympics it was just Canada, the U.S. and Switzerland (and only 2 teams for Switzerland) while most countries had their governing bodies select a team. So, I figured the point is rather moot. -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Something to also remember is meeting these criteria isn't automatic notability. It just means notability is likely. -DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That is true, and many editors may have a different view of likely. I think of it as 98% or higher, but others might think of it as 80% or 99.999%. My only concern is that for other non Canadian countries some of these guidelines don't hold, no matter what your definition of likely is. Now that I know that only a few countries hold an Olympic qualifier I understand that the point may be moot most of the time. Although based on a quick google search (which I know is not necessarily a great indication of notability) many participants at the US Olympic curling qualifier in 2008 do not have in depth coverage in reliable sources (at least none that could be found by a internet search engine). I am still concerned about podium finishes at "national championships" for all countries, especially because I imagine that countries that do not have Olympic qualifiers do still have national championships (although I could be wrong about this). --MATThematical (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1 for the second part of 3 we add the qualification (like we do for gymnastics) Has a podium finish at a national championship while competing for a country who qualified a team into either the preceding or succeeding Olympics. This will prevent countries that have non notable national championships from claiming notability for their players when curling gets no or little coverage in that country. Maybe this would be a good compromise. What do people think. --MATThematical (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

From reading the above comments, it is clear that there is no consensus for your proposal. Without a consensus to change, the current guidelines should remain as is. Dolovis (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please reread the comments, they clearly have nothing to do with the proposal. The above comments are against other unrelated suggestions. The proposal was actually based on the comments. The comments pointed out that a stipulation for Olympic qualifying tournaments is unnecessary, because non notable countries do not have Olympic qualifying tournaments. No one has objected so far. No one has commented on podium finishes at national championships. I have been told in past discussions with highly experienced WP editors that there is an assumption in wikipedia that if you make a proposal on a highly traversed talk page like this one and no one objects, then there some consensus, and that you should be WP:BOLD. Is that not correct? Would you prefer I put a rfc tag on the proposal? Also it appears to me that the current guideline was made by a single person with no consensus to start with. In fact, unlike almost all other guidelines curling has never been discussed on this talk page, which goes against the principles of WP:NSPORT being a guideline discussed by the whole community. Under your argument curling should be removed and placed on this talk page until a consensus is made. --MATThematical (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is quite reasonable to be bold and assume silence means consensus. Also, its reasonable that Dolovis only now is commenting and objects, so we are in the discuss phase of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, it would be clearer for a reverter to provide specifics about the change that are objectionable, as reverting with an explantion of "no consensus" does not provide indication of what needs to be improved. —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the change. Seems reasonable. Thought I had already said I agreed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a fairly reasonable change, actually. It doesn't exclude winners of national championships, because they usually are notable as participants in a WCF sanctioned event . -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am okay with that change. The notability guidelines seem good enough to me. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Association football

There is a formative proposal at to [2] to tighten up the criteria for association football players, to bring the criteria a bit more into synch with those of other sports on this page. Pre-emptive warning: the discussion in its entirety is very long. You may wish to skip to here. This proposal seems to be gaining a degree of momentum, and is analogous to the current criteria for Ice hockey. Words of wisdom from NSPORTS regulars would be very welcome. Regards, —WFC— 06:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above a revised football notability page is being drafted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability of footballers and there are a number of open threads at its talk page. Eldumpo (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarify NHOCKEY

Matthew Puempel is the third AfD recently that has disputed the inclusion of ROTY awards in "preeminent honours". This seems to come up a lot, so I would propose the following clarifying statement be added to the criteria (additional text in bold):

• Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league (Most Valuable Player, Top Goalie, Top Defenceman, Rookie of the Year or Top Scorer), first team all-star, All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);

These are the awards for on-ice performance that almost all leagues award in some way shape or form. I know there is the fear of instruction creep, but "major award" is very grey, and there was support for ROTY as a major award in four recent AfDs (Nugent-Hopkins, Bartschi (although he didn't win), Puempel (still undetermined) and Yakupov). Canada Hky (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would probably remove awards part period before I would expand it more than the 3 major awards its typically been in the past. The original intent of this line was that it be someone who would be one of the best ever in the league. Once we start including rookies who may have been a flash in the pan their first year we are defeating the purpose of the what this line is trying to achieve in terms of being someone whose career in the junior leagues as a whole is notable as opposed to a flash in the pan player. While rookie of the year is probably ok for the CHL it certainly isn't for leagues below it such as the Central Hockey League or other such low level leagues. Changing it in the way suggested would open it up to far to many players. For anyone who wins rookie of the year, just qualify them under GNG rather than adding more instructions because GNG will trump whatever we write anyways. For example you add Top Scorer when we specifically mention all-time top 10 career scorer to make it clear that we are looking for a top 10 in the league ever type player rather than just a top player in a given year. -DJSasso (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies some of the confusion. Pretty much every league makes a big deal out of the award they give to their top scorer. Common sense calls that a "major award". I am not dead set for the five I've named, I'd just like things clarified. Canada Hky (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But that is the key, I think major award was meant (and I could be wrong) to mean major award in terms of overall hockey. Not just to the league itself. Like for example being the Rookie of the year in the CHL is a pretty huge deal in Canada in that it is likely to get coverage all across the country. Whereas being the top scorer in the southern professional hockey league is likely not to get much coverage anywhere. While its a major award in terms of its league its not a major award in terms of ice hockey. Like I said I would remove the example of major award from the line and just leave the (all-time top 10 career scorer, first all-star team, All-American). Because like if a player wins any of those awards mentioned he probably already qualifies under something else on this list or could be left to GNG to decide. And I say that because this line covers all leagues. If you want to make a separate line or reword it so that a part of this line covers just the CHL leagues then that might be ok as well. -DJSasso (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine as well. Something like MVP, Top D, Top Goalie for minor pro leagues, the previous + ROTY for CHL and its constituent leagues. Going to GNG is fine, but time-consuming and frustrating when having these guidelines clarified could end some of it. As it is, the argument that academic awards are "major" comes up as well. Canada Hky (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah at the very least it should mention that off-ice awards do not merit meeting this line. -DJSasso (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I have always viewed rookie of the year as a major award. DJ's comments about something being a major deal in the CHL not being the same in the SPHL are valid though, which is why I've always felt that it needed to be highlighted better that these criteria don't mean shit if the player fails WP:GNG. Resolute 00:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple years ago, we decided that playoff/Memorial Cup MVP was notable.[3] I do think we need to distinguish between major junior hockey, or even D1 NCAA hockey, and low minor hockey leagues. Patken4 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about playoff MVPs. I am going to take a look at leagues and their awards, and see if I can't propose something a bit more specific for further discussion. Canada Hky (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, chiming in late on the discussion, but I'm with DJ; I would very happily strike all mention of awards whatsoever, and badly regret ever penning that line in the first place. I presumed that "preeminent" awards would be considered exactly that, and never expected editors would vigorously argue that "Rookie of the Week" and "Best Academic Defenseman" count. Frankly, there are very few cases where a MVP, Top Defenseman, Top Goalie or leading scorer are not also First Team All-Stars or All-Americans, and I'm quite comfortable with marginal players only qualifying for articles on such a basis being left behind pending a GNG qualification. My proposal would be:

*Achieved preeminent honours (defined as being an all-time top ten career scorer for the league in question, a first team all-star and/or an All-American) in a lower minor league such as the Central Hockey League or the United Hockey League, in a major junior league such as those of the Canadian Hockey League, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements);

 Ravenswing  04:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• • My table looks very similar. Of course, my table is on a post-it note, but I will get the proposal here soon. I am not wed to my list of awards, I'd just like the list to reflect an achievement that merits notability, rather than a line item on eliteprospects.com, and I think the discussion here will be helpful. Canada Hky (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Association football players

The association football player notability guideline does not justify the real notability of a player. With the current guideline, a player who has made a 2-minute substitute appearance in the Football League Two is notable, while a player who has been a scoring machine in the Conference National is not notable, even though League One and Two clubs have been interested in him for a long, long time. I think that the rule should be that a player who has recieved a "significant amount of playing time in a nationwide semi-professional or professional league" should be notable. Any comments? PaoloNapolitano (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

First, anytime you start with worlds like 'significant', 'substantial', and the like, you open up a huge ambiguity problem. Thus, the guidelines hard to use, very debatable, etc. Thus, I think you need a quantitative term. RonSigPi (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Second, I think what you have now is really broad and not meeting with the presumption of notability. Let's assume that a player who plays a full season as a starter of a semi-pro team is 'substantial.' The Highland League is an 18 team semi-pro league in Scotland and is the 5th level league (below the SPL and 3 SFL leagues totaling 42 teams). That means that 198 'starters' each year would not notable? All for a nation of just over 5 million people? This just does not seem plausible that all 198 players should be given a presumption of notability. Even if its more than a starter (e.g., starter for 2 years, 3 years, etc.), the odds of any player for the Highland League gaining a presumption of notability based on aggregated playing time seems doubtful. RonSigPi (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that I am not saying the guidelines should or should not be changed, just that I don't think your solution is a viable answer. RonSigPi (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"significant amount of playing time in a nationwide semi-professional or professional league" applies to every player that has played half a season in the New Zealand National League. and New Caledonia. And Iceland. And Wales. And Angola. And Trinidad. And about a hundred other countries. And the Women that play in the top leagues of about 60 countries. Most of these players have achieved nothing truly of note. If such a player is so good and notable that another also ran team at the lower end of the bar has been "interested in him for a long, long time", why is he not playing for them?--ClubOranje^T 08:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Badminton at the Commonwealth Games

There seems to be a discrepancy here. In Gymnastics and Triathlon, a medal confers notability, but in badminton it is mere participation. I think this ought to be changed. It would seem that the best standard would be that notability comes from participating at the Olympics, or winning a medal at the Commonwealth Games. StAnselm (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not convinced that there is any discrepancy here. Different sports, may attach different importance to an event like the Commonwealth Games. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - The issue is not how important an event is, but how much coverage an event receives. The point of this criteria is not to establish how talented or accomplished and athlete is, but instead to give guidance for a presumption of meeting WP:GNG. I think I see both sides. For example, lets take the Pan-Am Games as an event. There are commonly two types of media: general (e.g., ESPN) and sport specific (e.g., themat.com (wrestling)). If the specific sport media gives little importance to an event, then there is a lower likelihood that notability occurs due to lack of specific coverage. However, general media commonly covers an event considered major and may produce enough content that WP:GNG is met for all sports of that event. For example, are the Commonwealth Games so well covered by the general media that any participant in any sport is notable? I dont know the answer. I do think there are factors for how an event is looked at for a specific sport and how important an event is in the overall sport landscape. Thus, I dont think this is a simple question with a simple answer. RonSigPi (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The qualifying standards for all sports are lower at the commonwealth games than the olympics or WC, so mere participation is likely too low of a standard. In addition badminton does not seem to be more popular than the sports mentioned above. I am not that familiar with the format of all badminton competitions but perhaps something like what is in place for "athletics" would be best (which is making the finals ie. finishing in the top 8). Probably the equivalent for badminton would be competing in the quarter finals. --MATThematical (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Badminton too lenient: I think the guidelines are way too lenient in general. I suggest something like this

  1. Participated at the Olympic Games or World Championships
  2. Competed in the quarter finals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships (e.g. Continental Championships, BWF Super Series or Commonwealth Games).
  3. Won a national teams or singles/doubles championships for a country that regularly sends athletes to the Olympics or World Championships.
  4. Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (for instance Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International etc.).
  5. Medalist at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix.

--MATThematical (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have issue with what you added with criteria 5 (Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics.) I am just not comfortable with the term 'regularly.' It is a vague term that I think will generate a lot of debate and not allow for clarity regarding use of the guidelines. I think something more definite is appropriate like "Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that have sent athletes to three consecutive Olympics." Three was a number I picked because it shows relatively high level play for about a decade from that nation, but another number may be better. This solution has its problems, but I think it is at least better than a term such as 'regularly.' RonSigPi (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• that is a good point. In other sports we have something like sent full teams to either the preceding or following Olympics (full teams for badminton might mean mens and womens or doubles/individual etc. but this could be clarified in the guideline), but has sent athletes to 3 consecutive Olympics also seems reasonable. I intentionally left it vague because I am not a badminton expert and would not have a good idea for which of these types of qualifications work the best. MATThematical (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Rugby union

For some reason, unlike all the other sports, someone has decided that both criteria must be met to make a rugby union player notable. Either qualifiers are fine to achieve notability. Therefore if a player played in a Test match (international) then they are notable, and that includes before the days of professionalism. Professionalism in rugby union is a modern trait and is not a dirty word, the amateur era players are far better known and worshipped than those playing now. I can't think of a single professional player to have statues erected to them, but there are several amateurs with one.FruitMonkey (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Different sports require different levels, that is actually the point of these guidelines. Some sports will have easier and some sports will have harder levels. Now I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to say which version is correct, but the proper method to go about changing the requirements is to notify the rugby project which are the people who came to a consensus on these that you think it should be changed and then if there is consensus it will get changed. I would also note that it doesn't say both have to be met it specifically says "either". And what the sentence you deleted says is that those two don't really apply to players of that era and that straight GNG should apply. It doesn't say they aren't notable, just that you should purely use GNG for them. Which is how players in any sport are handled that can't meet any of the criteria for their sport. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

But the early players do meet the first criteria laid out. An international match is a Test game, therefore if a player was selected for intetrnational duty, no matter from which era, they meet the guidelines here. The sentence added underneath does not follow on logically from the success criteria laid out for rugby union. FruitMonkey (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the point being made, (again I don't know enough about rugby to say I am just guessing) is that international games prior to this particular era did not draw enough attention to be at the same level as international games after that era. In other words the media wouldn't have covered the players enough at that time to be able to presume that there would be articles on those players. Which is what this page is about after all, an estimate of when there will be enough news articles about the subjects. Although rereading it, it doesn't say anything about early international players, it just says early players. Which I take to mean prior to there being international competitions. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Our article, Test match (rugby union), seems to imply that any international rugby union match is considered a Test match (and even some matches that weren't fully international). By my understanding, this would imply that any international match is a Test match, no matter whether the players were fully professional or not. Is there something I'm missing here? Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A clarification: there are two issues here. The first, which FruitMonkey made clear in their original edit summary, and which strikes me as entirely reasonable, and which also is now corrected on the page, is that either (not both) of those two criteria must be met. But the second is about the passage below it, about players from earlier eras. I don't care what we say or don't say about that. My only reason for reverting is that I can't see in an obvious way how that related to the either/or issue, and it wasn't explained in the edit summary as anything separate from the either/or issue, and I felt that there should be discussion instead of an unexplained deletion. Now if there's a reason that players from earlier eras are adequately covered by either/or, then that's OK, but I just didn't see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A discussion has now started at WP:RU as suggested above. --Bob (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

To me, one of the main contributing factors to the Rugby union issue listed above is the section heading - "Professional sports persons". Whilst this makes some sense in the current era, in times not too far gone, in some sports, the amateur/pro split was strictly enforced and notable events held on both sides. So either we have to explain that the professional requirement doesn't always apply to sports like rugby, tennis, golf, boxing or we simply rename the entire section "Sport specific guidelines" and leave it up to each sport if they want to make a pro/am distinction. We have to realise that these are being used worldwide and across all eras. The-Pope (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Athletics Modifications

I would like to change

• Has won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, Youth World Championships or World Masters Athletics Championships

to

• Has won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, Youth World Championships or multiple gold medals at the World Masters Athletics Championships

and

• Has won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those that have never been ranked in the top 40 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year

to

• Has won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those athletes that did not attain an Olympic or World Championship B standard within two years of their national championship

The reason for the first change is that there really isn't much coverage of masters level competitions (far less than youth and junior competitions). If a masters athlete sets a record or wins multiple gold medals he/she almost always gets media coverage, but the winner of each event often doesn't get media coverage (outside of blogs). The reason for the second change is consistency. Basically this guideline before my proposed change is in here to cover notable athletes who win their national championships during years where there is no WC or Olympics. Right now we have a qualification that the athlete must also be ranked top 40 in the world at some point in his/her career, to prevent national champions from countries where track is not competitive and gets little media coverage from getting in. This is good in spirit but top 40 is completely arbitrary. My proposed change says, the athlete has a mark that would have qualified them to the olympics or world championships if it had been a year where those tournaments were held. I think this qualification is less arbitrary than a top 40 world rank, because the qualification is consistent with the first guideline.--MATThematical (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you are taking a shot at subjects I am a major contributor to; I disagree that there is no coverage of Masters athletics. I've found and documented many athletes and have many more to write about, which do have media coverage. Generally I have stuck to World Record holders rather than World Champions but you must realize, for a Masters athlete, without funding to go to the World Championships (the biennial event that coincidentally concluded just two days ago), attendance by the top athletes is not guaranteed, a top and otherwise noteworthy athlete might not get there but one time in their life, nor at the correct time in the age cycle to excel in that arena. I'm going to write an article about Enrico Saraceni, who was injured at the meet this week, limped across the finish line and failed to medal, yet is quite notable from other accomplishments. What if this was his one shot? A top athlete might excel in one event, say Pole Vault, so the multiple gold medal requirement is arbitrarily limiting. The only other factors for such a Masters athlete to prove their notability would be setting a world record, or possibly the ever ambiguous and arbitrarily enforced WP:GNG. I've written about making policy make sense before, AfD discussions frequently are votes (even though they shouldn't be) by a limited number of almighty editor types who know little about the subject at hand. The decisions of this small minority of wikipedia editors, the ones who even can find such discussions, much less choose to participate in the narrow window available for a particular discussion . . . frequently don't make sense. Having an articulate rule like this guideline in hand is helpful in such a regard.

Moving on to the National Champions. The B standard, which by the way, I was one of the first WP editors to write about [United States Olympic Trials (track and field)#Standards here], is constantly evolving. Interestingly, other than my edits not in the primary athletics articles, the subject of standards is poorly covered elsewhere on wikipedia. I'm not sure there is a source for the historical B standards of the past, much less the exact date of the installation of that system. What do we do with athletes outside that time barrier? The top 40 is at least a good secondary source kept over a longer time range and more documentable. Place an OR in the sentence rather than excluding that possible additional standard. And while we include National Championships as a point of notability, we should also consider National Record Holder as such a point, whether it achieves the standard or not. Such a person, may not have achieved the B standard, the top 40 or an Olympic or other international berth, but is still a notable person within the athletic sphere of that country. They are by definition, the best the country has to offer. I was just about to write an article about Phouphet Singbandith, who is the National Record Holder in the long jump and triple jump for the country of Laos. An interesting story. It might just pass on GNG, but you again never know when we have a crazy AfD deletionist movement pass through. He never made an international team, nor even attempted to win his National Championship. Having limiting factors like this going against the subject would ultimately not be helpful.

Looking further at the standards as they exist now, and I think I brought this up before: Item 10, mentions the United States National Hall of Fame and RRCA Hall of Fame, but because specifics are used, rather than the generality of them being an example, it omits similar Halls or honors from the rest of the world. Trackinfo (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As Trackinfo points out, the problem with using B standard is that many athletes' careers predate the existence of any such thing. In the earliest eras top 40 is too lenient (does any of us even know of a reliable pre-WW1 annual list that goes as deep as 40 for most events, let alone seriously think all athletes on one are notable? OK, if there's no list, maybe we can't state they make top 40 and therefore they aren't in...) but that doesn't mean scrapping the whole thing for them is the ideal solution.

I agree about a more general Hall of Fame clause. The original *was* more general ("Has been inducted into a major hall of fame, such as the National Track and Field Hall of Fame). It was changed on a pseudo-consensus with the reasoning of "name them, otherwise too many AFDs will argue about if a particular hall of fame is major or not". That is a genuine problem, but so is the current US-centricity. Maybe "national hall of fame" would do: the HoFs of USA, Ireland, Finland etc. qualify but the HoF of your uncle's university doesn't, end of problem. Sideways713 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a fair enough argument against the standards proposal. However, I think there is some misconceptions about the masters proposal. I am not taking a shot at masters athletes. The question we must ask is "Is almost every masters world champion with no other accomplishments notable?" I am aware that often athletes get injured and have to pay there own way to get to the WMAC, and this means that many top athletes miss the championships. This only goes to prove my point, often the best masters athletes are not there, so just winning one gold medal often doesn't mean much. The quality of the winning athlete in an event drastically varies from one WMAC to the next. I am a fan of masters athletics, but the whole point of WP:NSPORT to provide a guideline that says when athletes likely meet WP:GNG. I think world record holders clearly do, so do athletes who win multiple golds at WMACs (note that by multiple golds obviously this could mean two events in the same WMAC). I also don't see what you are talking about with age cycle, there are multiple age groups at the WMAC so you could win one age group and then at the next WMAC win a different one, and that would count right? I mean there are age groups going from 35-90 in 5 year increments. So theoretically one has an opportunity to compete for several decades if they so choose. Am I missing something here, or are we interpreting masters athlete differently? The bottom line is that because a large number of the best master athletes don't compete in the WMAC the fields are just too weak for 1 win to just automatically be a pass for an athlete into notability. Take Robert Celinski for example, he just ran 31:58 to win the M35 10k. That time isn't even within 25 seconds of the top 40 M35 athletes this year, and is minutes behind the top 100 age group athletes in the all time rankings. The majority of athletes who win a single WMAC are not notable. Now obviously there are quite a few that are, but lets come up with a guideline that allows for most of these athletes without opening the flood gates. We could make a qualification like we do for national championships, maybe something like won the masters title while holding a time in the top 10 for that calendar year? Would that be preferable to winning a multiple master titles. --MATThematical (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Motorsports: "fully professional series"

I'd like to discuss point 1 in Motorsports section of the guideline: "A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series". This criterion is inadequate and I think it should be revised. Take a look on Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters, British Formula Three Championship, FR 2.0 NEC and other international and/or European championships that don't offer big prizes, however they are certainly professional. Their winners usually receive prize tests. So there should be measures of championships' professional level other than the amount of prize money. Olegbv (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The criterion is adequate... for American motor racing series. This is the problem, and it is being discussed and rectified. However it is farcical to suggest any Formula Renault series, which is at least fourth-tier, possibly fifth-tier motor racing series and convincingly fails both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, is fully professional. --Falcadore (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines

I think the current second sentence of this paragraph should have "or sport-specific criteria" added to the end, as this makes things clear and ties with the bold text at the top of the page. Any agreement?Eldumpo (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, I disagree. I see what you mean, but in this case, we are explaining that GNG is, in effect, the "bottom line", and the criteria here are ways to be confident that a page will, in fact, pass GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; the NSPORTS criteria establish presumptive notability, in so far as anyone who passes one or more criteria under his individual sport is likely to have attracted enough media attention to pass the GNG.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  01:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about simply adding "and" at the end of the second sentence to run the two sentences together? Also, I think the reference to bright line should have a wiki link. Eldumpo (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that linking bright line would be fine. I'd rather not do the "and", because it would make for an overly long sentence, without doing any good that I can see. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the second sentence on its own is so black and white, and against other key parts of the guideline. How about changing around the third sentence a bit so it starts "However" in order to instantly qualify the previous sentence. Any other views? Eldumpo (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing the problem that you do. And "However" wouldn't work, because the third sentence (about BLP) isn't contradicting the second. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence is stating that articles must meet GNG but that is not the case, as the basis of this guideline is that there is an alternative. If an article meets the sport specific criteria it is presumed to meet GNG, that's not the same thing. "However" was an example really, to try and qualify the broad statement made immediately before. I still don't think that adding "and" would result in the combined sentence being too long. Eldumpo (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that articles must meet GNG. The sport specific guidelines are to help at AFDs. Often sources are not easy to find in an Internet search or are in a different language. For this reason, these sport specific guidelines tell editors that the sources likely exist and you should not be so quick to delete the page just because you can't find the sources in a quick google search. Notability must still conform to WP:GNG, but if the athlete meets sport specific guidelines I feel that the burden is then on the deletion side to prove that GNG is not met, as opposed to the burden being on the keep side to prove GNG is met. --MATThematical (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming sports-specific guidelines are met but GNG has not yet been established, the deletion side can never definitively say GNG cannot be met. An argument by the keep side would be that sources do exist, but they have not yet been found. So while GNG can be established by identifying supporting sources, GNG cannot be definitively ruled out by not finding sources. Thus sports-specific criteria, if they are to exist, will always be an alternative to GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that if a truly honest effort was made to find sources, one could argue WP:GNG cannot be met. While it can't be proven, if the deleter provided evidence that they spent far more effort than a simple hour long internet search to find references, then I think that could potentially override the sports specific guidelines. These guidelines are really here to avoid lazy deletions. If a deleter provided ample evidence of lack of notability I would vote delete even if they met WP:NSPORTS, but still the burden would be on them. --MATThematical (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it all depends on consensus for a given article. A sound argument might be made that insufficient sources exist, but participants might make more !votes supporting inclusion because more research is still needed, and the admin might be disinclined to make a supervote and the article is kept. —Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the potential confusion caused by this paragraph as it stands, in comparison to the bold text in the intro, is illustrated by Sir Sputnik's response to my post at [4], and I really think there is confusion about these two areas as they are effectively suggesting different approaches. Eldumpo (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Boxing

Does fighting for and winning the the IBU Light-Middleweight World Title in April 2008, and then remaining undefeated until retirement allow a boxer to meet WP:Boxing? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• No. IBU is not a major sanctioning body and as such there is likely no presumption to made that notability exists for a fighter winning this title. RonSigPi (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, a pity. Well money does talk. Thank you. It would seem the Wikipedia article on the organization needs to be modified, as it uses the word "notable" several times when speaking about various IBU champions. If it is not so, then the use of the term should be discouraged. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

American football players notability

I haven't seen anything here about whether or not a player drafted in the NFL Draft is notable (see this AfD), a player who has been on the active roster of a team during the regular season is notable (see this AfD) or whether a player who has played in the UFL is notable (see this AfD). Now, in the first two cases, I don't really have a dog in the race, although I do feel as though being drafted should make an individual notable. However, in the last case, the UFL is clearly a top-tier league now, or at least is on the level of a USFL or an AFL, which are considered to be a "top-level professional league", which the UFL is. Now, either way, I think all of these issues should be addressed in some manner to set a precedent for future AfDs to go off of and to leave less gray area in the guideline.--Giants27(T|C) 02:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless the UFL is considered equivalent to the NFL, I doubt very much it could be considered a "top tier league". My history is fuzzy on football south of the border, but I do believe the USFL did attempt to compete directly against the NFL as a top level league? The AFL is a bit different, as arena football could be considered a different sport, so AFL would be the top level of that competition. And being drafted depends. In the hockey project, we consider first rounders notable, not players drafted after are not automatically considered so. Either way, my preferred solution to an iffy call on a project SNG is to ensure the player passes WP:GNG. A bunch of quality reliable sources should render any AFD moot. Resolute 03:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue, at its core, is if playing in the UFL or a player being drafted in the NFL Draft should create a presumption of notability. To put another way, can it be assumed that there are enough sources out there to show notability for such a player.

• Yes for the NFL draft. The NFL Draft receives extensive media coverage and has for many decades. For example, currently the first round is covered in primetime on ESPN and the other rounds are given TV coverage. In addition, many major sports website and football dedicated websites provide extensive coverage of the draft and the players drafted. Moreover, traditional media sources (i.e., TV, newspapers, etc.) provide coverage of players that a hometown team drafts (e.g., Cleveland Plain Dealer provides coverage of players drafted by the Cleveland Browns). These same sources also cover training camp and profile these drafted players. Also, many drafted players are top performing college players that have at least some notability level established based on college performance. For these reasons, I think drafted players can be presumed notable. Similar to the NBA, I think the modern draft should be used since previous drafts had many more rounds. I would propose "players drafted in the first seven rounds of the NFL draft."
• Probably Not for UFL. There is no real national coverage of the UFL, so most coverage would be local. My gut tells me the local coverage is equal that that of AAA or AA baseball teams and players of those teams are not notable. While local alone does not mean players are not notable, I think that there is a high likelihood this would fall under WP:ROUTINE. Unless I am not seeing some rabid fanbase in the UFL, I think there is little coverage. Again, I don't think talent of the league is at issue, but instead how notable the players are who play in the UFL. RonSigPi (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Along the lines of User:Resolute's comments, an article can always demonstrate notability by citing sources that satisfy WP:GNG. Otherwise, the player should be notable per WP:NSPORTS#College athletes or just wait until they play an official game before an article is created. What we dont want is a bunch of WP:Run-of-the-mill players who never made it in the NFL accumulating over the years and lowering the credibility of Wikipedia when jokes are cracked that anyone can get an article. —Bagumba (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, but this is still a policy for deletion. If a player passes WP:NSPORT, then WP:GNG is moot, which is why we need less gray area here.--Giants27(T|C) 02:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles can be kept because they meet NSPORT, but should never be deleted solely for not meeting NSPORT, as GNG could still be met. Unless it is clear cut that a new criteria is almost sure-fire indication that coverage is likely for the player, I think NSPORT should err on the side of being conservative and instead rely on GNG to be demonstrate. I dont believe a 7th round draftee is inherently notable, and coverage of the UFL seems very limited. Without sufficient coverage from multiple sources, it would be near impossible to write a neutral, objective article on a player. A single source like a local paper could have inherent bias. For the sake of objectivity in the article, it matters more how much coverage the leagues gets and not the level of play in the league —Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My take on the UFL is that league makes them notable. My rationale for this is that their players are roughly the same caliber as the Canadian Football League. I realize Canadian football and American football are similar but different and the CFL is considered the "NFL" of Canadian football, but the players move between the two with regularity. I would say on that basis, the UFL is notable. I am also by no means suggesting that if the UFL doesn't confir notability, that the CFL should lose it too. To compare this to hockey, the UFL would be the Kontinental Hockey League to the major league NFL, National Hockey League. It seems that hockey is probably the best comparison since there is a top league, but also high level leagues that exist around it. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that there were 32 rounds at one point and by including "all players drafted in the NFL Draft are notable," we are allowing hundreds of truly non-notable players have articles. I say that a drafted player is only notable if he plays in at least one professional league game or passes WP:GNG and that's it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Somebody above you said that only players selected in the first seven rounds (everyone now, not everyone before) should be considered notable.--Giants27(T|C) 04:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I thought when we were asked to help modify this guideline, many months ago, it was proposed that players drafted in the first two rounds were notable. I'd agree with that, as I find it hard to see any seventh rounders passing WP:GNG (which is the basis for these notability guidelines). Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think one would be hard pressed to really make a case that the UFL is anything other than analogous to AAA baseball. As such I don't think playing in a UFL game is sufficient to get a free pass on notability. As for draft picks, it ties in to what Bagumba says in the next section: draft picks may fulfill notablity not because they were drafted, but becausetge coverage of their college playing careers and pre-draft coverage meet the GNG. As such I wouldn't want to quantify which draft picks are notable based only on the round they were drafted. oknazevad (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The CFL is a top-level national league. The UFL is, at best, a second-tier league in its nation. To borrow from the analogy above, if the NFL is equivalent to the NHL, then the CFL would be be the KHL (Russia's top league), and the UFL would be the AHL (N. America's second tier). As far as draft picks go, in the hockey project, we've settled on first round picks being notable - they all get tons of RS coverage and pass GNG, but second round and later picks are not automatically held notable, they have to pass via other means. Resolute 13:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there are big differences among the four major drafts. In the MLB draft, virtually all the players drafted spend a few years in the minors. Since they dont play immediately for the big league teams, there is little coverage of the draft. Similarly, the NHL has many draftees play in the American Hockey League before the NHL. Plus, in the NHL model players can still play in college/juniors. Contrast that with the NBA, which has a very limited minor league system. Thus, the draft gets much more coverage since many players drafted will play in the NBA next year. The NFL has no minor league system and is the most popular sports league in the United States. Thus, I think the draft itself (and in turn the players drafted) receive a lot more coverage that establishes notability since those are the players selected for the pro team the next year. Thus, I don't think this is an instance where you can just compare to the NHL draft since they have the minor league system.RonSigPi (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the UFL issue is settled that playing in the UFL does not confer notability. However, I think the draft is a bit different of an issue. I will open a new section that will allow discussion of the draft.RonSigPi (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

American football players notability (games)

Resolved

 – Unanimous consensus was to remove loophole for preseason games—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

An editor has suggested at several AfDs that because a player played in a preseason game this year, they pass this guideline, which has no mention of what type of game was played. I propose that the wording of Wikipedia:NSPORT#American football/Canadian football, point 1, be changed to "Have appeared in at least one regular season or postseason game in any one of the following professional leagues" as it is already implied but can be seen as a loophole. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree Hell to the yes. Preseason games don't count for anything, except an opportunity for the teams to sell more tickets and the comedy of Hard Knocks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with wording change proposed by Eagles247. J04n(talk page) 23:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree If it wasnt already common sense.—Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Agree Per everyone else above. This was implied, but I guess it needs to be said now.--Giants27(T|C) 02:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment If the above discussion regarding the NFL Draft passes, I would say that appearing in a preseason game should make you notable as well. Some NFL Draft Choices never appear in preseason games and if being drafted makes you notable, so too does apppearing in a preseason game. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree, but for now lets just focus on the preseason loophole. NThomas (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hypothetically, if consensus was that a 1st round draft pick is assumed to be notable, it would be because a 1st rounder would be assumed to have sufficient coverage when in college and through draft coverage. I dont think the same could be said of some later round or undrafted player who happens to play a preseason game. —Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree - There's no reason a player who only plays in a preseason game is automatically notable. NThomas (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree --MATThematical (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree per my comments in the last section. oknazevad (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. It would be ludicrous to add an appearance in a pre-season exhibition game to the inclusion criteria. Might as well just add practices too. Dolovis (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Agree - for all the reasons above. Rlendog (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)