Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Basketball

Criteria 1 of the guidance gives a list of notable leagues, but concludes by stating that alternitavely a player could compete in 'a similar major professional sports league'. I think this is confusing, as there are significant differences between the listed leagues. I think it would either be better to amend to say 'other major professional basketball league', or perhaps better, a list of all notable leagues should be given? Eldumpo (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of a little more clarity. Basketball notability really breaks down to a three parts: 1) The NBA and the leagues that merged into it (BAA, American NBL, Original ABA) get automatic notability, 2) The highest level leagues outside the US (currently listing Spain, Italy and Australia's top leagues) also get automatic notability, 3) Players in other countries' top leagues might get notability based on other factors (awards, records, widespread media coverage, etc.) - which is also true of the major American minor leages (NBDL, CBA). As a general structure, I think this works. I might suggest adding the top Greek and Israeli leagues to those that grant automatic notability, and include players from the Amateur Athletic Union in it's heyday (generally considered to last until 1968) in the third category. This was a very popular alternative to the NBA for many top players for years and their top players (such as Bob Kurland or Dick Boushka) were as good and as popular as some of the stars in the NBA at that time. Rikster2 (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Any new approach needs to consider whether it's best to have a complete list, or keep some kind of qualifier. I don't mind the idea of making it a complete list of leagues regarded as notable for player articles, and losing the qualifier at the end, but we'll need to be happy we have grounds to keep some in and exclude others. Without being an expert on the leagues I would suggest the following may also merit inclusion - Russia, Turkey, Serbia, France, Germany, China, Argentina, as well as Greece and Israel which you've mentioned. Hopefully we can get some more input. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a list of "auto notability" leagues - I just think it should be really short (the five leagues I listed - maybe a couple others but that's it). We're talking about conferring automatic notability based on one game played. I think that list should be short. As for the qualifier, I am in favor of eliminating the "or similar leagues" bit (too open to interpretation), but think there are a whole slew of leagues in which some players are notable and others are not - you have to account for that. Rikster2 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who has played at least one game professionally (not simply being on the roster) after the "Open" era or after FIBA allowed professionals to play in their tournaments, or played at the "first division" of their country's league (prior to the "Open" era) has to be an automatic inclusion. The tricky part is which leagues are professional -- I'd suggest as long as a team pays its players "salaries" or "wages" and not "allowances" should fit in. Some league pay players "allowances" to circumvent the amateur rule even after the "Open" era; in these cases we'd use WP:GNG.
I would disagree that any player playing professionally should be considered notable. This would include American minor leagues and some European leagues that have a very low level of play. Rikster2 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to restrict it to the top flight, to use a soccer term, league for every country, if one exists (for example, Canada doesn't have one). –HTD 13:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't that go back to the issue of which leagues count and which don't? There is no objective standard. For example, the British Basketball League is terrible and has become a home for mediocre American college players. Do they count? Rikster2 (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
There should be one league per country which is the undisputed "top flight league" in that country. That should be enough, whether or not crappy American players play there or not; Americans who were not able to crack NBA rosters ply their trade elsewhere, heck even Samaki Walker played for Al-Jalaa Aleppo, a Syrian club, this June. Basketball is not only limited to Americans. –HTD 16:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's only limited to Americans. I'm saying that leagues where Americans who can't get off major college benches are significant players probably aren't of very high quality. Leagues like England's and Bulgaria's are full of these guys and I don't think someone playing 5 minutes in one game at that level makes them notable. Just an opinion. Rikster2 (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
A player may be notable for being paid to play basketball in England. What's the difference between a British player playing in the BBL and his American teammate? Would the British player get an article while his American teammate won't? Anyway, how would a stub of a basketball player look like aside from having a list of teams where he played at? See for example, Michele Ischia, who plays for Calcio Lecco 1912 at the Lega Pro Seconda Divisione (lowest professional football league in Italy). It's conceivable that an article on a similar player who played at a minor Division I school who now plays in England would look like that. –HTD 16:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I would say that regardless of nationality, a bit player in the BBL (as an example I am very familiar with) just isn't notable in my opinion. The fanbase, media coverage and quality of play are all of a very low level. The NBDL plays at a higher level (I say this as someone who has seen live games of both). Playing at the highest level in a country that doesn't really care about the sport (like England or Mexico) just doesn't seem right. This is why I have trouble with this proposal. Part of me wonders why a guy (regardless of nationality) who plays a part of one game in a low level league should be notable when a key player from a national championship American college team isn't (under current guidelines). I can guarantee that the college player in that case gets more significant media coverage, plays against better competition and has a bigger fanbase (and makes more money - lol, ok not really) Rikster2 (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Therein lies the rub -- for example, an American player in the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) is expected to play well, no matter where he came from. However, unlike the UK, the Philippines is into basketball, and like the U.S., college, and some exceptional high school, players are as heavily covered (some say more covered) as their pro counterparts. And sources are a plenty too (unless before 2004, that's the earliest date on most newspaper archives), probably unlike in the UK. That's the problem with restricting it to like the NBA and some European leagues, you'd leave out something. Either you include everyone and don't risk leaving out someone or not have a guideline at all.
BTW, there had been AFDs on local PBA players and all have been kept. If those will be kept, and American players won't, where's the logic? –HTD 17:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd be much more in favor of designating a specific list of leagues that confer automatic notability and including the PBA than I would agree to automatically confer notability for profesisonal players, regardless of what country the league resides in. I know the PBA gets the media coverage, has the fanbase, and has a high enough level of play that it is among the better leagues in the world. Don't get hung up on nationality - it's not material to any argument on the topic. I was only using the examples to demonstrate a league's quality of play. Rikster2 (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Are there any similar notability guidelines from other sports? I'm still not in favor on any arbitrary list. I was going to suggest top-flight leagues from countries whose national teams reached at least the quarterfinals in the immediately preceding intercontinental championship, but that'll leave out the German and Israeli leagues -- probably lengthening it to two or three tournaments may work (Israel last made the QF in 2003). Using the FIBA World Rankings still doesn't include Israel if you restrict it the Top 20. There can be a list, but not an arbitrary one. –HTD 17:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd also include anyone who has played in their national team at least one game in a tournament organized by FIBA for qualification into the World Championship or the Olympics; for players who had played Pan-Am games and the like should use WP:GNG.
I like this inclusion and a list of which tournaments are in and which are not should be easy to generate. Rikster2 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Check out FIBA World Championship and Basketball at the Summer Olympics and the daughter articles -- these are relatively few. –HTD 13:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Another tricky part are players who played prior to the BAA/NBA's institution as there were few pro leagues/teams in those days, although there had been FIBA tourneys at least since the late 1920s. –HTD 09:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Way forward

There's some good input above. It seems there is perhaps consensus to produce a wider list of leagues regarded as notable (both current and former), and I assume then we would lose the qualifier at the end. If that is the case we would need to include some text explaining why those leagues have been deemed notable. Personally, I would tend towards including the British league if it is professional, as it also gets reasonable coverage, and some live games are shown.Eldumpo (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


OK, my suggested new wording to cover a revised criteria one is below

“ Have appeared in one game in any of the following leagues:

The above leagues have been determined on the basis of the level of coverage they generate, and their professional status. Players who have only competed in other basketball leagues may still be notable based on general notability. "

Please indicate any comments. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can find one quality that all of those of league have, we can use that instead of this arbitrary list. –HTD 08:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
And that's probably why no changes get enacted. I doubt there is any unifying characteristic. The only way to go might be what football does in verifying what "fully professional" leagues exist (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues) - which is similar to Howard the Duck's suggestion earlier. Compiling this list would take a full effort and require much more participation than three editors. Rikster2 (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I realise the list can be described as arbitrary, and note the comments above. My view is that it is probably not a good idea to go down the football route of trying to produce a list of 'fully professional' leagues; we have no end of discussions there about the status of the sources, and in reality it is impossible to source properly. Assuming no one else comes along in support, I would instead propose the qualifier at the end gets amended to say “...or another major basketball league."
Which is why you should just leave players that don't meet the current wording to GNG. You don't want these guidelines too complicated. Remember they are just meant to help you get an idea when there are sources that meet GNG. For players in many of these leagues that is questionable. These guidelines aren't tickets to automatic notability remember. They also aren't tickets to automatic deletion. If I was going to do anything I would remove "or a similar major professional sports league." completely and just leave it as it is there without that. Leaving other players up to GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Djsasso. Remove "or a similar major professional sports league" and leave players in the other league to qualify via GNG. New leagues should only be added to WP:NBASKETBALL if it is safe to presume that multiple reliable, independent sources exist for players in those league. —Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Well the other two posters didn't mention removing the quaifier without also adding further leagues, so let's see if there's further consensus before going with your suggestions. Are you satisfied that multiple, reliable sources exist for the leagues already on the list? Eldumpo (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow basketball enough to know confidently. NBA (and its predecessors) and the original ABA for sure and the WNBA I have no problem saying yes for obviously...the others I don't know enough about. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Euroleague is a tournament of all the top teams in Europe, which would have ample coverage. The others I am not sure, so I do not have any reason to question previous consensus on the specific leagues. —Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Three top leagues legitimately compete with the NBA for talent - Italy (examples: Bob McAdoo, 1988 #2 draft pick Danny Ferry), Spain (Rony Seikaly, JR Reid) and Greece (Josh Childress, Dominique Wilkins, etc.) - meaning that players who could be gainfully employed in the NBA choose to play there. The rest are a mixed bag, with countries like Australia, the Philippines, Russia, Croatia, France, etc. having well-developed leagues with a strong fan/media following - but usually a step down in terms of level of play. As an example, all these leagues get some American college stars but rarely do they get guys who have the option to be solid NBA players (ie - roster spot virtually assured). I don't have a strong opinion on the qualifier either way, but I think some leniency for guys playing in top leagues is probably in order. Rikster2 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
One other thought, there probably is merit to considering automatic notability to players from the Australian NBL and the Philippine Basketball Association just by virtue of the fact that A) they are high-quality leagues with wide media coverage, and B) this is the English Language Wikipedia and these countries' official language is English (at least one of them in the case of the Phillipines). So in effect this is "their Wikipedia." I would expect that the Russian basketball league probably has a lower notability hurdle on the Russian WP site, and rightfully so given the user demographic. Same should apply for top leagues from English-speaking countries. Rikster2 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Unless there is a strong consensus from followers of those leagues (preferably from natives of those respective countries or people knowledgeable of their media), I think we should leave those players to qualify under GNG. Secondary guidelines like NSPORTS presume that GNG can be met, but help to save time at AfD discussions from reading or searching for sources after experience shows they will be found (eventually) for specific leagues. Since these other leagues have not proven (yet) to be a problem, I see no need to provide a shortcut without a consensus that it is applicable, especially for a problem that does not yet exist. —Bagumba (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The Australian NBL is part of the current guidelines and should remain so. If we aren't substantially changing current notability guidelines the we aren't substantially changing notability guidelines. The Greek League is a current outlier (in that it is easily at the same level as those already noted) but I think it's fine. My question is why does association football have such a lenient notability guideline when it seems to take an act of God to increase basketball guidelines? I agree it's more popular, but not to the degree that anyone paid a salary should be automatically notable while major world basketball leagues don't get the same consideration. Rikster2 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, by "those league" I meant those not already mentioned specifically in existing WP:NBASKETBALL. To be clear, I am proposing the following change (additions underlined, removals struck):

"Have appeared in one game in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, or Women's National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league.

—Bagumba (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea: How about restricting leagues that have games that air in free-to-air or terrestrial television? Those which exclusively air in cable or pay channels don't count. If there's sufficient interest in that country, basketball will be aired on free TV. –HTD 13:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this one is this would make every player who played in the World Basketball League notable. WBL games aired FTA in Canada on the CanWest Global System. What I would do is include the National Basketball Association, American Basketball Association and any of the other pre-NBA top leagues and any leagues who play NBA teams, so any leagues that have appeared om List of NBA vs FIBA / ULEB games (so the McDonald's Championship and NBA Live Tour would qualify. Any other men's player would have to qualify under GNG. The other idea I have is to take one of the hockey rules and any player who has appeared in 100 minor league games would also qualify. Of course for women's players the Women's National Basketball Association would qualify. But I would also include the American Basketball League. That league featured many of the top women's players also. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
In regards to free to air, I don't know if you could say that free-to-air implies interest. There may be rules in some countries regarding the amount of sport that has to be televised. That's why the Women's National Basketball League in Australia is frequently on television and the radio during the year. The finals for the National Wheelchair Basketball League of Australia are also going to be televised. [1] (The latter really needs an article.) --LauraHale (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
How about majority of the games? Or majority of the regular season games? It's quite conceivable that some TV networks may air the playoffs or finals of a sports league with a good enough notability but still falls short of WP's standards? –HTD 04:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Establishing professional rodeo criteria

What would it take for establishing criteria for professional rodeo performers here? NThomas (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the base for most sports is that they have competed at the highest level of the sport. On that basis, I'd argue a cowboy who participates in the National Finals Rodeo, Canadian Finals Rodeo or Calgary Stampede would generally pass. Perhaps others too - Cheyenne Frontier Days? I'm not sure where the drop off is after the big three. In general, I would focus on the level of coverage. If there are plenty of sources on an individual's career, such that WP:GNG is passed, then an article could be warranted. Resolute 19:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
What about establishing a set criteria with automatic notability instead like:

"Have won a championship in the Canadian Finals Rodeo or National Finals Rodeo."

Maybe just some criteria to start with and then expanding it later? NThomas (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I would definitely include the Calgary Stampede, given it ranks above the CFR. Larger payouts, higher attendance, more prestige. Resolute 03:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Having participated at the Calgary Stampede, CFR championship, or NFR championship clearly meets the general criteria of WP:NSPORT (participated in a professional competition at the highest level); so in establishing the criteria for NRODEO what needs to be determined is if being a member of a pro rodeo team (which ones?), or participation at smaller venue rodeos (which ones?) would also create a presumption of notability. Dolovis (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Would those three be a good start? Adding them one at a time, or an overall criteria, which I don't know if it could be established based on just how many individual rodeos there are. NThomas (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

"Rodeo athletes are presumed notable if they have participated at the highest level of competition such as the Calgary Stampede, Canadian Finals Rodeo, or National Finals Rodeo."

As there have been no opposition to the above proposal, it will now be moved into 'Notability (sports)' to form the new NRODEO. Dolovis (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NHOCKEY clarification redux

So I've wasted my time on a couple of AfDs surrounding that pesky #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. You all know the part - "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league..." I went digging around the talk page archives and dug up this thread, which looked like a good idea that never quite formed a real consensus. Can we come up with what, exactly, a "major award" is? And then maybe update the guideline?  Cjmclark (Contact) 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I would be extremely happy to strike the "major award" clause altogether, as I mentioned in that debate, on the grounds that very, very few players receive genuinely significant awards who are not also named to a season-ending All-Star team, and that it would eliminate the nonsensical awards creep where people claim everything down to "Rookie of the Month" and "Best Academic Defensive Forward" as somehow being "major" awards. (What, pray tell, would they consider "minor" awards?)  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  06:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • As I said in a previous discussion I would rather just remove the major award part all together for the same reasons that Ravenswing mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no need to change the wording for criteria #4. We have, and are continuing to build, a good set of precedents for what the consensus feels are the major awards, and to start to re-write the inclusion criteria will just serve to introduce unnecessary confusion into an area that has become pretty well settled. Dolovis (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia doesn't work on precedents. And its clearly not settled as it has been coming up every month or so. Wikipedia works on improving things that need improving. Clearly this is a situation that needs to be improved by rewriting it to avoid the confusion that currently exists. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY does not need a re-write. There is little confusion on this issue, and it is not a hot topic which has cause any great disruption. No need to stir the pot. I am in favour of maintaining the status quo. Dolovis (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would you like links to the dozens of AfDs and discussions, many in which you've participated, demonstrating such disputes, confusion and disruption? I only wish that my assertion that some editors - yourself included - have claimed that "Rookie of the Month" and "Best Academic Defensive Forward" were "major" awards was exaggeration or hyperbole. Unfortunately, it isn't.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree with Ravenswing in that #4 should be removed altogether. Contrary to Dolovis' assertion, there is significant confusion surrounding this criterion. Too many users see #4, and automatically assume that ANY award from ANY notable league falls under that criterion. We have users creating articles because some guy in the USHL, a junior "A" league, won some award. Not acceptable if you ask me. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment, personally, I hold a "major award" as being one you would see in the majority of leagues. MVP, Rookie of the year, top scorer, coach of the year, etc. Where we seem to have most of the issues is with the OHL, and the truly ridiculous number of trophies that league hands out. I half expect that league will introduce the Matt Carkner Award any time now for the best 3rd pair defenceman in the league. Resolute 18:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If there are problems with awards that are trivial being construed subjectively as "major", we should just delete "major awards" altogether. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps we just need to spell out what a major award is. I would say positional/league MVP (both regular season and playoffs), leading scorer (goals, assists (if such an award exists), points), positional rookie of the year (based on play not academics), goaltending statistical leaders (GAA is the only one I know of) and opposite position players of the year (think Selke Trophy and if an offensive defenceman award exists) are the only awardsI'd consider that extend to player notability. For coaches only coach of the year would extend to it.

What I don't think qualifies are awards that are given out for any non-hockey play reasons (academics, humanitarian etc.) and minor statistical categories (+/-, PIM etc.). I'd also say that anything below Major Junior doesn't qualify nor does any international tournaments below the World U18s. The only thing I am unsure about are awards given out for playoff tournaments that are below the final championship. Essentially, for conference championship MVPs especially in Canadian Interuniversity Sport and if any minor pro award them. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

That sort of is the problem, we define them that way about every month and then the next month someone argues for a different award and it goes around and around. Much simpler to just remove the "major awards" words and force those players to, as Ravenswing says, have them rely on being on the First All-Star team or on GNG or some other method. If people actually were to want to keep it I would say MVP, Best Defenceman, Best Goalie as being the only 3 I would keep. Leading scorer doesn't currently count as you have to be a top 10 in league history currently to qualify through scoring. That being said top scorer is probably the mvp 90% of the time. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd say keep none of them. The best defenseman and best goalie always are First Team All-Stars, and the MVP and top scorer almost always are as well. For those who aren't, they can be covered by the GNG, and frankly, a junior league or low-minor leaguer who can't meet the GNG and can't meet the more specific criteria is just plain not notable. Happily, it's looking like a consensus is emerging.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  14:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think I'm good with just taking out the "major award" clause altogether. What brought me here was Taylor Beck and the OHL's impressive-sounding Jim Mahon Memorial Trophy. I mean, c'mon, top-scoring right winger, guys! They even named it after a dead guy (who apparently died from an electrical accident)! How can it not be a major award, right...?  Cjmclark (Contact) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I could definitely support that too. Any major award winner should have sources to meet GNG anyway. Resolute 17:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove it. It's too vague, and the GNG will cover any player worth mentioning. Remember, that still is the ultimate governing guideline; all others are merely interpretations for a specific topic area. They can't be more restrictive (i.e., if someone fails NHOCKEY, but meets the GNG, they get an article), but it can't be more permissive, either. An award that receives only routine coverage is not going to pass the GNG. oknazevad (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the best bet is to remove it. I attempted to come up with a list of leagues and suitable awards that aligned with third party coverage, and got annoyed partway through. If we wanted to really clarify ice hockey notability, and who is worthy of an article, we would be more stringent with "reliable third party sources" and strike websites like hockeydb and eliteprospects from being used as the sole source for an article. But I digress - I am perfectly happy to strike the major award clause. Canada Hky (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Note. I think it has become clear that the consensus here is to remove the awards phrase, and the one editor who disagrees with that consensus needs to respect that fact. Further discussion here is fine; continued reverting on the page itself is not. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, which is why Ravenswing/Djsasso should not be changing NHOCKEY until after this discussion has concluded. Dolovis (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I did no such thing, I reverted you moving of another editors comments which is not something editors are supposed to do. If you wish to link to his comments you are more than welcome to. But copying comments out of context is against talkpage guidelines. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The re-post of Ravenswing's comments with my reply from my talk page were not taken out of context as they specifically address the issues raised in this discussion. It was "out-of-context" for Ravenswing to post his comments to my talk page rather than here. Dolovis (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • His comments were about your revert of his edit, which is a separate discussion from this one and belongs on your talk page not here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. I went to your talk page to confront you on issues - your inability to recognize consensus and your unwillingness to respect it - that have no place here. But assuredly, if you want to continue to filibuster an issue on which consensus is overwhelmingly against you, feel free.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  16:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Looking at this objectively, the NHL defines its major on-ice awards as follows:
All-Star Team – Best player his position
All-Rookie Team – Best first-year player his position
Jack Adams – Coach of the Year
Hart /Lester Pearson – MVP/Most Outstanding Player
Conn Smythe – Playoff MVP
Calder – Rookie of the Year
Art Ross – Most Points
Maurice Richard – Most Goals
James Norris – Best Defenceman
Frank Selke – Best Defensive Forward
Vezina - Best Goaltender
William Jennings – Best Goals Against Average
Lady Byng – Best Sportsmanship
Mark Messier/King Clancy – Leadership Award

So if we are to clarify the meaning of “major award” for lower leagues (as was the original objective of this discussion) we should specifically include those awards that are historically well established in the sport of hockey: First All-Star Team, Coach of the Year, MVP, Playoff MVP, Rookie of the Year, Most Points, Most Goals, Best Defenceman, Best Defensive Forward, Best Goaltender, Best GAA, and Best Sportsmanship. Dolovis (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The presumption of notability, however, is not equally true across all leagues solely based on the type of award. As Canada Hky said he had been attempting to do, to establish a guideline, one would have to examine the award winners for a given league and see if they have all/mostly received non-routine, notable coverage other than the mere fact of receiving the award. Receiving award X in league Y does not, in itself, make one notable; it just provides an indication of the player's skill level. The skill level required to receive award X in league Y might be sufficient to presume notable coverage, but might not for league Z. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
And, beyond Isaac1's comments, for you to use the NHL awards as fodder in this debate is specious and misleading. Any player who has received the most minor and little-noticed award at the NHL level qualifies for an article, since all players who've taken the ice for so much as a single NHL shift are presumptively notable. It's not that you argue that winning the Selke makes a player notable - no one disputes such a player's notability. It's that you've argued that being the runner-up to a best defenseman award in a Tier II junior league is a Notable Major Award. You've argued that being on the "all-star team" in a one-season only obscure junior tournament is a Notable Major Award. Such flights of fancy have contributed to the current consensus.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"Specious and misleading"? Really? On what level? What has brought us to this discussion is the lack of objectivity on what constitutes a "major award". I am trying to bring some objectivity to this discussion, while you insist on making it personal. Dolovis (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
This is bringing objectivity to the discussion: A google news search for "ontario hockey league most sportsmanlike" brings up one hit, not at all related to the league's annual award. A similar search for "ohl most sportsmanlike" gives 0 news hits. Nothing in secondary sources (OHL website is not secondary). Similar results (one unrelated hit or less) were obtained for both the WHL and QMJHL. I am confident that the results would be similar for any other league below the NHL (or other top level professional leagues). Thus, I do not believe the current qualification is true - namely, a player is entirely unlikely to meet the GNG simply on the basis of winning a major award in a league below the NHL level. Canada Hky (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. Let's presume, for the sake of argument that the NHL considers certain awards to be "major." Quite aside from that no evidence has been proffered to support any such argument, and that your assertion that your laundry list of "historically well established" awards is likewise skewed (the Richard Trophy, for one, is just twelve years old), notability is not inherited. You cannot claim that because the winners of NHL trophies are notable - as is every NHL player by definition, whether he ever wins anything or not - the winners of similar awards in every other league are as well. Following Canada Hky's research, if there is no particular press coverage for the winners of those awards in Canadian major junior - a level with a respectable fan following - there's no reason to suspect it's any different in the minor leagues. Heck, there are only 71 hits for the Jack A. Butterfield Trophy, the playoff MVP of the world's #1 minor league.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  23:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"major collegiate hockey league"

I'm not clear on what "major collegiate hockey league" is meant to include. Not to be too U.S.-centric, but NCAA is what I know best: Does it mean any D-I hockey league? Any varsity hockey league? Just WCHA/CCHA/Hockey East? ECAC? Powers T 12:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been taken to mean any D1 league and then the CIAU in Canada -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It might not hurt to clarify that. Powers T 12:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
You are probably right. Seeing more and more lately that writing to be flexible has only caused more lawyering so should probably get specific. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, in my case, where my alma mater's team is in a league considered "minor" by the other D-I leagues, it's a purely practical request. The distinction means the difference between several of my fellow alumni being considered notable, or not being considered notable. It's a question not of lawyering, but of whether I should be thinking about creating articles for them or not. Powers T 12:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean you specifically, sorry if it came out that way. We just have had a lot of debates lately about loop holes in the wording debating things like the use of "such as" and did it mean "only" and if not how far does it go including every league everywhere. And "major award" meaning every award giving out by a notable league or does it mean just the truly important leagues. Clearly flexibility didn't work in many cases. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the NCAA is that teams move up and down the Divisions. I believe there might be a couple teams looking at moving back down when one of the lower end conferences disappear. Conversely, teams like Rochester Institute of Technology has jumped up from Division III. So the problem this causes is that some award winners from RIT would be inherently notable, but some would not be. I would be ok with limiting the NCAA award winners to strictly the Hobey Baker Award (and the goaltending equivalent) and for the CIS/CIAU perhaps their equivalent awards. For CIS football players, winning the Hec Crichton Award which is the equivalent of the Heisman Award does not automatically confer notability. I'm thinking the same for CIS/CIAU hockey players. Since CIS/CIAU hockey is so much of a lower profile, simply winning awards might get a little bit of local coverage, but that's about it. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

NFL Draft

There has been some discussion on the guidelines for American football, specifically with what to do with players drafted in the NFL. I think there are a few ways to do this, so I propose ONE of the following to be selected.

  • A. Were selected in the first round of the NFL Draft
  • B. Were selected in the first two rounds of the NFL Draft
  • C. Were selected in the first three rounds of the NFL Draft
  • D. Were selected in the first seven rounds of the NFL Draft
  • E. No notability for being drafted.

'A' is consistent with the NHL Draft standard. 'B' is consistent with the number of rounds NBA Draft standard. 'C' gives notability to players selected on the first two days of the draft (and up until a year or two ago, selected on the first day). 'D' is consistent with the outcome of the NBA Draft standard (i.e., all players are notable).

When selecting, it is presumed that selecting a latter choice is also a selection for preceding choices. For example, if you select 'C', then it is assumed you are also selecting 'A' and 'B' (since if you think the first three rounds of players are notable, then the first and second round players must also be notable). Once people make selections with rationale, a consensus can be reached. RonSigPi (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would go with A its the cleanest solution. I am not comfortable with every round being proof of notability because it really isn't when you get to the late rounds in any of the sports drafts. And any number in between is fairly arbitrary. Whereas you can say with almost 100% certainty that the first round picks will be, because if they aren't notable for succeeding they are notable for falling flat and will have articles written about them for either reason. -DJSasso (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Choice 'D' The NFL Draft receives extensive media coverage and has for many decades. For example, currently the first round is covered in primetime on ESPN and the other rounds are given TV coverage. In addition, many major sports website and football dedicated websites provide extensive coverage of the draft and the players drafted (e.g., http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/draft, http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft, http://www.nfldraftgeek.com/, http://www.mynfldraft.com/NFL-Mock-Draft). Moreover, traditional media sources (i.e., TV, newspapers, etc.) provide coverage of players that a hometown team drafts (e.g., Cleveland Plain Dealer provides coverage of players drafted by the Cleveland Browns). These same sources also cover training camp and profile these drafted players. Also, many drafted players are top performing college players that have at least some notability level established based on college performance. For these reasons, I think drafted players can be presumed notable.
I think there are big differences among the four major drafts. In the MLB draft, virtually all the players drafted spend a few years in the minors. Since they dont play immediately for the big league teams, there is little coverage of the draft. Similarly, the NHL has many draftees play in the American Hockey League before the NHL. Plus, in the NHL model players can still play in college/juniors. Contrast that with the NBA, which has a very limited minor league system. Thus, the draft gets much more coverage since many players drafted will play in the NBA next year. The NFL has no minor league system and is the most popular sports league in the United States. Thus, I think the draft itself (and in turn the players drafted) receive a lot more coverage that establishes notability since those are the players selected for the pro team the next year. Thus, I don't think this is an instance where you can just compare to the NHL draft since they have the minor league system.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RonSigPi (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The community devotes a lot of resources to find and discuss AfDs of WP:Run-of-the-mill players who end up not making the NFL but their articles were blindly churned out simply because they were drafted. Let's not give editors justification here to continue this. WP:CRYSTAL would tell us not to assume future notability and instead objectively consider their current notability before an article is considered for creation. —Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
While I think you are in you right to have your opinion regarding WP:Run-of-the-mill, I think you are misinterpreting my assessment with regard to WP:CRYSTAL. I am not saying that because a player is drafted then their notability is presumed because in the future they will play in the NFL. My opinion is that a player drafted receives so much coverage by virtue of being drafted that they presumably meet GNG. I don't the assessment under WP:CRYSTAL correct in this instance since I don't think a future event (i.e., playing in the NFL) is taken into account. RonSigPi (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, as you are entitled to your opinion likewise. Presence of coverage does not automatically imply notability either. GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." A run-of-the-mill player could be one example. Also note that some recent AFDs on drafted players like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nate Bussey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson (American football) reached consensus that they were not notable. —Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Personally, I dislike that any sports/leagues have draftees presumed notable per NSPORTS. Even if say, all first round picks will be notable, then it doesn't really matter because they'll pass GNG anyway. The problem is what if someone gets drafted first round and then never plays a NFL, and never passes GNG. Should we keep that article? No, but changing the guideline to any of these suggestions would suggest that we should. Also, the problem that we have if we pick any of these options is that they're all pretty arbitrary. Pick N is notable, but pick N+1 is not? More sensible, in my opinion, to keep draftees out of NSPORTS. Again, if the players really are notable, they'll pass GNG anyway, so it's not like we'll see any articles on notable players get deleted. My suggestion would be for it to be clarified that while draftees are not presumed notable, they can still be notable per GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    In my view, the entire point of an SNG is to dictate what the associated project's experts (ymmv) have discovered to be the factors which determine that a player has crossed the notability threshold. And in the modern day, I would say it is extremely unlikely that a first round pick in any of the big four sports will fail to generate coverage to meet GNG even if they don't go pro, so the American football SNG should reflect that. Whether the notability bar stops there, or moves down a round or two, or five, should be determined by the amount of significant, ongoing coverage picks at each successive round receive. Resolute 01:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    My opinion on the SNGs is similar. Basically, they should be a reflection the GNG in that by meeting the SNG we are saying that the vast majority of people who meet this SNG will have had the significant coverage to meet GNG. Perhaps in the present day, all first round NFL draft picks will meet GNG. But the proposal is retrospective – by adding this to the article, we are saying that every first round draft pick from the 1936 draft to the 2011 draft met GNG before they were drafted. I do not believe that to be the case. And just as I post this, I edit conflict with Bagumba saying a similar thing below. Jenks24 (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Choice E - Rely on WP:GNG, and WP:ATH if they play in a game. Draftees should be be inherently notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Choice E I'm not certain 1st round picks from a few decades ago can be presumed to have had enough coverage. For example, if you look at 1945 NFL Draft, there are three players without articles and don't even have a red link. Not sure if that means someone has judged they should never have an article. I'd me comfortable with first rounders for future drafts, but if someone thinks that somehow discriminates against players from other years, we go back to GNG (which even players who meet SNG are required to meet anyways.)—Bagumba (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It looks like there are no redlinks to the players without articles in the 1945 NFL Draft because someone removed all the red links from the article at one point, and those never got restored.[2]. Rlendog (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Well the edit summary did say they were "unlikely to have an article", so we can at least assume the players prospects were analyzed. —Bagumba (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Choice A: Anyone selected in the first round of the NFL draft has a tidal wave of publicity. Yes, indeed, they need to pass the GNG, but the entire purpose of individual sport notability criteria is to identify those who are presumptively notable, so that valuable time and effort isn't wasted documenting it. I'm certainly open to someone demonstrating similar publicity for second rounders.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  01:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • At least Choice A, possibly B or C - Even if these players never play an NFL game, they don't get drafted in a vacuum. In order to be a high draft pick, they must have done something notable as an amateur, or else the NFL team wouldn't waste a pick on them. I guess that can support D as well, but I am not convinced that a 7th round pick necessarily did something notable enough to earn that draft pick, so I am more comfortable limiting presumed notability to either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd round. Rlendog (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There needs to be additional clarification for this request. Does this include all drafts up to this point? If so, why would the cutoff be at seven rounds, when at one point there were 32 rounds? If not, there would need to be historical consideration of past drafts. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Are there any actual discussions or cases that someone can refer us to where draft status became an issue and needs to be addressed? If not, maybe GNG is working just fine already. —Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on these I would say Choice C, but I would honestly suggest a Choice F, which presumes notability for players selected in the first five rounds of the draft. I honestly don't believe players drafted in rounds six and seven are guaranteed to pass WP:GNG, but before that, in more cases than not, a good amount of sources can be found for players drafted in rounds four and five can be found. However, if I had to pick from these, I would go with C, as I mentioned before, since practically always, these players receive enough coverage to warrant an article.--Giants27(T|C) 19:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Choice A or Choice E. I like A as it provides an easy metric for those players without needing to search for sources, but other commenters are correct that today's first-round media circus wasn't always the case. Still, a first-round pick is pretty notable, so I'd be fine with either one. Second- and third-round picks all too often don't pan out, or flame out quietly, so I think we're better sticking with the GNG for them. Powers T 22:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Since nobody has come up with a real-life example where this has been a problem, I dont think we need even more rules as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I doubt any recent first round picks have been denied an article or nominated for deletion. Can we close this? —Bagumba (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Clubs and teams

The guidance refers to the criteria being used for sports leagues/organisations, and does not mention clubs and teams. Is it intended that club and team notability can be ascertained via this guidance, or was this element intentionally excluded. Either way, I think some text should be added clarifying whether these are included here or not (and if not, specify what guidance would apply for clubs/teams). Eldumpo (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No clubs and teams should fall to actual GNG like everything not mentioned here. Its a bit too hard to quantify teams and leagues I think. Originally this was meant to just be for people but as you can see a few things like seasons crept in. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I note you say it was regarded as difficult to define, but from a football perspective, draft club notability criteria are being worked on. You could have a brief comment at NSPORT on club notability, and then a link to the main page where the details are included i.e. as happens now with footballers whereby readers are pointed to WP:FPL. Anyway, if the consensus is still for this information to not be included, that's fine, in which case I think some text clarifying that should be added. Hopefully at least a few more people will post here. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The soccer criteria have generally been considered the worst on this page as they never actually changed anything from their wikiproject scope guidelines when they moved it to be a guideline here. Many think their list of leagues is a bit of a joke to be honest. The soccer guidelines need to be tightened up quite a bit, too many people that clearly aren't notable get through on their guidelines. Every other sport switched from being just 1 game as a professional to being something closer to 1 game at the top pro league. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I understand the point you are making, I think it's going a little off-topic from the points I was raising. Primarily, is there consensus that clubs and teams should not be covered here, and if so, is there consensus for a note to be added confirming that. Eldumpo (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It was sort of an attempt to show that we shouldn't be following soccer's lead as they haven't got a good track record. You could make a note that it should follow GNG somewhere on the page...but it sort of says that at the top already I believe that anything not listed below falls to GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Well ... come to that, I'm sure there are many editors who consider the notability of junior teams and leagues in hockey a joke. Excuse me, leagues stocked with a bunch of fifteen and sixteen year olds, notable? Their teams? Even down to Tier II? You might well respond that junior hockey is a big deal in Canada and attract a great deal of press attention, to which the footy partisans would suggest that, well, so do these disparaged leagues in their own countries. Ravenswing 22:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:ORG would be applicable to teams. The debate comes up when a league is notable, but its teams might not be e.g. a proposed expansion team for a lesser known league —Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Right WP:ORG...that was why they weren't included...totally forgot about that one. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Eldumpo asked me at my talk to comment here. I don't really have any insights, but I agree with Djsasso and Bagumba. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with Eldumpo that some mention should be here, even if only to direct the reader to WP:ORG.—Bagumba (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Possibly some language then such as: "Sports clubs and teams are considered notable if they pass the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Generally speaking, however, if a particular sports league is not considered notable, its clubs or teams are not themselves likely to be." Ravenswing 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Leagues should be included as well: "Sports leagues, clubs and teams are considered notable if they pass the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Generally speaking, however, if a particular sports league is not considered notable, its clubs or teams are not themselves likely to be."
Mm, no. Several of the projects have defined lists of leagues, and criteria for the same that don't bear up to standardization across sports. Whether a definition would be useful or not, it'd never muster consensus. Ravenswing 22:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to criteria for determining if an article for a league should be created, not leagues from which players are presumed to be notable. —Bagumba (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above comments I have gone ahead and added a note on clubs/teams to the guidance. Eldumpo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a question ...

Why is there such a huge discrepancy in the sports notability criteria? It seems that footballers (and ice hockey players?) get preferential treatment - they only have to playing in a major professional club (whatever), whereas people such as cyclists, skaters and so on have to have competed at major international levels! Compare and contrast soccer with Badminton, for example. Just curious as to what really constitutes "notability" (as opposed to how many vocal fans the game has)... Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you largely answered your own question in what you said in parentheses at the end. This page has largely been written sport by sport, and like much of Wikipedia is fragmented in that regard. I'd be receptive to making the standards more uniform by raising them in some sports, but I'd be much less receptive to doing it by lowering the standards in others. And, to be fair, there are probably differences from sport to sport as to what it takes to pass WP:GNG, which is what this guideline attempts to predict. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't want to be lowering them anywhere, if at all. Raising footie to bring it into line with stuff like Badminton, now that would be cool by me! But then (prepares to duck and run), my life wouldn't be significantly impoverished if football were to be speedily deleted from the face of the planet :D Standardising the criteria for sports notability would be a very good idea - shall we put it on the to-do list? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I live in the US, but my understanding of soccer is that there is a very specific posture taken when defending against a penalty kick. I recommend it to anyone who wants to undertake what you propose. You're on your own. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The standards were actually uniform about a year an a half ago and it was found that uniform standards or a one size fits all standard didn't work. Some sports are written about more than others. For example a pro hockey player is likely to get more coverage than an Olympic badminton player. It might not be fair but that is reality in the world out there. So what happened was the idea to start creating sport specific criteria to try and make it easier for people to determine things in reality. Remember these guidelines don't guarantee notability, they just help you decide when its likely the subject has enough sources out there to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Beyond that, the individual projects generally have far more of a handle on what is truly notable in those particular sports than a layman does. A rule denying the notability of college players across the board would suit baseball and soccer just fine - where college players really garner no widespread attention - and suit basketball and football poorly, where college games get prime-time coverage in the United States and their stars are widely celebrated. A rule denying the notability of minor league sports would suit basketball and football just fine, where minor leagues are weak and ephemeral, and suit baseball, hockey and soccer poorly, where minor league systems are strong and leagues have endured for as much as a century.

    Beyond that, Pesky, I think you're missing the purpose of subordinate notability criteria. The governing notability criterion is the GNG, which establishes that a person is considered notable if multiple reliable sources discuss him in "significant detail." What the subordinate criteria are there to do - whether it be NSPORTS, CREATIVE, PROF and all the rest - is establish presumptive notability - the level of notoriety where it is likely that a subject could be proven to meet the GNG. It's not a matter of "fairness" at all ... it's that (for example) an American football player who so much as plays a single game in the NFL will have engendered newspaper and magazine articles about him. By contrast, a figure skater who hasn't at least made it deep into the draw at senior nationals in a large country won't have. That there are hundreds of thousands who care deeply about the starting quarterback at the University of Nebraska, and far far fewer people who give a hoot about the tenth best active men's singles skater in the United States, is irrelevant; WP:V is concerned about verifiability, not about fairness or a subject's putative merit.

    Truth be told, I have never heard a good argument for standardization, except the circular one that It Would Be Good To Standardize! I want rather a better reason for creating disruption and unbalancing a consensus which took many a long painful year to reach. I want some folks to deliver a convincing argument why it would be good to standardize, and how the benefits would outweigh the disruption, and what part the proponents would play in arranging for an effort that would require hundreds of editors to complete. Ravenswing 00:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there are many good points here; it's just that it seems odd that a tin-pot mid-field soccer player from some Eastern European soccer team seems automatically considered notable, regardless of an apparent complete lack of sources outside footie team-listings records, when (in the example of one I was looking at before in AfC) a junior cyclist with mentions in local papers, winning championships all over the place is written off as not-notable. Shame, really, but that's OK by me! It's not really any skin off my nose, as the chances of me creating a sport-person article are about as slim as the proverbial snowball's survival rates in Hell! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hm. Sounds like this is more a case that you give a damn about cycling and don't about soccer than anything else ... why toss out such loaded phrases otherwise? (A soccer fan could retort that a midfielder playing for Wisła Kraków, for example, is doing so before many thousands of fans more per match, and with national if not international coverage, far more than would ever notice your junior cyclist. Come to that, I just pulled up a midfielder from Wisla Krakow at random, and came up with 79 Google News hits [3].) In any event, if you wish to argue that more cyclists ought to be considered notable, I'd say that gaining the consensus of the Cycling WikiProject would be a good start. Ravenswing 07:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Notability of sports people in Wikipedia is largely tied to the amount of coverage. Without coverage from multiple sources, its impossible to write an objective article. It really has nothing to do with level of play between different sports (i.e. highest level of badminton doesnt get the same amount of coverage as football). Within a particular sport, however, it may be reasonable to have standards based on level of play, as some coverage such as pre-game interviews, injury updates, etc. might be considered WP:ROUTINE or a lower level player, even with coverage, might be considered WP:Run-of-the-mill. —Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Relation to GNG (again)

I would like to question the relationship between Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and the WP:GNG. Specifically, whether or not articles on sports players should be kept at WP:AfD if they do not meet the WP:GNG but do meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable_policies_and_guidelines states, "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." The very next line then contradicts this and becomes indecisive, stating, "This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." "Quickly determine" I would take as meaning for the purposes of CSD or casually checking notability. "Bright-line", however, is much stronger and would indicate to me that it should be applied at WP:AfD. A sentence in the beginning, in bold, reads "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or the sport specific criteria set forth below." This statement clearly indicates that the sports guideline can be used in lieu of the GNG, and in contradiction to the later statement requiring articles meet the GNG. I would thus like to form a consensus, and subsequent modifications to this article, on whether or not Wikipedia:Notability (sports) can be used as an alternative to WP:GNG in deletion discussions for sports players. My opinion is that the sports guideline should be used to quickly determine notability, such as for the purposes of CSD, but that deletion discussions questioning the notability of a standalone article should be required to meet WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The SNGs like NSPORT are meant as a "temporarily" allowance for an article based on the assurance that secondary sources do exist or will come about due to the topic meeting said criteria - but just aren't immediately available. Articles that meet an SNG should technically be considered notable, but that can always be challenged. If you create an article about a recent player who plays a few seasons and then retires (say, due to injury or something), and the only sources in the five years that follow that ever come about are primary, you are going to have difficulty in maintaining that the player is notable after that much time has past. But as long as the SNG criteria are chosen correctly, this type of case should be highly exceptional. In generally it should default to the presumption of notability, but AFD discussions can override the guidelines that SNGs like NSPORT lay out if the consensus agrees. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As Masem mentions the SNG are used as a way to avoid deletion of articles that are likely notable but it might take a bit of work to get the sources. ie Athletes from the decades before the internet where you are going to have to go search news paper archives to get sources or Athletes from countries where online news isn't as prevalent and paper articles will need to be found. They are meant as a way to protect notable individuals from over-zealous deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I interpret an AFD for notability as a direct challenge to the existence of such sources. Per discussion at WP:N, Wikipedia talk:Notability#Interpretation_of_Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence, the existence of the sources must be shown at AFD. Thus the SNG should not be used as a reason to keep an article if the GNG can not be satisfied during a deletion discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And most people view the SNG as protection from people opening over zealous Afds on in this case athletes that almost certainly pass the GNG. Just looking at your history to see what might have brought this question up led me to a soccer player Eugenio Bustingorri which you nominated that looking at his history clearly would have been talked about in newspapers and the like. The likelihood that you couldn't find two or three sources from a player of that magnitude is so close to zero that an afd on it seems ridiculous. Yes the Afds can still happen (and be a challenge to the existence of those sources) and yes GNG does have to be met, however claiming they meet the SNG is intended to be used at Afd to indicate that maybe this article shouldn't be deleted yet. 7 days in other words are not always enough to find sources for players such as the example I made in my last comment. Thus we give them a reprieve by meeting the SNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Interpretation_of_Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence. Challenging the existence of such sources is exactly what AFD is for. I do not think the sports guideline can be to avoid this challenge. If a user requests more time in a specific case I could certainly understand that, but relying on the sports guideline at AFD is nothing more than handwaving. Also, what of the contradictions in this guideline? --Odie5533 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And as I said an Afd can challenge it and override it certainly. But you have to convince the people in that Afd that there is consensus to delete. If the people in the Afd feel that meeting the SNG at the current time is good enough then consensus rules. Remember the GNG is just a guideline when it comes down to it, not a policy. As for contradictions I don't see any. What you mention above I don't really agree with. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
AFD can have their own consensus which overrides guidelines, but the entire purpose of having guidelines is to establish best practices. I am questioning whether the best practice should be that the sports guideline can be used at AFD in lieu of the GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
"In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." and "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, or the sport specific criteria set forth below." You do not find these at all contradictory or confusing in any way? --Odie5533 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually quite the opposite. Guidelines are descriptive not prescriptive. They are supposed to describe how things usually happen, they aren't supposed to tell you what to do. And no I don't think they are contradictory, they are talking about two different things. The second quote is talking about the person meeting one of the criteria below has to be proved by a reliable source saying they met it or they have have to have sources meeting the GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As someone who struggled with the wording of NSPORTS for a year, I agree with Djsasso that this "describe how things usually happen", but I'm certain that a newcomer is likely to struggle with the wording. There does seem to be an initial inherent contradiction when one line says GNG must be met, but another line says sources must be added to support GNG or NSPORTS. However, (and this came through experience and is my own interpretation) just because sources are only added for NSPORTS, doesnt mean that sources that satisfy GNG dont exist (somewhere). NSPORTS makes the presumption that those GNG sources do exist, so in effect, NSPORTS and GNG are presumed to be met. The key is that NSPORTS is clear that it is "likely" that GNG is met, not that it is automatic. It also adds, "... the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." I would like to believe that after some time passes (actual duration per agreement with editors), if sources are still not found to meet GNG, a second AfD nomination would be in order and editors may come to the conclusion that sources will never be found. In the interim, {{notability}} should be added to the article. Note also that not demonstrating GNG is not a guarantee for exclusion. Consensus for a given article may choose to WP:IGNORE all rules and use WP:COMMONSENSE to apply a different set of inclusion criteria altogether.—Bagumba (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I read a few archived discussions on this page and WP:N before making this topic. I certainly have not heard consensus on this second AFD requirement, nor do I agree with it. From the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Interpretation_of_Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence, no second AFD should be required. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The second AfD is my suggestion. The reality is any action in an AfD is by consensus. If the consensus is in your opinion, wrong, I'd recommend you work in good fath with the !keep editors to find the sources and add them to the article. Failing that, one recourse is to re-nominate an AfD and see if consensus has changed after a reasonable time has elapsed and no sources were found. Its best to work with the original keep !voters, as it will be difficult to form a new consensus if they dont agree all attempts to find sources have been exhausted. If you believe the closing admin was incorrect in the initial AfD, you can also go to Wikipedia:Deletion review—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comments raised by Odie, and have indeed made the same point myself previously. The text in bold makes a clear statement that meeting the SNG gives a presumption of an article being deemed notable, whereas the later statement says articles must meet GNG. I understand that this 'fudge' was partly required to get consensus for the guideline in the first place. Eldumpo (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The key word is "presumed". What is considered notable to be worthy of an by Wikipedians may change tomorrow (see the great Pokemon pruning for example). The concept is that if you just created an article that meets the SNG but not the GNG, immediate deletion is the worst possible thing we can be doing. If it's several years later, and you cannot produce any other sources, other editors may start to doubt the presumption of notability. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes people often ignore the word presumed in that sentence. The two are hand in hand, the SNG presumes that something is notable, where as meeting GNG is what guarantees it is notable (well as much as we can guarantee...like Masem mentions time tends to change things). They aren't mutually exclusive. -DJSasso (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • interjection... @Djsasso, May I suggest you go back and read what presumed is defined as under WP:GNG. It seems to quite clearly indicate that meeting the general notability guidelines does not guarantee it is notable; somewhat at odds with your statement here.--ClubOranjeT 10:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Should the presumption of notability based solely on the sports guidelines be enough to keep an article at AfD? I do not believe so. If an editor challenges the notability of an article, even a very new article, I think the article should be shown to pass the GNG if it is to be kept. I disagree that articles should be given a yearlong stay before deletion. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you wish to accomplish something directly related to the notability guidelines listed here? Otherwise, this is little more than an academic inclusionist vs. deletionist debate. No one's suggesting a formal year-long stay of execution; in fact, formalizing something like that is bad for business in a consensus-run environment. We leave the matter, as always, up to the collective will of the editors.
I think the last sentence of the lede pretty much covers everything - "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources."  Cjmclark (Contact) 02:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to trivialize my request for discussion just because you don't believe the guideline should be changed. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You have assumed a great deal. First, I had no intent to "trivialize" your request–I simply requested a clear direction. If you believe it should be changed, then how? We can debate nuances of when we think different guidelines should be applied until we're blue in the face. Saying you would "like to form a consensus, and subsequent modifications to this article, on whether or not Wikipedia:Notability (sports) can be used as an alternative to WP:GNG in deletion discussions for sports players" is all well and good, but this sort of discussion is generally a bit more productive if you can say "I believe x, so I think the guideline should be changed to say y." That gives those who support or oppose your idea a firm platform to deal with, rather than the vague amorphousness that is debating when WP guidelines should be applied.
Second, you have no idea what my stance on changing the guideline is, because I haven't discussed it. I haven't discussed it because I honestly can't say what exactly it is you are trying to change. The only place the guideline even discusses AfD is the very portion I quoted above, which basically says that the guideline isn't (and in fact isn't meant to be) applied uniformly. Are you asking that the guideline be modified to specifically state that it cannot trump GNG at AfD?  Cjmclark (Contact) 06:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That is what I was asking, but I believe I have already gotten an answer. I was also confused by the apparent contradictions present in the guideline, and though I still think they might confuse others, I now understand them. I think the last line in my original message clearly states my position. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I think, in that case, that the guideline is sort of deliberately vague when it comes to its own application. It could probably be reworded to be a little more clear and less self-contradictory, but in the end it's just a tool to aid editors in making a quick and dirty presumption of notability. For what it's worth, I think you'll find that far more sports articles actually die at AfD for not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (sports) than are rescued from not meeting WP:GNG by NSPORTS. In fact, GNG is often used to rescue articles up for deletion because they don't meet NSPORTS.  Cjmclark (Contact) 07:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, the reason why the specific notability guidelines exist are precisely because the GNG aren't the be-all and end-all of notability. WP:Notability (academics) comes to mind...scholars may not have a great body of independent work written about them, but if they've won a major award in their field, there's a presumption of notability. It's just a different measuring stick being used for the same purpose as GNG - to gauge whether the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" (to borrow from Notability in English Wikipedia). Even GNG admits that it itself can provide only a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. In the end, it all comes down to the consensus generated by involved editors.  Cjmclark (Contact) 08:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Its up to consensus if they decide to use NSPORTS or the more stringent GNG. If you can sway others, more power to you. My experience is that most cite NSPORTS as it's quicker, which is likely the reason they were created to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear response Bagumba. I think I was just taken aback by the special guidelines editors use in sports-related articles at AFD. For most discussions editors base their arguments around the strictness of the GNG, whereas sports player articles have a widely accepted consensus that the GNG is sufficient but not necessary. I suppose it is up to individual AFDs to determine consensus, whatever it may be based on, and that the sports guideline is just there to describe what usually happens at AFD. From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I was attempting to "set about building widespread consensus for your change or implementation through discussion", but I will accept that such a consensus will not be found at this time. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Odie553 has the question completely the wrong way round. Too often I see WP articles about nobodies rescued because there were a couple of run-of-mill articles written about them in some newspaper somewhere, so inclusionists come along with the WP:GNG argument despite the fact they haven't actually done anything worthy of notice. While the NSPORTS bar is likely too low in some areas, at least it is at a level where the athlete has achieved something, and with the oft accepted interpretation of GNG being 3 articles found on the internet, GNG seems a way lower bar than what NSPORTS is and GNG should be looked at to with regard to finding a consensus based interpretation of what significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject actually means.--ClubOranjeT 10:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

There are sports where NSPORTS is more strict than the GNG, and then there are things like "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player" which is a way, way lower bar than the GNG, and hence the appearance of articles on cricket players where we don't know the name, the dates, the career, ... but only have one mention of his initials or surname in an old match report. People should meet the GNG and NSPORTS (if they have no notability apart from their sporting career at least), npt just one of the two. Fram (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree your opening sentence. In one sense I'd like to see it at a level where it is 100% guarantee of notability, but without getting into the whole NSPORTS debate again, the bar was set low on some sports (football is another) because if you set it too high and all others to meet GNG, you then get every footballer article through the system where you find even lower amateur league players get kept because sports writing is prolific - and particularly in the internet age there are a few articles about every amateur on the planet that got looked at by a pro club because every part time journo wants to earn an easy crust or find the next Lionel Messi. Setting NSPORTS at a low enough level where most would get through GNG anyway (certainly all current players) means all the "didn't quite make it"s get summarily deleted with fails NSPORTS as evidenced at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football. Well, most of them anyway.--ClubOranjeT 11:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Montserrat has less than 6,000 inhabitants, but has 26 players in Category:Montserrat international footballers, who technically meet NSPORTS. No village of 6,000 people would ever get 26 soccer players with their own article, but if you are lucky enough to live in a very small country, this guideline grants you automatic notability... Institutionalized madness. Fram (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
To be completely honest, if we absolutely enforced the "no deadline" allowance and give editors enough time to locate sources before deletion, I would easily argue that NSPORT is entirely redundant to the GNG - that is, most of the athletes that the NSPORT guidelines try to allot for are notable by normal secondary coverage that does exist somewhere but would take time to gather and access. Moreso, if there was ever a guideline that needed to be stricter than the GNG, NSPORT would be it due to the disproportionate amount of coverage professional sports gets relative to any other field (political, academic, historical, etc.) As Fram points out, the idea that the record of a player playing once in a pro game being sufficient to make an encyclopedic article on that player is completely bogus. Instead, we have to work from the point that NSPORTS makes a reasonable presumption of notability, that sources can eventually be found to expand such articles. If no sources ever appear, then that initial presumption is wrong, and we'll likely delete it, but due to the criticia selected by NSPORT we err on keeping it until we're reasonable sure by consensus that the sources aren't forthcoming. That, again, is why the SNGs are temporarily allowances to avoid having to meet the GNG for a reasonable amount of time (that on the order of years). --MASEM (t) 12:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Reality

The reality though is that if an article meets the SNG it is very unlikely to be deleted. Has any proper evidence been presented demonstrating that the SNG thresholds are broadly accurate and that people meeting them are generally meeting GNG as well. There are loads of sports bios with minimal information other than stats/database entries. Where are all the significant, reliable sources for many of these run of the mill players. I think NSport should say something about the kind of sports-related statements that are likely to be acceptable in GNG terms.Eldumpo (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Disproportionate coverage

ClubOranje (talk · contribs) mentioned articles "about nobodies rescued because there were a couple of run-of-mill articles written about them in some newspaper somewhere", and Masem (talk · contribs) brought up the "disproportionate amount of coverage professional sports gets relative to any other field." In the Internet age with multiple dedicated sites on specific teams, and 24/7 regional sports TV networks, I think there is too much focus to just WP:BOMBARD articles with WP:ROUTINE coverage of WP:Run-of-the-mill players. IMO the spirit of WP:N that articles are ""worthy of notice" is diluted, and athletes of no WP:IMPACT have articles. Really, the athletes lead sentence should read, "John Doe gained consensus to satisfy the General Notability Guideline" because that's my only reasoning of why some articles are created and kept. NSPORTS does not need to override GNG; we need to be more strict on what is the "significant coverage" that is needed to filter out Run-of-the-mill players, and to be more judicious that GNG is a presumption and not a guarantee of inclusion. Use WP:IAR when some guideline is not improving Wikipedia. For example, a 1-on-1 interview these days is very routine when it covers mundane reporting like "How is your leg?", "Do you think you will win?", or "What was the strategy today". I think "significant coverage" should include sources that put a players career, season, or at least consecutive games in perspective. There is just too much pre- and post-game coverage to treat it as anything but routine.—Bagumba (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The real goal that the NSPORT guideline should be looking at is that, for any athlete that meets a criteria, we will likely be able to write a Featured Content article on that person. That means, we will have enough of the life history, enough of their career in the sport, and most importantly their contribution to the sport. This has to be something that is more apparent than just tossing up, say, a baseball player's lifetime states and pointing out they had a .270 batting average and 40 home runs in their career. The significance may be small - maybe that player was called out by the team and the local press as one of the go-to consistent players for several years, but otherwise an average player - but that connection that is more than just something stats give is what we need to make a player's article a Featured one. 90% of the NSPORT criteria do set this standard, as winning awards, championships, inductions into hall-of-fames, etc. are clearly things that someone will discuss the reason they are there.
In tying this to the broader coverage issue, the problem is that it is very easy with the broadness of sports coverage to mistake a passing mention as a key factor about a player, when we know for most professional sports, every player is put under some type of light scrutiny or review (eg common at the start of any NFL or MLB season). We have to understand that if this is the only depth you can go into a player is how they might perform, you're not going to give any significance to the reader, and thus end up with an article that can't become Featured. In other words, there's a lot of things in sports that within its coverage that are considered highly routine that, compared to other professions, would be absolutely amazing to have to boost the article's notability and chance to be Featured, but otherwise mundane for sports. This is why I do agree that if NSPORTS considered the broadness of sporting coverage and was more strict on what types of sources could be used for notability, it would be more reasonable and inline with the GNG and SNGs. --MASEM (t) 19:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we wont get anywhere if NSPORTS overrides GNG. However, it would be worthwhile to expand on the definition of ROUTINE in relation to sports, which currently excludes scoreboards and boxscores, but doesnt cover articles that are more than a trivial mention but still what you and I consider "routine".—Bagumba (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm quite comfortable with the current wording of the GNG ... and, come to that, if you seek to change the GNG, this is not the right talk page to discuss that. That being said, the objections raised here boil down to "He's not significant enough to deserve the coverage." That is a snakepit we're well served by avoiding. Stipulating that our culture places a disproportionate emphasis on sports, that isn't up to us to correct. "Disproportionate" compared to what? We deem to be important what we deem to be important, whether or not it passes an unwritten "loftiness" bar.

    The entire purpose of the GNG, and indeed of all notability criteria, is to gauge whether a subject is considered notable or not. My answer to "There's a disproportionate amount of sports coverage" is that, well, our society places an emphasis on sport, and finds sporting subjects and athletes disproportionately notable. If this means that the 3rd string catcher for the Boston Red Sox has more articles discussing him in "significant detail" than does your average Boston state representative, then it does. Ravenswing 20:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

    • Consider that we are an encyclopedia - an educational reference. This doesn't mean anything close to pruning out sports coverage, but at the same time, we need to consider that an article on every player (even professionally) that at most simply say who they are and who they played for is not serving this goal, even though we can document that. Again, I'm pointing to idea of detailed coverage beyond regular reporting. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Personally, I'm more arguing against career minor leaguers who inevitably will get some coverage these days in Baseball America, Scout.com, and local newspapers but does little else. Then there's the top-20 high school basketball recruits each year that get lots of coverage about their college decision, and little else afterwards except from routine coverage from playing for a top-20 program. So I pose that there should be a subjective distinction about ROTM athletes and what is routine coverage, and we should not blindly count sources in lieu of reading what they are actually saying about the players contributions. As WP:ROTM says "It has already been accepted that professional athletes, regardless of their accomplishments in their field, may recieve coverage."—Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ravenswing. There is a tendency by many to view sports as inherently less important than politics, industry, or the arts. But notability standards should not be lowered or raised based on a subjective view that some topics or people contribute more to society. That's a slippery slope which would turn notability determinations into subjective value judgments. The same GNG standard does and should apply to athletes as it does to artists, celebrities, businessmen, and city councilmen. That said, I have no problem with using common sense in deciding that some routine sports coverage doesn't cut it. This would include, in my opinion: stat lines; passing references in game coverage; discussions of a player on fan sites; routine coverage of athletes on web sites dedicated to college sports recruitment; and the isolated article in a school or small-town newspaper. On the other hand, some have taken the position that even feature stories about a player in major metropolitan newspapers constitute routine coverage, and I absolutely do not agree with that. Feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers satisfy GNG, whether the subject is a CEO, city councilman, actor, or linebacker. Cbl62 (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone is trying to dismiss sports as any less "important" than politics, just that the volume of material written about it in reliable sources is disproportionate to the .. significance? ... on the long-term knowledge base of mankind. But again, this is not to demote sports to an unimportant topic: names like Babe Ruth, Jim Brown, Michael Jordan, etc. are people that are never going to be forgotten by history just as with any world leader or the like. Understanding that there is a lot of in-depth but routine reporting - moreso than for any other field - and how to limit coverage to the people and events that have more merit within the sporting world is what should be aimed at, not just to include the name of any pro player (which I do hope most admit don't have significant long-term impact). --MASEM (t) 13:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No, but instead we have to recognize that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The volume of information on sports out there from reliable sources is very very high, there's no question. But we can't include it all - we need to be appropriately selective as we have to be with every other topic, and consider that at the end of the day this is still an educational work. --MASEM (t) 16:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the issue here is the subjective nature of the terms "educational" and "significant long-term impact." When we say that Wikipedia is "educational," what does that mean? By "educational," does that mean we should focus more on topics of an academic nature, despite the fact that (in North America, at least) sporting events are far more high-profile to the population than academics? Or does it mean that we should approach all topics of potential notability with academic dispassion? While I agree that it's not supposed to be indiscriminate, what are the exact boundaries of that discrimination? Who defines whether or not someone's "long-term impact" is "significant"? Just as an academic completing a body of work and publishing a "significant" paper in his or her field impacts said field (while not necessarily looming large in academia), does a minor-leaguer who plays out a career in a sport impact the league, while not necessarily looming large in the sport as a whole? Again, while I realize that the vagueness of a lot of Wikipedia guidelines can be frustrating, I think that vagueness exists for a very specific reason. Just as we can err on the side of being indiscriminate, I think we can also err on the side of being too discriminating, and that vagueness provides us with a grey area in which we can work.  Cjmclark (Contact) 16:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, what it starts to come down to is the idea of "routine" reporting for the field as broad as sports. There are things that will be covered irregardless of the outcome - pretty much every game at a pro-level is reported far and wide, even if it was a boring, unspectacular result. Similarly, the roster of every pro team at the onset of the season is given a thorough review and recap. This is comparable to, say, the stock market - prices rise and fall on the minute, and various companies are given highlighted coverage based on their stock value. Yes, as noted, individual games rarely get coverage, and minute events on the market aren't covered. Only when there's a certain "barrier" of notability that goes beyond the routine does the game or stock market event gain the level of coverage to be its own article. These are the types of articles that a reader, seeking more information, can understand the larger scale impact of the game or event , compared to the individual game that contributes little but statistics to the final season scoring.
  • That concept needs to be applied to players as well. No, not every player is insignificant, and likely there will be players called out by both international, national, and regional sources as credits to their team, as mistakes, or the like. But its near impossible for most team sports for every player to be that much of an attribution to the team's end success - they all can't play at the same time, and some are only there in case of injury. They may gain stats, but if all they are covered by is the coverage of routine nature, they really aren't notable.
  • The problem, I will fully admit, is comparable to the issue raised: where is the line drawn? There are people in other fields that occupy, effectively, similar positions as these once-in-a-while players in their respective fields, and only have sourced that relegate them to a line or two in some official roster, while in sports, I'm sure one can find some information regarding the third-stringers, but generally as a part of that "routine" coverage. But it's can be very difficult to separate out "routine" coverage counter to a weak, but completely acceptable secondary source about a player that is more indepth than what the routine sources cut on. That line is so thin that to try to set some objective metric to it is impossible. I don't particularly like the idea that anyone that steps foot on the field of a pro game is notable, but I can't argue that at least sets a sensible barrier. But I think in particular with NSPORTS is that this is still a presumption of notability, and not an allowance that the article should stay around forever if nothing more than that one play ever comes about. Moreso than any other NSPORT or SNG criteria. Though I'd like to see it harnessed back, I do accept that its likely better to be more inclusive on the "first draft" of SNG but understand that it is the type of criteria that is meant to be temporary, with significant coverage in non-routine sources necessary "some time" (years) after the article's created to assure the player is notable. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • We can continue with the vagueness—as we have been—or we can discuss it and find some common ground to remove some if not all of the ambiguities. Adding subjective criteria is not always a bad thing, but I sometimes seems like its treated like a 4-letter word. Consider that GNG already includes terms like significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent coverage that are subjective but still essential to guiding us toward consensus. Currently for sports, everyone has a different interpretation of what is significant coverage, or what is routine coverage, or what is independent coverage, and we would do well to have more guidance in those areas, or at the very least an essay that captures the differing viewpoints where there is no consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Break for my convenience

  • I don't think anyone is talking about claiming that blogs, passing references, stat lines or forum posts constituting reliable sources; there's already broad consensus that those don't qualify. What I'm seeing here, though, is a subjective value judgment: that (say) minor leaguers aren't worthy of notice, whether or not they meet the GNG. Sorry, but publications like Baseball America and The Sporting News are nationally distributed, wide market publications, and that they're specialty publications matters not at all; we routinely accept the reliability of specialty publications in many fields in determining notability. If you would accept Baseball America as a valid source for information on a major leaguer - and we all would - then a feature article on a minor leaguer is equally valid. Ravenswing 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I think there is scope for further discussion as to what the consensus is as to which kinds of sources (e.g. match reports) can confer notability and which can't. Does anyone else agree it would be useful to add a section on this to NSport? Eldumpo (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. We can discuss the sports specific criteria in WP:ROUTINE and modify as needed. I would also like to add the concept of WP:Run-of-the-mill, or at least mention of the essay, in NSPORTS to make editors aware of situations where GNG might not be a guarantee for inclusion.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to remark that professional athletes need to be exceptional to reach the highest levels and that none of them are run of the mill players.. They must be the top of the line to get past high school, college, semi-pro and minor league teams to reach the top levels of their profession. Even the worst MLB or NBA player is an exceptionally accomplished athlete worthy of an article. Spanneraol (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
"high school, college, semi-pro and minor league" That system seems very American centric in sport coverage and unfairly punishes athletes who compete at the highest semi-professiona and professional levels in their own country where the organisation around high school and university sport is much different. For instance, none of the players in the ANZ Championship are run of the mill. --LauraHale (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • From the perspective that even a high school athlete performs better at most sports that I do, sure, run-of-the-mill is harsh from an everyday perspective but not in relation to an encyclopedia. Some have remarked that somehow we are being too harsh in NSPORTS compared to other SNG, but look at WP:ENTERTAINER and it lists strict criteria like "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." In other words, any ol' actor that shows up on end credits doesnt warrant an article, but how many times have sports articles been kept just for being a minor leaguer who is on a stat site, received routine coverage about games, has one extensive writeup about being the hometown hero, and has one extensive scouting report from a publication that reviews every player. With American sports like minor league baseball, college football and basketball, and growingly high school football and basketball, I'm confident that using an online source that scouts almost every player, routine game coverage, and the occasional writeup from a local (might have to look offline) paper, I could churn out articles that would withstand an AfD if I actually thought they were notable. If that is how low the bar is, I'd rather we just say that all minor league players and college players who played from 2011 and on are presumed notable. However, I'd like to believe fine-tuning "routine coverage" can be modified and keep both sides happy.—Bagumba (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • A couple things: First, NSPORT is effectively a collection of several SNGs created by sport. We try to maintain a fairly tight list of what qualifies in the ice hockey project, and have actually changed it several times to make it tougher. So I would note that the better bet is to target each sport criteria individually rather than work against a whole. Especially since working against the whole will bring the entire sporting world out against changes, while focusing on individual improvements is more likely to be viewed as constructive. Second, your example using WP:ENTERTAINER is a tad misplaced. Much like how we don't consider every actor notable, we likewise do not consider every athlete notable. You just look at the number of articles and assume that the criteria must be too broad. Consider that Hockey Canada, the governing body of the sport where I am, has over 500,000 registered players right now. I would say there is likely no more than 1000 articles on currently active Canadian players. Two-tenths of one percent of the registered total. That is hardly indiscriminate, despite Masem's claims above. Resolute 01:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Definitely each sport is different, and varies even by country depending on coverage of that sport. To clarify, my experience is with editing the three major sports in America (Amer football, basketball, baseball). The specific SNGs seem fine, the discussion centers around articles that dont meet SNG but are deemed to pass GNG, with the usual debate being what is considered "routine coverage" and what is needed for "significant coverage" or what is the WP:IMPACT of the athlete. Occasionally labels are thrown about re: inclusionists vs deletionists or editors who are "fans" or not of lower level play at the college or minor league levels. I'm thinking that either Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basic_criteria or essays it refers to can provide more examples about WP:ROUTINE coverage, or course subject to consensus. Cbl62 (talk · contribs) mentioned (far) above some items that could be expanded: "passing references in game coverage" and "routine coverage of athletes on web sites dedicated to college sports recruitment." I would add as a requirement sources that describe the athlete's play in comparison to peers, or an analysis of some segment of the player's career. Players in America these days almost automatically get mundane pre-game, in-game, and post-game interviews, but the more notable players are analyzed and put into perspective.—Bagumba (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Your suggestion goes way too far. It would deem most sports coverage "routine," even feature stories in major metropolitan newspapers. We don't have such a limitation on entertainers and businessmen, and we shouldn't for athletes either. But that doesn't mean that every college football player can or should have an article. That's the area in which I do most of my work, and very few college football players get the kind of non-trivial coverage that would pass WP:GNG. Even on the major college teams, most players don't get that kind of coverage. Those who do, on the other hand, pass GNG and should not be held to a higher standard. Cbl62 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Cbl62 is right, most college football players don't get the coverage to meet WP:GNG (though our opinions of coverage differs). This, along with all the other notability guidelines have vague rules. Baseball players who played one game back in the Union Association back in 1884 or an NFL strike replacement player from 1987, or some Olympic person who finished 50th in the marathon in 1912 that we don't know anymore info all meet these guidelines though they don't meet WP:GNG, I think it should be more clear that all articles must meet WP:GNG first before going to any notability guideline as a backup, or at least mention "unusual circumstances" (though that could be considered vague as well). Secret account 07:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Well the relationship between GNG and SNG certainly needs to be made clearer, as per my post above. I don't agree with your comment about all articles needing to meet GNG first, as that would mean no point in Nsport existing. Why should sports articles need to meet a higher threshold than other articles.Eldumpo (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree. If we go GNG first, then there is no need for SNG. While that may be ideal, the reality is there are editors that create stubs so details can be filled in later. Then there's offline references which can take time to get to.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
And that I agree with. The SNGs in general are temporary presumptions that the GNG can ultimately be met while we give more than sufficient time for sources to be discovered and located; that time being in years but all depending on the topic. Which is why I think that while, for example, criteria as "played one pro game" are far too lax in the long run, they are sufficient to start the presumption of notability; it is just that if you put such an article up and you can never find more than routine coverage of that person after several years, don't expect to be able to use the NSPORT criteria to try to keep it. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
For college football, sure, its predominantly QB, RB, and WR getting the routine coverage. College basketball or minor league baseball coverage is not as discriminatory as far as the position of the player. In any event, I think its worthwhile to improve WP:ROUTINE and we can start with Cbl62's earlier suggestions.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sport administrator notability

Does anyone have any general guidance for notability for sport administrators on the Paralympic and Olympic level? I'd assume that members of international governing bodies on the highest level would independently meet WP:GNG but what about on the national level? Would chef de missions and CEOs of national Paralympic and Olympic Committees meet notability based on their position? Some of the coaching criteria say if you're coached players who have set world records or won Olympic medals that the coach is notable. This doesn't quite feel the same as administrators aren't involved in the same way. They are still involved and may be responsible for setting the stage for those athletes to do well… Anyway, just looking for guidance when WP:GNG is not clear. --LauraHale (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Understand that NSPORTS is just a guidance of when GNG is likely to be met, but still requires that GNG eventually be demonstrated. As there isnt any general criteria assuming notability of administrators here, the subject would have to demonstrate GNG directly. WP:ANYBIO might be applicable as well.—Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_9&oldid=1142663936"