Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Paralympics

"Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan"

Is there a reason why anyone who competes in the ordinary Olympics is notable, but at the Paralympics, they have to win a medal? Peridon (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

See the previous discussions:
In short, as discussed in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ, a proposed criterion should nearly guarantee that there is significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources, and no one has presented sufficient evidence yet to demonstrate that a new proposed guideline for inclusion of paraolympians satisfies this requirement. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to add, that if you can present such an argument, you should definitely do so. MATThematical (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Aren't these kinda weak?

Is a person really that notable just because they appeared in "at least one regular season game"? By those standards, all of these people can legitimately have wikipedia pages. [[1]]. While I understand that there is some trouble with figuring out what makes someone notable or not, shouldn't there be some sort of additional criteria required to make them actually a notable players worthy of an article? if they need to meet some other standard before the game requirement kicks in, shouldn't their be a note that references that? 74.104.150.176 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that you can presume that person is notable because they appeared in at least one regular season game. For major professional sports teams, signing of new talent generally produces significant coverage as can a first time appearance. For example, the most recent debut on the list you provided was Melvin Mercedes. Here are a few non-routine pieces I found in a quick Google search outside of the sources already in his article [2], [3], and [4]. Along with the pieces in the article I think he clearly meets WP:GNG. Again, this guideline only creates a presumption and with the coverage baseball receives I think the presumption is valid (same goes with American football, Australian rules football, etc.). RonSigPi (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
See, I would understand those instances to fall under this: "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be", and just a mention in an article doesn't always really make the article about that person, a game summary that mentions them, or in this case a story about the rules of MLB service time and how teams manipulate that and uses a player as an example aren't really articles about that person. Also you need to take into account that many people who write those "news" articles are only doing so to add clicks to their site, not because the topic or the person is actually notable, many stories are literally copy and pastes where they swap out the name and the stats of a person just to create the new story on their site. The word alone means "worthy of note or notice; noteworthy: prominent, important, or distinguished:" I just feel like there are wikipedia editors who seek out essentially no name people who aren't actually notable but meet this weak requirement just so that they can be the creator of an article. I just feel like wikipedia needs some better standards.74.104.150.176 (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
By the time a player reaches the top professional leagues they have likely already been the subject of multiple articles on their amateur and minor league careers... thus they are notable. Spanneraol (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That's the thing though, why is a person considered notable because they were born, grew up somewhere, maybe went to a college or university, and then played in a game with a pro sports team? I think the whole "articles on their career" is flawed as well, since most "news" articles are written by beat writers as a game summary or daily journal of team events or fan type sites dedicated to the team who are going to write about anything, no matter how minor or insignificant it might be or the articles are even initiated by the team for PR and marketing purposes, the same as a press release, to get the players name out there, so that they can "create a buzz" and get people talking so they can sell more tickets, jerseys, and advertisements. I would consider all three of those things to be primary sources, the same as linking a players stats page on a team, league, or reporting site like ESPN, Yahoo, or some other sports news site that maintains stats pages for all players, usually through a contract with the league. There is a requirement for events that secondary sources need to be separated from the event by both time and distance, shouldn't we be using a similar type of logic for secondary sources when it comes to whether a player is notable or not? I think the majority of these types of articles here on wikipedia fall into WP:LPI and WP:BLP1E because of the weak requirements for "notability" documented here. Is participation in and of itself actually notable, that's what these standards here are essentially endorsing.
I think that there should be some broader requirements for being considered notable, they can be open to interpretation and offer some flexibility, but they should go beyond the highly simplistic requirements that we have here, or we should at least make note that the requirements we have here of playing in a single game are in and of itself not enough to make a player notable. Especially since "playing in a single game" could literally mean they were a PR in one inning in terms of baseball, or they were on the field for 1 kick off return in football, or any other number of things where they were mearly a place holder in the game. While their note is a decent footnote, I don't think that footnote existence should qualify one for a full article. 74.104.150.176 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
This is something to bring up per specific sport. In many sports with a lot of media attention, such as professional (American) football, baseball and basketball in the US, it is quite obvious that nearly all (greater than 99% of) players who play in just one game (at the top professional level) satisfy WP:GNG. In other sports this may not be true, but if that is the case bring up a specific sport and we can discuss it. Baseball, basketball and football have already been decided on though. Note that minor league professional games do not count for baseball. MATThematical (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
After years on WP, I've come to accept that "notable" implies that a decently-sized, neutral article can be written on the subject. WP:WHYN reflects on this more. Look at it from a different perspective: even bench players could be considered exceptional in their field if you look at all the athletes that never made it to that level.—Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Lauren Hill (college basketball player)

I have a notability question on Lauren Hill. She was a college athlete who rose to prominence entirely because of one thing: the NCAA changed the start of the basketball season for her school because of her terminal cancer, and she wanted to play. All the sources indicate that she was terminally ill prior to going to the school, so it wasn't a sudden thing that occurred during her college career. When the story came to light, she received a lot of coverage and many awards within the span of a few months, and did some fundraising. However, none of the coverage was due to athletic achievement per se (she only played two games and scored a total of ten points), but rather for what I would assume was a feel-good story about playing despite her condition. Interestingly enough, she was already at the hospice stage at the time of the game in question, according to a quote from her parents in this article. She is since (recently) deceased, and her biographical article is all of eight lines, with very little hope of expansion, as there is no information on her aside from her prominence surrounding her medical condition.

There is also a very well-written article on the game she played in as a result of the schedule change (2014 Hiram vs. Mount St. Joseph women's basketball game). It includes background information, post-game events, as well as a paragraph on the player herself, and I think that would be a better place to put all that information, rather than there being enough to write an entire article on the person. I have raised the question on the talk page, and have not received any responses in several days. An earlier title change discussion also did not garner much response, so it's not a high-traffic article, and is classified low-importance on all projects where it is listed.

I see a GNG issue because of the limited scope and timeframe of the coverage, but there doesn't appear to be anything directly addressing this type of situation in the notability guidelines (aside from BIO1E), and I see this turning into a WP:NOTMEMORIAL issue. Is there any sort of guidance on this type of situation from any past occurrences? MSJapan (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • As you accurately state, she's not known because of her athletic accomplishments -- which wouldn't remotely clear NSPORTS -- but because of the press coverage she's received, which is a BLP/BIO issue and not particularly in our wheelhouse here. But that being said, BLP1E doesn't debar articles on people known only for one event: it just stipulates the conditions under which such articles are unacceptable. Hill having received national coverage and ticking some boxes that most people would consider indications of notability -- winning major awards, being runner-up for AP Female Athlete of the Year, being on a freaking Wheaties box -- has in my opinion passed that bar and to spare.

    As far as whether the article is destined to run afoul of NOTMEMORIAL, looking at it now, it's pretty barebones, and there's not a single statement in the whole article that doesn't have an inline citation. I'd say there's a fair bit of scope for biographical information beyond that, and if stuff is added that shouldn't belong in a biographical article, that's a content dispute, not a reason to delete or redirect the article. Ravenswing 11:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I would vote for her deletion. She didn't seem to do much to me. I put up a basketball player [[5]] for deletion and he was stated to be a keep, even though he really had a few good games. So I don't know if the community will agree. CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
WP notability isn't so much whether someone managed to "do much" to satisfy an individual reader, but whether reliable sources deemed the subject notable enough to publish enough material to source a relatively comprehensive biography. I haven't followed Hill's story that closely, but I'd be shocked if the continued coverage she has received since her first college game until her death isn't enough to write a full life story. I can't speak for Auguste specifically, but players known solely for their playing career need more than routine game coverage that the team was going to receive anyways (e.g. leading scorer, game-saving play, etc). Anyone that meets WP:GNG is generally worthy of a bio, as their coverage (as WP generally interprets it) is proof of their "importance".—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there isn't enough to get any more than what's there. It's the same news story repeated in outlet after outlet, focusing entirely on her treatment. She only ever scored five baskets in four games, and it's likely at least two of them were allowed as good sportsmanship (first and last points in a game). She was supposedly a "standout" HS player, but nobody's got her game stats, and the team only went .500 overall in 2014. Moreover, the coverage was limited; it started in December and ended in April. Unless we source obits (which are usually really SPS because they're written by the family except for really major people), there's going to be nothing to expand with to any level of detail. MSJapan (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a poorly written article, but I believe the subject meets GNG based on the coverage she received. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@MSJapan: I might argue instead that 2014 Hiram vs. Mount St. Joseph women's basketball game should be merged and redirected to Lauren Hill (basketball), as the game is only notable because of Hill. However, we all know that sports editors love their standalone game articles.—Bagumba (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Presumed notability for Central American and Caribbean Games participants (?)

In evaluating the notability of international athletes, should we treat those who have participated in the Central American and Caribbean Games as being presumed to be notable? The general language of NSPORTS states "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." My own opinion is that the CACG do not rise to international competition at the highest level such as the Olympics, world championships, etc., but I am looking for fellow editors' input before I decide whether to send several swimmer articles to AfD. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This will most definitely depend on the sport. For many sports an athlete who just participated in the Caribbean games won't necessarily produce WP:GNG coverage but for other sports they would have. Note for track and field which is similar to swimming in nature (but possibly more popular internationally). The following is (some) of the criteria
2. Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g. European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons).
3. Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g. IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less prestigious large scale meets, e.g. Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)
5. Has won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those that have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year
Anyways, there is no sports specific guideline for swimming and hence you should ignore this page and strictly determine notability based on WP:GNG. Of course you should check Spanish, French and Dutch language sources, given you are considering athletes competing in the Caribbean games. Obviously not checking sources written in the appropriate language sources before listing an athlete to AFD is grossly inappropriate behavior (many translation services exist on the web), but assuming you have done that and the athletes do not seem to meet GNG coverage definitely list them. I suspect someone who finished for example top 3 (medalled) in the Caribbean games will be notable, but not every participant. MATThematical (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@MATThematical: Thanks for sharing your thoughts, MATT. I do a lot of work with Olympic swimmer articles, who are presumed to be notable at the level of non-medalist participants per WP:NOLYMPICS -- although, IMO, admittedly it is a little bit of a reach to presume GNG notability for FINA B qualifiers who never make it out of the Olympic preliminary heats. In evaluating swimmer notability, we have always treated medalists at the FINA championships, Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games and Pan Pacific championships as notable per the general "competition at the high level" language of NSPORTS, and because there is a high percentage of overlap for these medalists and Olympic participants, there is rarely much AfD/notability debate. Few purely college swimmers qualify per NCOLLATH for the simple reason that there are very few major national awards for college swimmers (e.g., the Honda Trophy for women), and most of those are usually also Olympians or medalists at major international competitions. Again, very little debate. Where it gets interesting is a college swimmer who participates in the Central American and Caribbean Games (or similar second-tier regional championships like the Southeast Asia Games, etc.) and does not medal -- my reaction is the same as yours: in the absence of significant coverage per GNG, not notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both of you here. A medallist at this games is likely to warrant coverage, but I would strictly say that participation alone doesn't tell us anything about a person's general notability. SFB 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Track notability

Is the following prong too tough on particular countries

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

This prong is in WP:Track because we want individuals to be considered notable who definitely satisfy WP:GNG even if they became famous for a period of time outside of the olympics (which only happens every 4 years). The top 40 in the world requirement seems awfully strict for guaranteed WP:GNG coverage. I suspect it is there to prevent someone from gaining notability for winning a national championship for a country that doesn't cover track and field. Perhaps, a better requirement would be

Has won their country's senior national championship for a country that regularly sends multiple athletes to the Olympics in track and field

Or something like that. MATThematical (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have never been a fan of the vague guidelines such as "regularly sends." I have seen a lot of editors struggle with language that has a level of subjectivity. If a change is needed, then I would prefer a change to something like #4 in boxing where its countries that are medal winning, say in the indoor world championships, outdoor world championships, or Olympics. With that being said, I cannot speak on if the guideline is too restrictive or not. RonSigPi (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Such a change doesn't engage with the individual yet diffuse nature of athletics. For each country, around fifty senior national champions are declared every year. Nearly 100 nations have won medals at the World Championships in Athletics, including American Samoa, Djibouti, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Bermuda. Small countries often produce one or two outstanding track and field athletes, but the majority of the other national champions are far from notable (I have discussed with several running friends the number of nations they could have won national titles in – it gets into double figures). Most of the time top athletes from small nations don't compete at their national championships because the standard is too low.
On that basis, we shouldn't be getting into the business of covering national athletics champions largely based on the achievements of their best athlete(s). The sport is usually very lopsided at national level, so such a change would allow coverage of Bahamas lowly racewalkers just because Chris Brown is an outstanding sprinter. Track and field notability criteria are individually focused for that very reason. SFB 12:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Beyond that, claiming that track athletes are shortchanged because the Olympics happen only every four years is disingenuous. The NTRACK guideline already grants presumptive notability for athletes who appear at the World Championships, as well as to those who meet with significant success at numerous other championships and meets. Moreover, I greatly dislike the turn of phrase "it is there to prevent someone from gaining notability ..." We don't prevent anyone from "gaining" notability; either you're notable or you're not. Any athlete who meets the GNG is notable, whether or not he's a fifth-place finisher in the Bhutan national track championship. My answer to any Track WikiProject members who feel that the guideline in place is too strict is this: demonstrate that there are a number of athletes who fail to meet the current guideline but pass the GNG nonetheless. That would warrant changing a guideline. Ravenswing 13:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Ravenswing the world championships is also not run every year! It is biennial. My initial proposal is flawed I agree. But there is still is a concern of WP:GNG satisfying athletes whose coverage is not in English being nominated for deletion, as has happened in the past. The magic number 40 has no rational basis. MATThematical (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on the concerns brought up by Ravenswing and sillyfolkboy, I agree that my initial proposal is too flawed. Here is a different proposal. Previously the magic number 40 was completely arbitrary. I think it would be better if this number was based on something. The reason why national champions are listed in WP:TRACK at all is that in non-olympic years people who were good enough to make the olympics, and in doing so won their national championship, do in fact receive GNG coverage. So how do we choose a number to make as our cutoff, well a reasonable choice would be to looks at how many athletes meet the olympic A standard at each olympics. The answer - on average 62.9 men and 56.4 women made the olympic standard, per event, in 2012. Therefore, I propose that 60 (the average number of athletes that hit the olympic A standard) is a more rational choice than 40 (completely arbitrary). Note that 60 is still extremely strict (far more strict than making the Olympics), in an olympic year a national champion automatically makes the olympics if they hit the B standard, and on average over 120 athletes hit the B standard each year in their respective events. MATThematical (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I will just comment, as the initiator of many articles; So much of this still involves a certain amount of randomness, or luck. An athlete who happens to compete in the USA in say, the 110 metres hurdles could rank in the top 60 in the world and not be able to make the quarter finals at the national championships. That same thing could be inferred for a Kenyan or Ethiopian long distance runner, they are relatively non-notable also rans. In another uniform, they are a national celebrity. But then choose the wrong nation and their press capability might not place that information on line, at least to RS standards. I've had AfD fights sourcing in countries where a Facebook page is the online presence for the major news agency (usually print) in that country, making GNG under RS restrictions difficult. The preponderance of dominant athletes in a small group of countries also can push the best in other countries way down or off the list. Just looking randomly at the 2014 list for mens 5000 metres, the top 40 only contains representatives from Kenya, Ethiopia, USA, Bahrain (all imported Kenyan athletes who did change uniform for money), plus 1 from France, GBR, New Zealand and Morocco at the bottom of the list. Expanding to 60, the list only adds representation from Eritrea, Australia, Canada, and Belgium. That's a lot of national champions that still do not qualify by this milestone. In an Olympic or World Championship year, they would have another, easier path to notability (selection). These IAAF lists seem to go out to around 150 places in most Olympic events. We have the source available. Trackinfo (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as the proposal goes, do you think 60 is an improvement? I looked at the athletes from Eritrea, Australia, Canada, and Belgium (that are in the 40-60 range) and they all very clearly satisfied WP:GNG. I agree that perhaps 60 is too restrictive. Do we think the cutoff should be the average number of athletes that make the B standard (probably 100-120)? Do the "national leaders" in the top 100 on the iaaf top list all satisfy WP:GNG, that is quite a daunting task to verify, but perhaps a worthwhile endeavor. MATThematical (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @MATThematical, Trackinfo, and Ravenswing: I still think #5 is a needlessly inclusive criterion. National titles are only really useful when assessing notability in relation to a handful of nations which have a broad athletics base across all events (US, Russia, Germany, and maybe the UK). The issue of the ranking depth used in criterion #5 is shown by the implications when compared to #8 - i.e. an athlete who ranked 13th in the world and was runner-up at the US Championships fails the criteria, yet an athlete who ranked 120th in the same event and won a national title in Barbuda is presumed to pass GNG.
I propose we (a) limit criterion #5 to national titles of the few major athletics nations, or (b) remove the criterion and effectively merge it with the top-12 criterion, reassessing ranking depth as a way of assuming GNG – I would definitely go no higher than top 40 as a career best season ranking, for GNG assumptions.
In sum, athletes who haven't achieved anything internationally really need to have done something special at national level in a major nation to warrant assumption of meeting the GNG. SFB 20:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I was the user who originally added the magic number 40 to the guideline, and it was a compromise between my previous suggestion (30) and MATThematical's suggestion at the time (50). I'm not convinced that revising that number upwards, whether to 60 or to 120, is a good idea. The notability of many of the extra athletes would be questionable; yes, many, probably most, would meet GNG, but I think quite a few would not. We should also remember it's not spelled out anywhere how far back in time this criterion can be applied, and that our sport has a very deep history; today, for most events it's true that athletes ranked #120 are still quite strong, but that hasn't always been the case. That's the same reason criterion #8 (which does have wording to specify how far back in time it can be applied: in a non-relay event contested or admitted to the senior IAAF World Championships or Olympics) is limited to top 12: it was designed to apply not only to modern athletes, but also athletes from up to 120 years ago, when the sport was very different and didn't have the same depth. Sideways713 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
But the official international "IAAF top list" only goes up to 1999 with that specific title. The guideline specifically requires it to be this list, so historical athletes will not qualify under this prong, so I think you need not worry about going too far back (although Trackinfo does seem to want to include other lists, but that has yet to be decided on, that should be a separate issue). --MATThematical (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@SFB. WP:GNG isn't about whether the athlete "warrants" an article. You either meet GNG or you don't, and I have done extensive research by going through the iaaf top lists and showing that the national leaders (who also make top 120 on the international list) meet WP:GNG coverage. They meet the coverage; whether they deserve the WP:GNG coverage is irrelevant. In addition, your list of 5 countries is absolutely wrong, Jamaica, Canada, Belgium, Ukraine, Japan, China, Australia, France, Italy, and Netherlands have broad competition across all events (and that was just off of the top of my head). A top 120 individual ranking in the world is equivalent to the Olympic B standard, so we are not talking about subpar athletes. For example, I just opened up the iaaf 2014 top-list for the 100m hurdles, and chose a national champion and US athlete closest to the 120th ranking mark. Nichole Denby is the Nigerian national champion in the 100m hurdles for women, yet is only ranked 112 in the world in 2014. Comparably Lindsay Lindley from the US ran the exact same time, but isn't even in the top 30 US 100 meter hurdlers. A quick google news search of the two athletes isn't even comparable, Nichole has WP:GNG coverage for sure (and Nigeria doesn't have that strong of internet presence! Obviously the disparity would be even higher if we included print media) and Lindsay Lindley is barely mentioned anywhere, there are two WP:routine articles where her name is stated in passing.
Nichole Denby - Nigerian national champion 100m hurdles - 2014 world rank 112 -- (23 news articles - several of which are not routine)
Lindsay Lindley - US 100m hurdles, US rank 34 -- 2014 world rank 116 --(2 articles - both are WP routine)
Now if your point is that top 12 is too strict a cut off for all athletes, I would agree with that. It seems that all athletes in the top 40 on the list get WP:GNG coverage regardless as to whether they are national champions or not, but national champions do seem to get more WP:GNG coverage. -MATThematical (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My take, since I was asked, is the same I mentioned above: if you want to change the guideline, demonstrate that what you want to change the guideline to is an accurate predictor of who would or would not meet the GNG. That's not done by picking two athletes on either side of the line you prefer and seeing if they meet the GNG or not; it's done by picking a couple dozen and doing the same check. Ravenswing 12:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ravenswing I think you might have misinterpreted my comment. My comment was about why non-national champions are not inherently notable, even if their performances are considered international 'elite' level (due to the fact that they come from a country with many athletes already competing at that level). SFB was arguing that it shouldn't matter what country you are from, that performance should determine WP:GNG notability. I was simply providing a concrete example as why this is not true. Obviously, I wasn't saying that this example formed a complete argument, it is just an example (as clearly stated in my comment) showing how this national champion received more coverage than a non-national champion competing at the exact same level. After I finish my dissertation, I will fully document the results of the complete experiment I completed a week ago to show the proper dividing line is much higher than 40 and is likely in the 100 range. --MATThematical (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Basketball notability

The guideline says that "Basketball figures are presumed notable if they have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach [...] a similar major professional sports league [to the NBA and other cited leagues]", I find the guideline leaves too much unanswered and would like to see it developped. For me it should state:

"Basketball figures are presumed notable if they

1. At club level, have appeared in one game as either a player or head coach in the National Basketball Association, Euroleague, one the leagues that was at the time ranked in the top 10 leagues in the European national basketball league rankings, the Chinese Basketball Association, the National Basketball League (Australia) and the Women's National Basketball Association.

2. At club level, have won an yearly personnal award, made the league first team or led the league in a major statistical category (points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals or valutation) of the Eurocup Basketball, the Israeli Basketball Premier League, the Novo Basquete Brasil, the Liga Nacional de Básquet, the Baloncesto Superior Nacional, the Philippine Basketball Association and the NBA Development League.

3. In the past have appeared in one game in the leagues cited in 1. and their recognised historical equivalents, the National Basketball League (United States), the original (1967-76) American Basketball Association, the Top tier european club championship, the USSR Premier Basketball League, the Yugoslav First Basketball League,the Czechoslovak Basketball League or have won an yearly personnal award, made the league first team or led the league in a major statistical category (points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals or valutation) in the leagues cited in 2. and their recognised historical equivalents, and the Continental Basketball Association.

4. On a national level have appeared, past or present in the tournament phase of the Olympics, the World Cup, FIBA EuroBasket, FIBA Americas Championship, FIBA Africa Championship, FIBA Oceania Championship or their recognised historical equivalents.

5. Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft.

They are not presumed notable for their participation in

6. College basketball, even if they have won the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship, won an yearly personnal award, made the league first team or led the league in a major statistical category (points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals or valutation).

7. The qualification rounds of the tournaments cited in 4., international tournaments not cited in 4..

8. Teams in leagues or competitions not cited in either 1., 2., or 3."

It is a bit heavy but it must be to cover all options. I'm not sure about the major status of the NBL (Australia), I put it there as it was aleady present in the guideline, some people argue for the Israeli league to be included in the major leagues (it is currently ranked 14th in Europe) but beyond Maccabi Tel Aviv the competition is much weaker and the bigger players would be included under the conditions in 3. or participate in European competitions. Of course there is an element of subjectivity to these rankings but overall I think they're fair and global, I'd like to hear other opinions though. Hopefully we can get this edited, there's a lot of pages out there that don't meet the notability criteria and having detailed guidelines would help prevent their creation or facilitate their deletion.

ArmstrongJulian (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't downcheck US college basketball. Since the whole point of NSPORTS subordinate notability criteria is to gauge whether a sports figure is likely to be able to meet the GNG, suggesting that the media-soaked US collegiate game is blanket-NN (no matter how celebrated the performer) makes no sense. Odds are that most starters on Top 20 or Sweet Sixteen teams would pass the GNG, and overwhelming that champions and statistical leaders could. Ravenswing 11:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ravenswing. There are probably 100+ college players each season who would pass GNG in a given year so striking college players altogether would be incorrect. People outside the U.S. (Or at least North America) don't understand how heavily major college basketball is covered - it is like a pro league. As for pro leagues, I'd be all for expanding the list but it feels like top 10 league in a given year is hard to track. It might make more sense to look at the current top 10 leagues and start a list as hockey and association football has. There are typically three tiers - 1) leagues so heavily covered that 100% of players would meet GNG (like the NBA or Liga ACB), 2) leagues where stars would meet GNG but not every bench player would (I would put the French League in this category), and 3) leagues with such little coverage that you can't assume anyone meets GNG (today's ABA). IMO, guidelines should reflect this reality. Maybe we can get some structure around this proposal and get better guidelines. Rikster2 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

  1. Take a look at previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_15#Similar_leagues_text_in_NBASKETBALL. If you can address the major points raised already, we'll spend less time rehashing the same issues and more likely to agree to on something before being burnt out.
  2. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: What is the downside if we just fall back on WP:GNG? Unless this is causing a lot of problems at say WP:AFD, it might not be worth the effort in creating (and remembering) more rules. As it is, I create quite a few articles on college players based on GNG alone, without needing some rule on playing in a major conference, having 4-star ratings on recruiting websites, being in first round of mock NBA drafts, etc. Also, articles are a bit more meaningful if they obviously meet GNG than having a slew of stubs that have no info that are only kept because they meet a guideline. Honestly, the ideal scenario that an IP can expand an article because someone already created the stub for them is not very common.—Bagumba (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless you're advocating doing away with subordinate notability criteria altogether, the fact on the ground is that we have subordinate notability criteria. Since that's the case, it's incumbent on us to have SNGs that accurately reflect who might and who might not meet the GNG. Those who find it a hardship to learn the SNG in an area in which they're doing article creation -- or else ruling on AfDs -- should avoid working in those areas. As it happens -- and as you can readily see with a casual glance at NSPORTS -- there are a number of detailed sports SNGs. So far we haven't found it extraordinarily difficult to draft them, or extraordinarily burdensome to apply them. I admit to not understanding what about refining the SNGs that already exist involve the creation of new bureaucracies. Ravenswing 01:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No problem with SNGs. The bureaucracy is a hypothetical, "Is it worth the time to expand it expand it more, or is GNG sufficient for the remainder of the basketball cases?" If people think it's worth it, then so be it. I can't say I'm active at AfD for non-NBA, so I'll leave it to others if they say it's a pain as is.—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • College basketball players in the US often receive substantially more coverage than players in the Euroleague or the Chinese or Australian leagues.. I'd favor cutting down that list of pro leagues rather than expanding it. Spanneraol (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't really think of the system Ravenswing's proposing, now that I think of it it makes more sense and would be simpler than expanding everything. In that case it would go:

  1. Major leagues with 99% coverage IF players have played 5 games/40 minutes in a season (so that they're more than squad members): NBA, Euroleague, Liga ACB (in spanish though).
  2. Important leagues where the major players (and more usually the major teams) are covered: VTB United League, Italian league, Turkish league, Greek league, French league, Lithuanian league, German league, Adriatic league, Israeli league, Chinese league, Brazilian league, Argentinian league, Puerto Rican league, Philippine league, NBA D-League, Australian league (I'm not sure), WNBA.
  3. Not presumed notable: All other leagues.

For college players there's no doubt there is significant coverage of a lot of players and that nearly every All-American is GNG for example, I'm just scared that including college play as a presumed notability will just see people go crazy on creating pages for anonymous college players with an average college career and no pro career. I agree with Bagumba that having a too large guideline could create too many stubs, however expanding the guideline was for me a way of creating clear guidelines and removing any other stub that did not meet GNG on it's own.

There are so many poorly written and pointless articles of basketball players and teams that I would just like to be able to remove them quickly, I am new so my understanding of wikipedia processes is still raw but I was under the impression it could give leverage to argue for speedy deletions of articles whilst also conforting users that actually want to create a proper article that the player they are creating is valid. Don't know if that makes sense to everyone, it's just so frustating to see such useless pages whilst pages that legitimately warrant attention could be created or expanded; ArmstrongJulian (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Modifying anything here would not make you able to speedy an article. The threshold to survive a speedy deletion is a lot lower than an Afd. You just have to claim notability to survive a speedy, you don't have to actually be notable. So any changes here would not speed anything up, articles would still have to go through Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Assuming proper application of the policy by reviewers, simply noting that an athlete played professionally would be enough to invalidate a no assertion of notability claim for speedy deletion. Doesn't mean the subject is notable, only that PROD or AFD would be required. Resolute 17:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A couple thoughts on recent posts: first off, while I don't want anyone thinking that this is a formal proposal, the US college basketball scene gets such an enormous amount of press I wouldn't be astonished if any starter for a Division I NCAA team could meet the GNG.

    Secondly, ArmstrongJulian's comments highlight a seriously flawed (and commonly held) premise across the sports WikiProjects: a worship of the major professional game. This leads to absurdities such as the presumption that Ignatz Bartoziak, who played two games for the Worcester Ruby Legs in 1880, is notable, while Joe Shlbotnik, who played five hundred games for the Toledo Mud Hens, isn't. Frankly, whether a player plays in the NBA or not shouldn't be a make-or-break as far as notability goes; the standard of notability ought to, in every case, be designed to reflect whether a player who meets it is likely to meet the GNG. NCAA basketball is at least as notable as just about any league in the world short of the NBA.

    Finally, let's suppose that a proposal to include a wide swathe of Division I hoopsters encourages editors to go nuts and create stub articles. Honestly, so what? An article shouldn't go through the deletion process because it's a stub, or because it's "poorly written" -- those are, in fact, explicitly disallowed reasons to seek deletion. It should go through the deletion process when it's unimprovable. Ravenswing 18:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability of American college sports clubs vs. varsity teams

There is a pending AfD regarding the LSU Tigers rugby club team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana State University rugby, that has been pending for several weeks, and has had little participation from knowledgeable sports editors who are familiar with the NORG/GNG standard for the notability of teams and clubs. It might be helpful if some of our experienced sports editors and NSPORTS talk page regulars would have a look at this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is the Intercontinental Cup (baseball) a major international competition?

At an active AfD, a participant has claimed that the Intercontinental Cup (baseball) would qualify as a major international competition. Therefore, anyone who played in the Cup would pass BASE/N based on criterion #2: "...have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team." However, the Intercontinental Cup is not listed among the examples and - as someone who had never heard of it before - I am somewhat dubious that it is really a major international competition. Therefore, I'm creating this discussion to try and get consensus for the next time this comes up. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Persondata has been officially deprecated

Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who took the time to enter accurate data into the persondata templates of biography subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve such data. Here are two examples of Wikidata for notable notable baseball players: Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb. If you have any more questions about the persondata removal, Wikidata, etc., please ping me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, but is an athlete considered notable if they have competed in the Commonwealth Games? If they have competed, but that is not a good threashold for notability, what do you think would suffice? I am thinking in general terms, but recently came across Nor Hashimah Ismail, who seems to have competed internationally in her sport only up to the Commonwealth Games, as lawn bowling is not featured in the Olympics. Thoughts? Thank you! -Pax85 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no specific standard for a presumption of notability to athletes who participate in international games other than the modern Olympics. WP:NSPORTS does include the following: "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." At WP:SWIMMING, we have generally interpreted that to include medalists at the FINA world championships who virtually always would survive an AfD notability analysis under WP:GNG. AFAIK, no one is creating articles for all FINA world championship participants, and it is a world-wide competition, half a level up from world "regional" games like the Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games, etc. Frankly, I think the presumption of notability for all Olympics participants is already a little over-inclusive. There are plenty of Olympic sportsmen who participate in minor sports or the qualifying rounds of major sports in the Olympics who do not receive significant coverage to satisfy a critical GNG analysis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for this! I don't have a lot of experience in the sports section, so you provided some good insights. In regards to the article I mentioned above, I am not sure she even meets GNG, as the number of sources seem few, and there does not seem to be a lot of significant coverage about her alone, outside of scoring websites and the like. She won two gold medals: one in the CG, and the other in a smaller regional competition, but to me seems on she is on the borderline of notability as I consider whether or not to head on over to AFD. -Pax85 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe if I remember correctly its on a sport by sport basis when it comes ot the Commonwealth Games. There are discussions in the archive if you do a search up above. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
A quick search of lawn bowling didn't even come up, haha. I will do a more extensive look at the CG in general later today. Thank you! -Pax85 (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Baseball notability

The rule says that :

Baseball figures are presumed notable if they

  1. Are a member of a major Hall of Fame, such as the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum or the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame.
  2. 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 or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team.
  3. Have appeared in at least one game in any of the following defunct leagues: All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, American Association, Cuban League, Federal League, Japanese Baseball League, National Association of Professional Base Ball Players, Negro Major Leagues, Players' League, Union Association.
  4. Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in one of the above-mentioned leagues.
  5. Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff.

However, Chinese Professional Baseball League should be added to article 2 of the section, and Taiwan Major League should be added to article 3, since players of both leagues are considered inherently notable by Taiwanese baseball fans.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Those leagues were removed in a previous discussion as the majority felt they were not at the same level as the other listed leagues in terms of quality of play and media coverage. Spanneraol (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I suspect the editors who regularly edit baseball articles may have difficulty in evaluating Taiwanese sources to determine if they rise above routine coverage. Accordingly, someone will have to do the legwork to demonstrate that all members of these leagues are able to meet the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
And Isaacl's got the bottom line right there. It doesn't matter a rat's ass whether Taiwanese baseball fans consider those leagues "notable" or not: it's whether they attract so much reliable media coverage that one can find multiple reliable sources discussing every player in the league. Ravenswing 03:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly possible that Taiwanese baseball fans, having access to the appropriate sources, are more suited to determinate that players in the leagues in question meet the general notability guideline to an extent that it makes sense to extend the baseball-specific notability guideline to cover them. Unfortunately, because of the language barrier, more details would be helpful in order for the general Wikipedia community to appreciate if this is the case. isaacl (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not a question of the language barrier, even if that does present a challange. The question is if baseball itself is a notable sport in Taiwan beyond a "national team"? I always compare notability of other stuff to the theoretical cricket player in Sri Lanka. Seems if the league is notable in the nation in terms of popularity of the sport and visibility of players, then it's notable. Think Cuba and boxing, for example. Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
When you say "it's notable", to what are you referring? Baseball is enormously popular in Taiwan, so I have no doubts that the leagues are notable. But whether or not all of their players can meet the general notability guideline, I'm unclear, and all of the relevant reliable sources are likely to be non-English ones. isaacl (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand this discussion to be about whether to add the Taiwan leagues to the list of "presumed notable if" list above that includes the USA, Japan, etc. Seems to me that the same standards should apply to all nations where baseball is a notable sport with notable leagues, a language barrier irrelevant to a general question of what criteria to apply to determine GNG, though it may be a problem in practice if few speakers/readers of the language and Google Translate is inadequate. But that's a different problem, IMHO. I just favor treating the Taiwanese leagues the same as the others, if language is the only issue. That's all. Montanabw(talk) 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Previous discussion had determined that for the listed leagues, it is highly likely that all of their players will meet the general notability guideline. I agree it is necessary to determine if players in the Taiwanese leagues mentioned can meet this same standard. This requires investigating if they have non-routine, non-promotional, independent coverage by reliable, notable sources. Language is not an issue regarding whether or not a source is appropriate for determining that the general notability guideline is met; the problem is simply a logistic one of needing qualified editors to perform the investigation. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
"Language is not an issue regarding whether or not a source is appropriate for determining that the general notability guideline is met": I disagree; language can be an issue in discerning whether a source is reliable or is a fan site or blog. It's hard enough at times to determine on an English site like Bleacher Report which articles/writers are reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the language of the source poses a logistical challenge for any English Wikipedia editor not familiar with the language in question to discern if the source is appropriate. Nonetheless, if the source does indeed provide evidence that the general notability guideline is met, after being evaluated by someone qualified to do so, its language does not disqualify it from showing that a person meets Wikipedia's standard for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Horse racing notability

Wikiproject Horse racing has been playing around with draft guidelines for notability and I would like to propose that we add a notability section here as follows. Montanabw(talk) 21:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Horse racing

Shortcut

Not all participants in horse racing are athletic "professionals", particularly some owners and breeders, but due to the prevalence of purse money and profit motive throughout the sport have been put in the professional sports category for convenience. These guidelines also encompass articles on horses.

For notability guidelines to assist in applying GNG for all horse racing-related subjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Notability.

Horse racing figures, including horses and/or their human "connections" (horse trainers, jockeys or horse owners and horse breeders) are presumed to most likely meet WP:GNG for notability if they have accomplished any of the following:

  1. Individuals who win a Grade I/Group I stakes race or the equivalent level in their respective nations. (Horses, due to their relatively short careers, at least once; humans best to have done so more than once)
  2. Individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group 2 or 3 graded stakes races or the equivalent level in their respective nations.
  3. Individuals who have won year-end championship titles, such as an Eclipse Award.
  4. Members of a national Racing Hall of Fame.

Notability for horses or persons associated with horse racing who were not competitors under the criteria above may be presumed notable if they meet GNG for any of the following:

  1. Individual humans who were significant for new advancements or trailblazing achievements, such as Andrew Beyer, Florence Nagle or Diane Crump.
  2. Horses that may not have raced to any significant degree (usually due to injury), but had multiple significant progeny, such as Tapit.
  3. Horses who are ranked the leading sire or broodmare for a given year in their respective nations (again, see Tapit)
  4. Breeding farms or farm owners that do not race many horses themselves, but have produced or currently stand horses who became notable winners. (i.e. Adena Springs)
  5. Agents, race track announcers (i.e. Larry Collmus), racing journalists (i.e. Steve Haskin), venue owners (i.e. Frank Stronach) and other business professionals with a significant connection to horse racing may be notable per WP:GNG.
  6. Horses and individuals involved in highly publicized thefts or other crimes, e.g. Shergar, or scandals or other nefarious activities, such as substitution scams, e.g. Fine Cotton.
  7. An individual person with a connection to a notable horse is not inherently notable for that reason only, see WP:BIO1E. However, if the individual's role is a large one, then an individual with a significant connection to a single notable horse might justify a spinoff article from that of the horse. (i.e. Eddie Sweat). Conversely, a horse is not presumed notable just because the owner is famous: Jim Rome owns racehorses, Shared Belief is notable, Gallatin's Run is probably not.

Discussion

This is a very truncated version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Notability. Our primary concerns at AfD have been:

  1. Deletion due to WP:RECENTISM: Many historic jockeys and trainers have few records available in a standard Google search. Many, particularly if affiliated with the nobility, may have competed as "amateurs." Sometimes we have little more than "person Foo rode horse Foobar to win the Grand National in [150 years ago]" to start an article and need to locate hardcopy, often obscure works to flesh out an article.
  2. Conversely, we occasionally need to AfD an article about someone buys a racehorse that won $10,000 before it went lame but they think WP is a free advertising service for their stud farm. It also helps to have a criteria to speed up AfD.

It would be great if we could get these basic guidelines into NSPORT. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 21:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Montana, I think it is probably over-inclusive, assuming the goal is to duplicate the results of full GNG analysis of individual subjects. As one example, national record-holders in Britain and the United States are probably going to be notable; national record-holders in Germany may or may not be. National record-holders in China, Luxembourg, South Korea, Tanzania -- not so much. You need to be careful how you phrase the standards with individual countries in mind. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, the whole NSPORTS page is an accessory to GNG, and guidelines have to be general. Here, this is not as inclusive as you think, I'm not really clear what you'd actually want to see changes. For example, anyone who gets to be a jockey at all in Hong Kong is actually a very, very big deal. And I doubt there even is horse racing in Luxembourg. I can toss the world records, most such animals are notable for winning races. Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with a NSPORTS set of criteria generally for horse racing (and, as to that, why NOT a set of criteria applicable to the horses?), but like Dirtlawyer, I'm concerned at the implication that there needs to be some way to legitimize articles for subjects that wouldn't meet the GNG. WP:V and WP:N are fundamental: the answer to a lack of reliable sources for the aforementioned jockey Foo isn't to green-light an article in spite of the same, but for no separate article to be created until such sources materialize. Ravenswing 05:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd be glad to add horses here, but was thinking animals were outside the scope of NSPORTS (of course, I guess besides horses only some sporting dogs could also be classified as "animal athletes"). I do not disagree that GNG is the law of the land (and I welcome a way to rephrase something, let's tweak my proposal as needed!) but I had a nasty AfD on a jockey who won the Grand National in the 1800s - the article survived, but it would be nice to not have to laboriously explain every. effing. time. that yes, the race is notable, yes, winning the race is a big deal, no, the fact that minor nobility considered having "amateur" status to be socially desirable didn't mean they were "amateurs" and so on.
      • Actually, Montana, I don't think that's funny at all: you should include criteria for the horses. I mean, who the heck rode War Admiral in the Derby? It's not like the horse is the real athlete -- I'd like to see a jockey, trainer or owner run 10 furlongs in 2 minutes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I am supportive of adding the criteria that WP horse racing worked up for the horses, who I agree are athletes. That said, don't ever say a jockey is not a "real" athlete... (them's fighting words, lol ) those guys can make an NFL quatrerback look like a wuss. Case in point: description and [6] (be sure to read text with video too). Now some of the trainers, like Dale Romans or Tom Proctor yeah, I don't see all of them pushing away from the table... though you probably don't want to cross Romans in a barn fight lol. I'll put up the horse criteria in just a second. Montanabw(talk) 04:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If no one has further comment in a day or two, I'll pop this in. It can always be refined further. Montanabw(talk) 07:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Question

Please see this note on my talk page concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Andreopoulos, which was closed as "delete" last December. Should the article now be undeleted? Advice welcome, as I am not really familiar with baseball. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The general sentiment is that bullpen catchers are not by definition coaches, and therefore don't fall under the presumptive notability coaches do. Some teams, however, list bullpen catchers as coaches on their staff lists, and that's an entirely different can of worms, with one faction insisting that bullpen catchers cannot be coaches no matter what the teams state, and the other holding that the teams are better judges as to who they regard as coaches than a handful of Wikipedia editors. Ravenswing 13:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The consensus is that for bullpen catchers, regardless of whether or not they are considered coaches, it must be demonstrated if they meet the general notability guideline, and the baseball-specific guidance in this guideline does not apply. isaacl (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:NOLYMPICS

From several recent AfD discussions, it has become apparent that the previous language of WP:NOLYMPICS specific notability guideline for Olympic Games athletes was not sufficiently clear that it only applied to participants in the modern Olympic Games, not the ancient Olympic Games. With this edit [7], I have attempted to clarify the scope of WP:NOLYMPICS's presumption of notability. Ancient Olympic athletes may or may not be "notable" in the Wikipedia sense -- with sufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources required by the general notability guidelines -- and editors should be prepared to conduct that analysis for ancient Olympic athletes rather than relying on any ambiguity in the WP:NOLYMPICS guideline. Hopefully, these changes are unobjectionable to regular participants in these WP:NSPORTS discussions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We just do not have enough evidence for ancient olympic athletes, that all of them meet WP:GNG. In this case GNG should be the standard. MATThematical (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Mass deletion of sporting events at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that by "mass deletion of sporting events", he means "mass deletion of individual events related to a single multi-sport event". This section title makes it sound like I proposed deleting every single sporting event article. ~ RobTalk 19:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

United Football League notability

According to WP:NGRIDIRON, football players are presumed to be notable if they've competed in a top-level league. Does the United Football League meet this criteria? On one hand, they were a professional football league. On the other hand, there was widespread speculation that the league could become the NFL's developmental league, which would certainly not be a top-level league. This speculation included comments by the commissioner of the league, so it seems likely that the intent of the UFL was to eventually become a sort of developmental league. As a result, I'm inclined to say that UFL players do not meet the criteria in WP:NGRIDIRON. Thoughts? ~ RobTalk 04:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The UFL was a minor league. "Top level" in this case I would assume to mean the NFL, AFL (the predecessor of the AFC, not the prior leagues that used the name but dies after only a year or two), the AAFC (which also merged with the NFL) and the CFL (and its predecessors). I'm not as certain about the Arena Football League; it's an edge case at best. oknazevad (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The Arena Football League is specifically listed in the guideline, so as it currently stands, its players are presumed notable. I personally don't see any reason to change that, given that the Arena Football League is the top-level league for the variant of arena football. ~ RobTalk 05:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
True. I just am partly questioning the significance of arena football in general. It's. It not like it typically receives more than routine coverage in local papers, even at the height of its popularity some 8-9 years ago. oknazevad (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
"Top-level" = highest level of competition found in the nation in question. Since the AFL merger, no professional football league in the US other than the NFL meets that definition. Ravenswing 14:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
agree that these players would not meet notability. MATThematical (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright, looks like there's a clear consensus on this. Thanks for all of your responses. ~ RobTalk 08:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Support I agree that the UFL is/was not a top-level league. Naturally, any articles involving that league could achieve notability through other means. I believe this to be a good consensus measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The UFL was never a top-level football league in any sense of the words, and I don't think there has ever been any significant number of editors who have interpreted the guideline in that manner. That said, the present guideline does include Arena football players; that was an ill-considered mistake, the likelihood of an average Arena player satisfying the general notability guideline with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources is far lower than than that of the average NFL or CFL player, and the coverage of the Arena league and its players appears to be declining. It may be time for a reconsideration of that element of the NGRIDIRON specific notability guideline. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, here's the question: what is the likelihood of an average Arena Football League player meeting the GNG? Could you tell us what that is, in percentage terms?

    ... odds are that you can't, because I suspect no one has done any manner of survey to find out. When that's done, and we've done an evaluation based upon more than "The league's not as important as it used to be," we'll have what it takes to make an informed decision. Ravenswing 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @Ravenswing: What's the normal presumption for NSPORTS -- that 90-95% of all covered athletes would survive a critical GNG analysis, with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources? And that significant does not mean one- and two-sentence mentions or routine post-game coverage? Yeah, I strongly suspect that there is no way 90-95% of Arena players would satisfy GNG if all of them were put to the test, but, yes, you're right that I have no valid statistics to support that. The only way to put it to the test would be to randomly select 30+ current and former Arena players (excluding those who also played in the NFL and CFL), and run them through the full GNG analysis. To my knowledge, no NSPORTS specific notability standard has ever received that level of scrutiny before or after its adoption. That said, I would be willing to go through the exercise at some point in the future because of the precedent it would set for all NSPORTS guidelines -- it needs to happen to validate the whole NSPORTS concept. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No one's laid out the evidence in that manner on this discussion page (though it is suggested in the FAQ); typically just the criteria that most people can agree upon end up getting included in the guidance. I agree it would be useful to do the analysis. isaacl (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

international games

Do the Island Games qualify as "international multi-sport event (games)"? My own view is that they don't as it's not full nation states competing. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For the purposes of the notability (sports) criteria, I would say they are not international multi-sport events. They clearly do not rise to the level of other international competitions, so I would not assume notability based on the results of this event. Of course, players who meet WP:GNG as a result of participation in these events are still notable. ~ RobTalk 13:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no presumption of notability for participants in international championships of regional/continental scope such as the Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, or the smaller regional games and championships. Please note what the NSPORTS basic criteria says: "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." You may also want to review WP:NOLYMPICS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability of individuals for swimming/aquatics

I note that there is no current guidelines for establishing the notability of swimmers/divers, etc. Would it be fair to assume the following:

Swimmers, divers or water polo players are resumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below
  1. Has competed at the Olympics
  2. Has competed at the FINA World Aquatics Championships

Point one is already covered by WP:NOLYMPICS (as are many other sports), and point 2 seems to cover the top-level competition for the sport. Compare with competing at the IAAF World Championships for WP:NTRACK and competed at a UCI World Championships for WP:NCYC. Any thoughts/comments on this? I think it would sensible to add this to the current list of sports based on the above assumptions. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Might want to open up the second point to "Has competed at the FINA World Aquatics Championships, FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m), or the FINA World Open Water Swimming Championships (now defunct)" I think competitors in any of those would be presumed as notable. Either way, I am good with having this guideline. RonSigPi (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Extreme Cautionary Note - Uh, Lugnuts and Ron, don't you think this should have been proposed on the WikiProject Swimming talk page before it was raised here? There have been several variations of specific notability standards that have been discussed for competitive swimmers over the last two years, and the project members have generally decided that a combination of WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources), WP:NOLYMPICS ("athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games"), and the basic criteria of WP:NSPORTS ("sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)") have generally served well for swimmer notability. The last of those being interpreted as including the FINA world championships medalists (senior, not junior). Several regular WP:SWIMMING editors, including myself, believe that it is important that notability for swimmers be backstopped by GNG, i.e., that any and all swimmers deemed notable by a specific notability standard would be 95+% likely to satisfy a strict interpretation of GNG (genuinely significant coverage). We strongly believe that several of the recently amended specific notability standards for gymnasts, track and field athletes, and several others are too over-inclusive; participants in junior regional and world championships infrequently satisfy GNG with genuinely significant coverage. And, as someone who works in the area of Olympic swimmers, I can tell you frankly that it is hard enough to stitch a meaningful article together for old-time Olympic medalists, let alone Olympic participants (non-medalists) who did not advance beyond the qualifying heats. This applies even more so for swimmers who do not advance beyond the qualifying heats of the FINA championships (both long and short-course), and even more so again for non-medalists who participated in the Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, European championships, Asian Games, Southeast Asia Games, Caribbean and Central American Games, and even more so again for the junior versions of those variations games and championships, including the Youth Olympics. Bottom line: there should be significant discussion, including significant input from the members of WP:SWIMMING, before any new specific notability guideline for swimmers is considered. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't propose this, just commented as did you so please be mindful of where you are directing your 'uhs' and review WP:CIVIL. I suggest you keep the arguments on point - we are talking about the swimming notability proposal and no one else mentioned the Southeast Asian Games. If you have a concern on the believed over inclusiveness of WP:TRACK or any other sport then take it up in a more appropriate forum (such as its own section). I also suggest that you only speak for yourself and not the purported group of editors that you say you represent. One could just as easily state that a large group of editors think many of the guidelines are too restrictive (for guidance on that, see some of the fun that goes on for Association football/soccer debates). The logic goes that this is not a traditional encyclopedia with page limits so therefore having tight restrictions for notability is improper. I am in no position to make my argument on their behalf or anyone else - I just make my points for myself alone and I suggest everyone do the same.
Back to the matter at hand, I make the same two assertions I have made before in various other discussions. First, this only gives a presumption of notability - not an ironclad rule. The baseline standard is and always has been WP:GNG. Therefore, I have no problem with a world championship level athletes that represent their nation on the highest stage of major sports having the benefit of the presumption that can always be rebutted. Second, the GNG world goes well beyond typing stuff into Google. Smaller nations have less Internet presence than many large English speaking nations and obviously pre-1990s there was not Internet as we know today. If someone from an Eastern European country competed in the 1952 Olympics, then I think its a good bet that their local/national newspaper covered them. Just because it cannot be found on Google and/or its not in English does not mean the sources don't exist. We should presume they do just as newspapers and the Internet cover those athletes now. In view of this, just as with track and other sports, if you competed at the world championships of swimming, then I think you can be presumed as notable.RonSigPi (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Ron, first, it was presumptuous to propose a new NSPORTS specific notability standard without consulting the members of WP:SWIMMING. Period. My comments are civil. Period. If you think my use of "uh" is uncivil, I am sorry you are offended, but I would suggest you have to be very thin-skinned to be offended by "uh". I am speaking for myself, but I am also recounting discussions in which I was a participant; that should be clear from what I wrote. Likewise, WP:SWIMMING should have been consulted; that should also be crystal clear as a matter of consulting with the most knowledgeable editors on the subject. Nothing I said, or to which you responded, invalidates any of my comments.
As for your statement that "having tight restrictions for notability is improper," well, your statement is both wrong and misleading; we have the General Notability Guidelines, and they are what they are. GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources for stand-alone articles, and that only creates a presumption, not a guarantee of inclusion. The WP:NSPORTS specific notability guidelines for defined classes of athletes are based on the presumption that being a member of those defined classes carries with it a very high likelihood that they will satisfy GNG. When we adopt specific notability standards for athletes which lead to a high percentage of them not satisfying GNG, then those standards are, by definition, over inclusive. You're free to disagree, but those propositions are axiomatic, and are outlined in the introductions and basic criteria of GNG and NSPORTS.
As for small-country media markets, we don't make allowances: we still require significant coverage. What you suggest is at best a "gloss" on our actual guidelines. I also don't buy your underlying assumption, that non-medalist Olympic athletes (and presumptively FINA championship non-medalist participants) always receive significant coverage in their home-country media. Quite above and apart from your 1950s eastern European example, I can point to examples from the largest, most sports-hungry media market in the world, the United States, and I can provide a dozen or more examples of American swimmers who did not advance beyond the qualifying heats of the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and 1930s Olympics for whom you can find not a single example of significant coverage in Newspapers.com, Newsarchive.com, Google News Archive, etc. Likewise, I can point to dozens of examples of FINA championship participants (non-medalists) from the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada -- all major countries, with English language major media, and strong sporting traditions and sports media -- who did not receive anything approaching significant coverage. Hell, Ron, most participants from those English-speaking countries who did not advance beyond the qualifying heats of the 2015 FINA world championships did not receive significant coverage in their home-country or world media. The basic presumption is faulty because the significant coverage for the event does not exist for most of the non-medalist FINA participants. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but that's reality.
What has been discussed in the past is a presumption of notability for the FINA medalists and perhaps the the non-medalist event finalists. That's a viable option, but extending a presumption of notability to the B-standard qualifiers who finished in the bottom third of the first-round qualifying heats is based on the faulty assumption that significant coverage exists somewhere. It's a bad assumption. If you believe that significant coverage exists, I suggest that you pick the bottom ten finishers from the qualifying heats of each individual event at the 2015 FINA championships, and then start searching the internet for significant coverage of their participation in the 2015 qualifying heats in independent sources. Then we can talk about the meaning of "significant": it's supposed to mean more than one or two-sentence mentions.
Frankly, I don't think a specific notability standard for competitive swimmers is necessary, but I am more than willing to discuss one, and there's no harm in adopting one if it maintains existing standards. That said, if we're going through the exercise of adopting an NSPORTS SNG for swimmers, then my position is that we should not repeat the mistake of obvious over-inconclusiveness of several other NSPORTS SNGs, and it should be firmly rooted in empirical evidence that demonstrates that 95+% of the defined classes of swimmers satisfy GNG. That's what all NSPORTS SNGs are supposed to do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I did post a message at WP:SWIMMING (here), along with a few other projects to point them in the direction of this discussion. The swimming project looks a bit dead (IMO) with only a few posts since Christmas, hence why I alerted the project to this discussion. There are currently no guidelines on notability of swimmers (that I could see), so I got the ball rolling with this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Olympic sport World Championships/World Cups

We now have a swimming guideline proposal. One thing I have noticed is that a lot of sports have competing in their world championships as conferring a presumption of notability. Is it now to the point that we could change the last part of the second sentence in basic criteria to state:

"...for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics or World Championships/World Cup for an Olympic sport during the time of the sport being an Olympic sport)."

I think this change does a few things. First, it can remove a lot of lines from the current sports specific guidelines (see first criterion of Athletics, Figure Skating, or Gymnastics). I think the shorter and more concise guidelines can be then the better. Second, it stops the immediate need to create more guidelines for each an every sport if the sports are just going to say Olympics and World Championships. This way the community does not have to go through the effort of creating guidelines for each sport when the result is likely to be the same. Third, it takes care of some WP:CRYSTALBALL issues - e.g., when someone like Andy Hrovat qualified for the U.S. Olympic Team, one could argue that he could not get an article until he actually competes (he didn't have this happen, but I have seen these types of arguments before). This way, coverage in anticipation of the Olympics can be a bit more clear-cut for at least some top level competitors that have not actually competed. Fourth, it saves the community time. I don't see guidelines for Archery, Fencing, Judo, Weightlifting, or Ski Jumping just to name a few of many Olympic sports without guidelines. As opposed to evaluating all these sports when someone gets around to proposing them, these sports can have de facto guidelines outside of just Olympic competition.

I am aware that this is not a simple proposition. Some sports do not seem to have been addressed such as wrestling - this proposal if passed will address it for the first time. In addition, some sports appear to step away from this stance, such as triathlon or boxing (though I think specific sports reasons may be at the heart of those - triathlon being a newer Olympic sport (and the time limit I put in takes care of that) and boxing being the only sport to still have only amateurs). However, keeping in mind that these guidelines only create a presumption, I think an across the board look at the World Championships/World Cup may be in order.RonSigPi (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I think this is an ill-conceived proposal. There are many non-medalist participants in the Olympics Games -- the premier world championships in most sports -- who do not satisfy a strict application of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (i.e., significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). This is especially true with the adoption of new qualifying standards and expanded qualifying rounds of competition for "B standard" qualifiers. There are numerous examples of non-medalist participants from small countries, in sports that receive lesser degrees of media coverage, who come and go in the space of single Olympic four-year cycle that never receive significant coverage sufficient to build a meaningful biography article. This is even more so true for non-Olympic world championships. For example, qualifying heats swimmers in the FINA world swimming championships (long and short course) are highly unlikely to be notable on that basis alone. The FINA "world cup," mentioned by you, was relatively obscure, did not constitute a world championship, and non-medalists received virtually no significant coverage for their participation. And competitive swimming receives a lot more media coverage than some other sports. Personally, rather than expanding/loosening/diluting our standards for inclusion even further than we already have, I think we should be reviewing many of our existing NSPORTS specific notability guidelines to see what percentage of those subjects included thereunder actually satisfy GNG -- which is supposed be the backstop and underlying standard for all of our specific notability guidelines. Several are already grossly over-inclusive. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I simply disagree. I believe that when someone competes in the World Championships of a major sport, then we can presume that their local/national media covers them in a significant manner. As for the swimming World Cup, you are mixing discussions. I did not expressly mention the FINA World Cup, I added World Cup because typically that is what team sports call their championship. If a World Cup is not he same as a World Championship, then that part can be stricken. That is why things can be proposed, so things can be discussed and language can be improved. If the term World Cup adds events that are not intended, then say "World Championships or their equivalents" or just "World Championships" and let it be figured out as needed. Further, even if you think the guidelines are grossly over-inclusive (a point I do not agree with across the board), that is not really relevant here. A World Championship is just that - a world scale event. Adding World Championships for every sport does not mean that lower bar criterion cannot be eliminated. These are not mutually exclusive and should be discussed separately. RonSigPi (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Ron, you're free to disagree, but we don't "presume" coverage exists. We adopt specific notability standards for defined classes of subjects which we know that historically a very high percentage of class members satisfy GNG; that creates a presumption of notability under the NSPORTS specific notability guideline. This is all very basic to the operation of NSPORTS.
With regard to a new WP:NSWIMMER specific notability guideline for competitive swimmers, you have said you believe we should include all participants in the FINA championships, even those who only participated in the qualifying heats. Here's my challenge to you: find significant coverage of the bottom 20 participants (39 through 59) in the qualifying heats of women's 100-meter butterfly event at the 2015 FINA world championships. Please be prepared to demonstrate the notability of each of those 20 women athletes with multiple links to significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. And, again, by "significant" we mean more than one and two-sentence mentions. Good luck. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The reverse of that would be to take Dirngulbai Misech (for example) to AfD and see what happens. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Lugnuts, here's the Google search for "Dirngulbai Misech: six pages, 51 non-duplicate results. Most of the results are listings of her name, event and times -- in fact, there's not a single instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. The only example of anything that approaches the level of significant coverage is a from Oceaniasports.com, which is a website run by several of the Pacific islands national swimming organizations, that is to say not an independent source. I regularly participate in AfDs for sports-related topics, and frankly, this article should be sent to AfD for lack of notability per GNG. And Misech is just one of 20 examples that I suggested below, most of which are red links because they're not notable. When 40 to 60% of the subjects included in a proposed specific notability guideline fail a critical GNG analysis, then it's not a very good candidate for an SNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
So you're a deletionist then! I'm clearly wasting my time trying to draft this notability guide as you clearly know better. I'll leave it in your expert hands. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You're clearly wasting your time, indeed, if you believe flinging slurs at those who disagree with you is the best way to convince folks of your good faith. Ravenswing 13:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hardly a slur based on the info already posted. You speak of good faith, but show none yourself. Brilliant! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Guys, I'm not really interested in engaging in a rhetorical exercise. I am interested in upholding the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources), and possibly in adopting an NSPORTS specific notability guideline for competitive swimmers which comports with GNG as described above. Not sure where the "deletionist" epithet is coming from; I'm hoping it's a joke of sorts, and I am happy to compare my AfD track records on sports-related topics with anyone. I believe that notable topics should be included, and non-notable topics should be excluded; that does not make me a "deletionist." It simply means I believe that our article topics should satisfy one of our core guidelines, and I would hope that Lugnuts would understand and appreciate that, given his 7+ years of experience working on Wikipedia sports-related topics. Presumably, I'm not saying anything here that he does not already understand from his own reading of the notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
So what's your opinion on this article, for example? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Well, it strikes me as a little shaky notability-wise, but I have no real experience in judging the notability of cricket players and I would not presume to make a snap judgment without reviewing the applicable specific notability guideline and 25+ of the most recent AfD hard cases for cricket players. I usually do my homework first, and I suspect that the outcome may be determined by non-internet, hard-copy references to which I don't have access. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 100% agree with Dirtlawyer1, notability alone should determine whether an article merits inclusion in Wikipedia, the guidelines should be used only in the case where the vast majority of articles of players taking part in a certain competition would be notable (such as players of the modern NBA for example). They should be cut down even further in my opinion to only include events where something like 90% at least of the participants would answer notability. Call me a deletionist if you want but I don't think stubs should even be allowed on wikipedia, they tell us nothing more than what we could find on the first page of a google search. In my eyes if you're creating an article then you should not do a half-hearted effort, if you can nothing else to write that such is an athlete that played in such competition than don't write the article, simple.

By the way, I did start an AfD for Dirngulbai Misech, perfect example of what shouldn't be on wikipedia (no notablility, no sources or research in article). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think stubs should even be allowed on WP, then get busy with 1.92 million AfD listings. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @ArmstrongJulian: Per our notability guidelines, the question should not be whether the present condition of an article is stub-like, but whether sufficient references exist to demonstrate the subject's notability. I don't think we should digress into arguing over whether Wikipedia should permit stubs; that horse has already left the gate, and she's not coming back, so it's a very unproductive discussion to have. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD for Paulauan swimmer

As an outgrowth of the two discussion threads immediately above, the following swimming-related article has been proposed for deletion:

The participation of editors is requested. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed the non-neutral term which has already been brought to the attention of this user. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add note to WP:NFOOTBALL

As there appears to be a consensus, I propose modifying point 2 of WP:NFOOTBALL.

Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league; or in a competitive match between two teams from fully professional leagues; will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.

Hack (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

automatic notability for Olympic athletes?

Joe Atuhaire, who finished dead last among all non-disqualified finishers (7+ seconds behind the next-to-last finisher in an event where he finished more than 12 seconds behind his "official qualifying time" as an athlete added for national balance) in an Olympic event is being claimed to be "notable" solely as a result of his participation in the games. I would ask whether we change the apparent "all athletes are notable if they have been at an Olympics" to "any athlete who has won any heat or match in any event, or won any medal at an Olympics event shall be presumed notable." Tight now we would have about 1,500 or more new potential BLPs per annum - with a much smaller group of people who have at least won one heat or match in an event. Comments? Collect (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Not a bad suggestion. The reality is that some people are there simply by asking. Remember the guy a few years back that held dual citizenship with Egypt(?) and the US, so he asked them if he could be on the Egyptian ski team and they said sure whatever. He couldn't even ski down the course without falling. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would support tightening the specific notability guideline (SNG) for Olympic Games participants per WP:NOLYMPICS, but I believe you will find significant resistance from other editors to do so. In the last 3 to 4 years, a very large number of stubs have been created in reliance on the present wording of NOLYMPICS, including those for athletes who did not progress beyond the preliminary heats or other initial qualifying rounds of the Olympic competitions, and many of these stubs are completely dependent on a single sports statistics website, Sports-Reference.com. That said, there is also a devil-in-the-details question of how we would be able to "tighten" the NOLYMPICS SNG. There is significant variation in the degree of media coverage for athletes in different sports. And, as noted above, there is wide variation from country to country in the amount of media coverage of Olympic athletes. If we are remotely serious about this, then the new SNG criteria should render a result that corresponds 90+% of the time to a full-blown critical analysis under the general notability guidelines -- significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources -- per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (nods to Dirtlawyer) While devolving the various NSPORTS criteria to the respective sports WikiProjects was a good idea -- one-size-fits-all is absurd for sports -- it's left us with a couple massive problems. The first is the historic millstone of so much as five minutes of performance in top-flight competition being enough to qualify someone for an article. The second is that development was left, in each case, in the hands of a handful of editors with uneven and idiosyncratic notions of importance. Thus you have the baseball standards ignoring the minor leagues (with well over a century of second-level competition and teams in major American metropolises) altogether, where the minor and regional sport of curling has its own standards encompassing territorial playdowns. In these cases, and others, I'm convinced the guiding principle was far less "Is someone who meets this standard highly likely to meet the GNG" than "As fans of this sport, we think this is important." Ravenswing 20:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
    • For baseball, the standard was written conservatively, in part due to commenters who think even the current standard is too low. Regarding curling, it gets a lot of coverage in Canada, so it's not an unreasonable standard, though personally I would suggest something a bit higher like finishing in the top three at a provincial or territorial championship. In neither case, as far as the discussions I have seen, did personal considerations of who is important play a role. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Mm, but the thing is, "too low" compared to what? "A lot of coverage" compared to what? Are the baseball editors claiming that there is no conceivable standard to cover minor league players, who might have played hundreds (or even thousands) of games in million-plus metro areas, but that it's a reasonable standard to presume that a pitcher with a single appearance for the Worcester Ruby Legs in 1881 will always be able to meet the GNG? Can the curling editors demonstrate that every performer from a territorial playdown has received the "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources that the GNG requires? I'm certainly willing to apologize if the respective projects can claim to have tested their assumptions against the GNG -- or, at the very least, to have altered their standards over time if it turned out that they were too loose/tight with respect to the GNG (as opposed to "There are too many articles on minor leaguers!!") -- but I doubt this is the case. Ravenswing 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
        • It's not necessary for a standard to walk the precise line where, for example, a 99% probability of passing the general notability guideline is met. Accordingly, no one to-date has investigated how to draw this line more liberally to accommodate minor league players. Anyone doing so would be welcomed! Regarding curling, I've already stated my support for tightening the standard. A complicating factor is that the number of elite teams in different Canadian provinces and territories varies, so whereas in Quebec, perhaps only the provincial champion garners sufficient coverage, in Alberta and Manitoba, there is higher coverage of the top teams. isaacl (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As you might note, I have added to the article. It was not what I expected to find, but the concept here, stolen from Seth Meyers is "Deep Google." Our standard here is assumed to meet WP:GNG. The Olympics are such a covered event that it is inevitable that any athlete participating will receive significant global coverage. Beyond that repetitive content, in the case you are selecting and similar cases others select, the worst athletes catch even greater notoriety for their incompetence, or as a group, their country's cumulative incompetence in certain sports. They are usually from "third world" countries. Individual countries have different journalistic systems, but any athlete who merits the selection as the national representative will have a history. I've already found this guy participating in another sports competition in Uganda and I'm only 5 pages deep on a google search. That's the point. Everybody getting selected has some history if you can dig deep enough into their country's news organizations. Are we going to prejudice wikipedia based on the poor way they might be connecting that content to the internet? Trackinfo (talk) 21:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In the case noted, there was no "significant international coverage." Much less is such coverage "inevitable" for more than 10,000 athletes each and every modern Olympics. And I daresay the "other competition in Uganda" will have no "inevitable international coverage." And digging "deep enough" is not generally considered proof of actual notability, as far as I can tell. Really. Collect (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course you are absolutely correct, excepting the little fact that you are completely wrong. He also represented Uganda at the 2001 World Aquatics Championships and has merited additional international coverage since then. Trackinfo (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: When we're talking about "international coverage", "significant global coverage" etc, are we talking about merely documenting that the person participated or is there actual significant coverage, which is what GNG calls for? 200 articles saying someone competed is worth less than 2 articles in reliable sources in which the person is the subject.Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
In terms of reaching the highest level of their sport, I am suggesting that merely the mention should suffice. However, I am also suggesting that behind their being selected to be their nation's representative, there is still going to be coverage of this individual . . . winning the trials, going to other competitions . . . really this person is already a notable individual in their home country, as clearly Atuhaire is (dominating the local meet, the selection trials, being selected to another world championships). If we have access to the content in that nation, which as you go further back into history will not necessarily translate itself to the internet, there will be coverage. I found some for this guy. It's probably there for everybody who makes it to the Olympics, because of the significance of the Olympics. A small, third world country, may not have the best athletes in every event, but they will quite likely send the best they have. In some events, even the best the GBR or USA have to offer can finish in dead last place. That, in itself is not a crime. BTW Uganda has won seven medals at the Olympics, including two golds. Trackinfo (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • And the question you artfully avoided was what you mean by "coverage". A mention in a newspaper that John Doe ran a 9.7 to qualify doesn't meet GNG. Additionally, you seem to forget that some Olympians aren't there because they're the best. Jamil Reedy was born in Egypt, but grew up in the US. He held dual citizenship and hadn't been back to Egypt since he was a child. He liked skiing but knew he couldn't make the US team. He didn't ski on the World Cup tour. Never won any championships. But he asked Egypt if he could be their "team" and they said yes. Now, Jamil is notable because of the coverage he got. But he also disproves your notion that being there means you won trials, championships etc. The fact is, Jamil was totally non-notable until he used a loophole to get into the 1984 Winter Games. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability for a horse

Is a horse that set the world record speed for a particular year notable on that basis? Actually, it looks like she held the record for about 3 years, but it is a very specific record: 1 mile over a half mile track by a 3 year old mare. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I would imagine that a horse holding such a record would be able to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 19:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Possibly, what horse and can you link to either an article or source material in question? The "standard rule" is winner of a Group I or Grade I stakes, but that rule has plenty of exceptions, and breaking a world record would be one of them; horse world speed records do not get broken very often these days (long debate in horse-land as to why, but not relevant here). Fastest time in a single year for that year, not a world record overall, no. Montanabw(talk) 08:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In the 1911 Almanac, Ruth Dillon is listed as creating the record in 1907 race. [8] She is apparently the half sister of Lou Dillon - maybe a redirect there and include the sibling? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Might be the way to start, but not with a redirect, yet - takes away the opportunity for someone to get "creator" credit... Montanabw(talk) 06:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The horse probably meets notability by herself, not as a redirect. I'm not particularly busy now, ping me with some info and I'll be willing to help create or work on her article. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's an annual record, a national or world title, it should be considered notable. After all, over the course of 100 years there will only be 100 record holders/recipients of a national and/or world title, less if there are repeat earners. Atsme📞📧 03:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
These old racehorses were often quite notable in their day, it's tough to find good source material sometimes. I tend to lean inclusionist on these due to the challenges of research in the pre-Google age. Montanabw(talk) 09:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_20&oldid=1086965117"