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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Oxley ... need I say more really? These SNGs are treated as an absolution from any possible need to meet the GNG. Anyone who kids themselves into thinking they are a "temporary reprieve" or a "presumption" has not actually tried to delete any sports article. These guidelines need to changed as soon as possible to be GNG-satisfying coverage based, not "level of competition" based. Gigs (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of case I've warned NSPORTS about before and recently. Notability is a presumption, but here's a clear cut case that plenty of time has elapsed for sources to evolve, and there doesn't appear to be anything. Ergo, our presumption was wrong, and this article has no place on an encyclopedia. We hope these are the exceptional cases, and need to recognize they can occur, instead of blindly saying (as happening now) that just because its 100+ years ago that meeting the "played in at least one pro game" metric has been met the person is notable. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is support for deletion of articles that very narrowly pass the brightline tests in NSPORTS if all we can demonstrate through RS is the passing of the bright line. I've successfully nominated for deletion a few articles on football/soccer players with 90 minutes or less of play at the highest level - where we knew nothing else about the person. Jogurney (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assumption of Masem that this article "has no place on an encyclopedia." That is entirely your opinion and yet you state it as if it is a fact. As a Major League baseball player, Oxley belongs in the encyclopedia no matter how much information can be gleaned about him... just cause no one has taken the time to improve his article yet doesnt mean it cant be done at some point... we have no timelimit here.. Spanneraol (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between "belonging in an encyclopedia" and having an article. We expect articles to not remain stubs forever. That requires us to be able to have sources beyond basic bio facts and the results of playing a whole 3 baseball games. While DEADLINE applies, we do know that we're not waiting for new sources to appear because of recent events; playing the game 100+ years ago means there is zero expectation that new sources will be published anytime soon, so now one has to look to old sources to see if there's anymore coverage. Granted, Google is a bit weak here, but even still it does pull up articles from baseball of yesteryear, and this guy just isn't mentioned. When we encounter cases like this, that's when we don't have an article an instead simply list said person in the roster for that team for that year. That's all the sources say about him, that's all we can do to summarize him. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how this endeavour to weaken WP:ATHLETE can end up benefiting either the encyclopedia's coverage of sports or the environment in which editors operate. This is similar to the consensus about high schools that some editors keep trying to change. The current consensus on major league players works. Readers looking for information on major league players have a reasonable expectation of finding it in a clear structure of organization. It's not a good thing to open up the likelihood for hundreds or thousands of new AfDs debating the notability of every major league player who played fewer games than a particular nominator thinks is enough. In the case of Henry Oxley, by the way, there actually are sources for more that just his stats, including information about his role as an early Canadian player in the big league and in the evolution of protective gear; and the fact that another editor was able quickly to find additional information about this player[1] points up that these articles really do serve the purpose they are said to serve. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple separate points: First, my goal is not to change the criteria NSPORTS has but to remind everyone that notability is presumed and can always be challenged at AFD where consensus can override the subject-specific guidelines. There are people arguing that meeting the criteria is an indefinitely guarantee the article won't be delete, ever. That's not what the allowance of subject-specific guidelines is for. The criteria should be robust enough that if they are met, sources can be found beyond that, in time, so that the article grows well beyond a stub. No criteria will perfectly assure this, so we have to be aware and accept there are exceptions to this presumption, and that we may end up deleting or redirecting a player that meets a criteria but for which the article simply cannot grow. No, this doesn't mean we should be challenging any stubby sports player article left or right, but editors that want to keep these need to be aware that as long as they remain a stub only meeting a NSPORT criteria, an AFD challenge is completely fair.
The second point, though, is based on this comment: "Readers looking for information on major league players have a reasonable expectation of finding it in a clear structure of organization" We are a tertiary source meant to be summarizing fields, not documenting them fully. No other field in WP allows for unquestionable inclusion of any person in the upper echelons of the field (the equivalent of playing pro) - not for politics, not for educators, not for entertainers. The reason is is that is not the expectation of readers. Only those that have merited significant coverage should be included, which may mean that we don't have the article on a tenured professors at major schools, mayor of large cities, or even leading actor of films. We can list them in larger contexts, but otherwise realize that not everyone in such professions is significant in the whole wealth of mankind's knowledge. The same concept needs to be remembered when dealing with sports. We have to accept that not every pro player is appropriate for inclusion in WP, and such when exceptions arise, we cannot modify the runs to fight for inclusion. This is a whole issue with the MMA stuff too, in that just reading those fighting to include MMA find how the rest of the sports are treated as elitist in that they can have nearly 100% inclusive coverage for pro sports while the MMA can't. Now, I'm not saying that's a perfect argument, but there is a seed of truth in it, but all that means right now is that those supporting NSPORT criteria need to remember that notability is a presumption and not a guarantee of having an article. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying ... but the fact is that MLB and MMA are apples and oranges. Baseball has played a major role in American society for more than 150 years. It was America's most popular game for more than a century (supplanted in the last few decades only by American football). We ought not to be watering down our coverage of something as important as baseball simply to avoid arguments from fans of other sports. Cbl62 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm only using MMA as a close-to-home example of the issue. For one, at least relative to the whole of mankind's knowledge, baseball really isn't "important" compared to core topics like science, math, philosophy, religion, history, etc. It is the area that gets the most coverage compared to nearly any other topic if you picked up a newspaper today, but that doesn't make it "important". This is not to trivialize and say that we should scratch sports coverage from WP, but we have to consider the perspective here. We are not the last source of information on the planet; there's numerous sporting websites and almanacs and other printed works that give detailed information that any sports fan can find out, Wikipedia does not have to be that. What needs to happen is to make sure that sports coverage is not treated any better than any other field, given the volume of sources for it. This is no way invalidating any of the criteria, but stresses the importance that AFD can override any criteria listed here if the consensus agrees to do so and that these criteria are not the absolutes that some from the above discussion wish them to be. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For me, I would not even frame the debate in terms of whether Wikipedia should have the information or not. I think it's fine if we have the information. I just think it needs to be condensed into far fewer articles, not many, many, thousands of standalone articles. It's more of a question of sustainability and maintainability for me. Gigs (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing broken here. A google search did turn up some source material which has now been added to the article Henry Oxley. He meets WP:GNG IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I will agree that sources have been found, so there's no issue with this case, but again, see my comments above: there is a mistaken belief that some of the arguments in that AFD that needs to be quenched without changing this guideline. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you really think that is possible? Many editors have very ingrained beliefs that NSPORTs (and several other SNGs) are a bright line ironclad indefinite exemptions from the GNG. I personally don't believe we can fight that without actually changing the wording of the standards. Gigs (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Given how frequent the word "presumed" (29 times) appears in NSPORTS, it's not a matter of wording changes, it's a matter of making sure that meaning of "presumed" is clear. NSPORT can't be a walled garden to the rest of WP to ignore this fact. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • The fact that "presumed" appears 29 times and yet people still misapply it actually makes my point. We need to change the actual standards to something coverage based instead of level-of-competition based. Level of competition is a very poor indicator of the sort of in-depth, non-mechanical, coverage that the GNG requires. Modern pro sports people might get several name drops when they are recruited or traded, but that's not in-depth coverage like the GNG requires. Gigs (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Given arguments I've tried to state in the pass, I doubt we're going to see that level changed presently. And to the extent that's been pointed out, for most major pro sports occurring in first world countries, the concept that there is coverage of pro players regardless how little time they've played is probably true particularly with more recent players. To that end, as long as all those criteria lead to presumed notability, no problem. What I'm finding in these debates recently is that I'm struggling against getting the point of what "presumed" means and specifically not meaning that you've guaranteed the article for life on WP just because the athlete played a game. It's already stated in the guideline that way, but, taking some of the replies in this AFD, some editors are twisting the meaning to their whim. WP:N has set the notion of what "presumed" means and that's what applies to NSPORT as well, it's not a different meaning of "presumed". --MASEM (t) 19:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • • "And to the extent that's been pointed out, for most major pro sports occurring in first world countries, the concept that there is coverage of pro players regardless how little time they've played is probably true particularly with more recent players." What makes you think that older players received less coverage than they do today? The only difference is that the older sources are not necessarily on the internet or in print, and thus can be much more difficult to track. Rlendog (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for improving the article, but the new sources don't appear to come close to satisfying the GNG. Perhaps the person who wrote that book about catchers was able to find some contemporary news reports about Oxley, but the one incident covered in the book is trivial. I don't believe that NSPORTS is broken, but like any bright-line test, there are articles that will barely pass the test that don't merit the presumption of GNG-compliance (like Oxley's article), and others that barely fail that test yet would merit the presumption. Jogurney (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Looking at this example, we have someone who played MLB for all of two months nearly 130 years ago, and yet, the article is now well sourced and in decent shape. NSPORTS presumes notability at this level for precisely this reason: We can safely presume that players at this level in this sport will have that coverage. This article actually proves that the guideline (insofar as Major League Baseball is concerned, at least) accurately reflects the availability of sources. That said, I am not at all surprised to see the usual suspects choosing to take yet another opportunity to cry about how they don't like Wikipedia's coverage of sports. Just a though, Masem - but there are nearly 4 million articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps you might be happier if you found a topic you do like and write about it rather than incessantly wasting hour after hour of volunteer time with the same repetitive arguments that will never go anywhere. "It's not important" is not, never was, and never will be a criteria for determining notability. Resolute 20:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Neither is ILIKEIT. (And I never said sports weren't important - they're just not as fundamental to human knowledge as core science, culture, and other topics). But that said, you cannot take one example and prove that the criteria is perfect. All I am trying to state is that the word "presumed" is not a guaranty of allowance for an article indefinitely. We presume in the short term, but if it just sits there as a stub, with no obvious signs of new sources coming (from outside of WP), and after a good-faith BEFORE brings up nothing, editors are completely free to AFD such articles with fear of being called out disruptive. And consensus can say that despite meeting the NSPORT criteria that the article is not appropriate for WP. The discussions of late, and from this AFD, show the people heavily invested NSPORT and related topics want that a 100% fool-proof guarantee of never having an article deleted, which is counter to every other notability guideline, and what makes the sports area of WP a partially walled garden. (And I do work on plenty of other articles, I've got like 3000 on my watchlist; my concern is the notability on WP as a whole, which NSPORTs falls under) --MASEM (t) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Interesting that one example is not enough to prove the criteria is "perfect", yet it seems to be enough to declare that this is a "completely broken guideline". And while you basically attack all sports editors by referring to their defending the articles as creating a "partially walled garden", I have another theory: perhaps your opinion of "notability on WP" is simply not supported. Resolute 20:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I never said this was "completely broken", so no, there's no double standard. I know what goes on at the other notability guidelines, and this is the only one that seems to have repeated issues with how "presumed" is to be handled, understanding that AFD can still happen and deletion occur even if the criteria appears to be met. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how you conclude that this situation proves the availability of sources sufficient to satisfy the GNG for articles that very narrowly satisfy NSPORTS. In fact, it appears to support my contention that articles very close to the bright-line rarely justify the presumption of GNG-compliance - this article cites two books by the same author that make brief mentions Mr. Oxley's introduction to new catcher's equipment and a separate article about a different person which drops his name as one of three PEI born MLB players. Such trivial coverage cannot possibly satisfy the GNG. I still support NSPORTS, but let's be realistic about the amount of coverage the exploits of such nominally notable athletes would likely produce. Jogurney (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There is no reason to change this guideline. It's not one of the pillars, it's not a rule, it's simply a guideline. And it is one that has worked very well for many years I might add. I see no problem with a multitide of stub articles about major league baseball players, espeically when they can be filled in further with additional detail. There's no deadline here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • To be fair, while agree that changing the guideline just based on this is premature, we all need to keep in mind notability directly meets the pillar that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that this guideline (NSPORTS) needs to serve that. For the most part, I say it does, it's just that we have to be aware that it has its exceptions as well. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the important thing to remember is that passing subguidelines creates a rebuttable presumption of notability. Only having sufficient sources available (in other words, having verifiably been noted to a reasonable degree of depth) makes a subject actually notable, and if challenged, it must be demonstrated that adequate sourcing to progress the article past stub stage really do exist. Since most sports players are living persons, we should be more strict, not less, in what sourcing we consider to be sufficient for one as compared to other areas. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem. GNG is one "route" to notability; the specific criteria listed here and elsewhere provide other routes. Application of such a set of thought-out criteria avoids indiscriminateness. There is no reason to insist that the specific requirements are "consistent" with GNG (though it would be nice to know on what basis these requirements are established). Victor Yus (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't see the problem because you fundamentally misunderstand the way notability works. Every article must meet the GNG. Every one of them. Not some of them, not most of them, all of them. Subject specific guidelines are not a pass to allow articles to exist that fail the GNG. They are supposed to provide a specific set of criteria, which, when met, the GNG is likely to be satisfied. The misunderstanding that you are operating under is exactly the problem. Gigs (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

While the end conclusion is the same, these points are not truthful to the actual philosophy in place. At the end, we want all stand-alone articles to be encyclopedic, sufficiently long to give context to why the topic is discussed on WP, backed by third-party, secondary sources to explain that context. The GNG is the easiest way to get there. But the subject specific guidelines provide the assumption that sourcing does exist that a topic can also get there without having to show that the sourcing is there to start. Ultimately if no additional sourcing can be found at all, then that presumption was mistaken so we just merge or delete the article. But it needs to be clear that meeting the GNG is not a requirement for all articles. We only require developing articles to show notability, which is provided by the GNG or the subject-specific guidelines. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If it would make you feel better, it could be rephrased as "All topics that have a standalone article must meet the GNG". The actual state of the article isn't as relevant. The problem is that when people read things like you've written, it leads them to the conclusion that the GNG does not apply to topics that fall under an SNG. In trying to express the separation between the notability of the subject matter and the current state of the article, we've created massive confusion and equally massive amounts of standalone articles on topics and people that fail the GNG. The SNGs meant as an eventualist reprieve from immediate proof of satisfaction of the GNG seems to either be too subtle, or not very well understood by editors at large. Gigs (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your statement Every article must meet the GNG. is contrary to my understanding. If an article/topic meets the GNG, it is a guaranteed keep. Everything below that must be discussed, and consensus reached. It has been reached on some things, like middle schools and high schools. As an example, I give you Olympians. There is wide consensus that all Olympians should be kept in this (or any) encyclopedia. Why? Because they are the best athletes in the world, bar none. Not because of sources. There are Olympians who do not meet the GNG. They will never meet the GNG. They will probably be kept. They should be kept because they are notable athletes. That is one reason for the SNGs - they are wikipedia's consensus on specific accomplishments which confer notability despite the GNG.  The Steve  09:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the GNG is not a guaranteed keep. GNG (and the SNGs) are necessary but not sufficient allowances for a topic to have its own article. More commonly, GNG-qualifying articles may fail provisions in WP:NOT or against NOR or NPOV. However, it is most often the case that one editor's view of what "significant coverage" is is not equivalent to the community's consensus, or that that consensus remains consistent through the lifetime of WP.

As to the Olympians, it is not the wide consensus that we should cover them all (that's the concept of inherited notability that we do not use), but that 99.999+% of Olympians are regularly covered by national sources on the eve/during/after the event, and ergo it is reasonable to expect stand-alone articles on them. There may be the odd athlete that may get to the games, break their leg, and not compete, and thus never get coverage to meet the GNG, but we know reasonably this is the odd exception; that said, it is completely fair to allow a stand alone article to be given to the athlete in case sources do come out since we're generally assured this happens most of the time. In practice, that acts like we always include Olympians, but its important to recognize how this works in theory and how other criteria should be geared towards this instead of thinking "inherent notability". --MASEM (t) 13:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Conversely, failing the GNG is not a guaranteed delete. There are recognized sourcing weaknesses such as recentism, over-reliance on online sources, and language bias. For instance, a person or event (like Coroebus or Orsippus) mentioned only in a history by Plutarch, Eusebius or Pausanias should be kept, despite the fact that they will never meet the GNG. There will only ever be one source on them. There may or may not have been more sources, but we will never know.  The Steve  04:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Per several discussions I've watched/participated, in, I'd like to discuss a possible change to the sports notability guidelines, along the following lines:

• NSPORTS remains as is; in other words, it confers presumed notability, based on the achievements agreed upon by consensus (e.g. played in an NFL game, etc)
• Since NSPORTS is only about presumed notability, this can be challenged. If an editor believes that the subject is unlikely to have additional sources written about them (perhaps because they barely meet NSPORTS, for example, or only played a few games), then the profile can be tagged with a special tag, perhaps a derivative of the notability template. This tag will place the profile into a special category, a sort of rescue category, that will inform other editors that the presumed notability of this sports biography is disputed.
• if the article is not tagged, but put immediately to AfD instead, then the NSPORTS guideline can be used to defend the article (as is the case today).
• If, instead, the article is tagged, and additional sources are not found after 6 months, the article can be put up for AfD. During the AfD discussion, NSPORTS can NO LONGER BE USED to defend the article. The point of presumption has passed; it is now time to prove notability. At this point, the article must be defended based on WP:GNG. The AfD may inspire other editors to find other sources, and if significant coverage in 3rd party sources is found, then of course the article will be kept.

This idea is a compromise, which allows the eventualism of sources will be found, but provides an explicit timeline in cases where some editors believe notability is marginal. If deleted, the article can be userfied, with no prejudice to recreation provided additional sources come to light - so no information is lost.

As an example, in the case above of Henry Oxley, after the current AfD closes (supposing it closes as keep), if an editor still believes it doesn't pass GNG, Henry can be tagged. In 6 months time, if additional sources haven't come to light, Henry can go back to AfD. The point again of all of this is to ensure that the GNG is being met by all articles. For some reason, sports seems to be one of the bigger generators of stub articles of dubious notability; the changes above would eventually allow some appropriate pruning, while also giving fair warning and time for editors to properly source these articles. Also a note: I realize wikipedia does not have a time limit. However, we delete articles all the time that could potentially be improved given enough time; but if they aren't ready *now* and sourced *now*, they get deleted. Presumed notability needs to translate into proved notability at some point. FWIW, it's not necessary to support or oppose the above, as it's not a fully-baked proposal, just some ideas to start discussion, so please just focus on what you agree/disagree with or what modification syou might suggest.--KarlB (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Overly legalistic. Based on example with out demonstrating wide spread problems by a person who has expressed interest in this content being moved to its own Wiki. This would just be too difficult to implement and is too difficult to understand. Anyone can nominate for AfD at any time or tag for notability problems. This should be dealt with case by case when it isn't clear where the policy lies. --LauraHale (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks; however this is not based on this particular example; I've followed a number of discussions, on this page, and elsewhere, about basically the same problem. Of course anyone can tag/nominate for AfD, but what this change is ideally setting is a bright line guidance that says, if presumed notability is questioned, after a certain period of time, NSPORTS ceases to apply, and you need to prove GNG. So many deletion debates are like this:
    • X meets NSPORTS. keep
    • X doesn't meet GNG. Delete

• • If we changed the rules along the lines suggested above, all of those debates would go away. If the article has not yet been challenged, NSPORTS rules, and GNG doesn't matter, leading to speedy keeps. If the article has been challenged, and sources haven't come to light, NSPORTS goes away, and GNG is all that matters. We're dealing with this on a case-by-case basis now, and the result is lots of long deletion discussions that don't contribute much, and a lot of rehashing of the same argument.
  • Also, please don't critique me b/c I suggested it would be great to have a sportsopedia. Wookiepedia/[2] has over 99,000 articles, just on star wars; it's an incredible resource, and is chock full of things that would never be accepted here, but that are welcome there -look at this [3]; that article would fail many wikipedia guidelines, but at wookipedia it is embraced. Even if we keep every single major league baseball player, we're never going to keep every single minor league player - why shouldn't there be a place for those guys? in any case, I'm not suggesting sports should be moved out of wikipedia, just that they need to meet WP:N (and the need for every article to meet WP:N is not just a wacky theory of mine...)--KarlB (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • • I think your proposal is so broad and the consequences are so far reaching for notability beyond sports that you should actually be taking it to WP:NOTE because there are many other topic areas that may suffer the same problems of the technical rules inside a project for notability may allow for an article not obviously passing WP:GNG to exist. Procedurally, I think this should be posted there instead of here. Wookipedia doesn't support your cause here. You're arguing against articles you appear to want off Wikipedia, like Wookipedia, not that Wookipedia has thousands of articles that meet both notability there and pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Laura Hale. The Henry Oxley case actually shows that the existing system is not broken. Cbl62 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the idea of moving a lot of this stuff off to specialist fan sites/fan wikis has a good deal of merit to it. It made the fiction cleanup a lot easier on both sides, and it will make the sports cleanup a good deal easier as well. Like fiction, the question is "not if but when" here, so I think discussing an orderly transition would be better than having the huge fights over it the fiction war caused. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; though I hesitate because the fan-site stuff is really just a side note and orthogonal IMHO to this particular discussion, which is how to improve the notability guidelines for sports. I do note that if such a comprehensive and open wiki for sports existed, then it would make certain discussions here easier, but I think we could make changes similar to the above even in the absence of such a fan-wiki.--KarlB (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a madness to my method there. :) I was around and involved in discussions of it during the fiction fracas, and it got ugly. We had blocks, sitebans, people cursing each other out on both sides, megabytes of screaming matches both at deletion discussions and at other venues...it was a mess. And some of those pages, while totally unencyclopedic, were impressive—if you've ever looked at Wookieepedia, the level of detail that goes into some of those articles is amazing. People who had spent literally weeks on them were upset about it. Once it was a question of relocation rather than outright deletion, it took a lot of the anger out of the argument—their hard work wasn't going down the tubes, it was just getting moved to a more appropriate venue, where they'd be allowed to write in-universe material all day long and in as much detail as they like.

After that, while I won't say there was no trouble, it settled down a great deal. I'd much rather see that here than ArbCom saying "This mess, AGAIN??????" Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

aha; yes I see your point. I didn't live through any of that, I've just been a user of wookiepedia as a fan myself, and it is amazing, and chock full of stuff we'd never accept here, but highly valuable to that particular project. So perhaps you could start another thread here, or somewhere, on creating sportsopedia - all sports, all times, all venues, all games, all stats - and no pesky notability requirements. It might be a win-win. On star wars, I just looked at the star wars category; I'd estimate there are ~1000 articles there, vs 90k in wookiepedia. I bet you'd have a similar process if you did sports - every 2-bit coach, every minor league player, every game - it could be massive, and valuable to those who really care.--KarlB (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this proposal is a good one. I've participated in several AfDs for articles that barely passed NSPORTS and were deleted because there was no plausible way for them to meet the GNG (even after several years of existence). I fear that the Henry Oxley AfD will result in a "keep" consensus (although the arguments in favor of keeping are not compelling - essentially all rely on NSPORTS or NODEADLINE), but I don't think that's common practice at AfD. Jogurney (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unnecessary, unworkable, and unwieldy. While I think the current system can be improved, this isn't it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose special rules for articles you don't like. There are thousands of articles on dozens of topics that some view as having marginal notability. Singling one set out is pointless, divisive and counterproductive. Resolute
  • Also oppose the elitist stupidity of moving articles you don't like to a "specialist wiki". Resolute 01:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Why don't you try to AGF. This has nothing to do with whether I like an article or not. The proposal is intended to help make AfD discussions less contentious in this domain; I would welcome applying the same standard to any articles. In any case, rather than attacking the proposal, which was made in good faith, can you suggest a better solution? As I pointed out above, I've seen several AfDs where the keeps were arguing based on NSPORTS, while the deletes were arguing based on GNG. In other words, they weren't arguing from the same policy perspective. The idea above is one way to get to better clarity - when is NSPORTS enough, and when is GNG needed. --KarlB (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, my good faith in this domain was exhausted a long time ago by a certain few who, good faith or otherwise, are basically trying to wear people down until they get their way. I apologize that my frustration with this has collected you but I have very little patience for broad brush arguments like this. This is a poor suggestion for the reason I posted: it seeks to force special rules onto a subset of articles. I find that dangerous and divisive. For myself, I am not opposed to looking at guidelines for individual sports - I am one of a few who try to ensure that WP:NHOCKEY reflects what will pass GNG - but efforts to apply broad restrictions to all sports collectively is simply a waste of time. Resolute 03:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I'm still not sure I understand what you're saying. NSPORTS (and all of its derivatives) are already special rules on a subset of articles; I have no problem with broadening this discussion, but I thought it would be best to try to sort out an agreement here first, then see if we could get other domains interested. Again, my concern is not with the guidelines for individual sports, which will continue to evolve; it is whether GNG is ever considered to be relevant at all or not. At some AfD discussions I've seen, GNG, even when challenged, is basically ignored; NSPORTS is considered sufficient.--KarlB (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, this is merely an SNG, exactly as exists for many topics. What you are proposing is a special mark on certain sports articles via template, special deletion rules and a special timeframe for which to work on said articles, or risk deletion. Nothing like this applies anywhere else. All you are doing here is setting up a battleground. Resolute 01:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As probably one of the ones most critical of the breadth of content NSPORTS allows, I don't think any change in wording is needed. What is needed is for those that support NSPORTS is to remember that notability whether through the GNG or though subject-specific guidelines is only a presumption and can be challenged when, in good faith, an editor does not believe an article can improve beyond a stub or grow into an encyclopedic article. Consensus at AFD can override the presumption of notability given by a criteria here, these are not absolutes as some editors want.

Mind you, editors that bring articles that meet NSPORTS to AFD should be following BEFORE to make sure their call to initiate the AFD is not misguided. Take the case above of the Henry Oxley article. Based on what I saw in sourcing when I looked, the AFD seemed completely fair to initiate: a person that barely met the pro game aspect, played over 100+ years ago, and minimal sourcing in the article or from searching. Yes, at creation of that article one can presume the notability from NSPORT, but its completely fair to consider that as just barely passing the criteria and no obvious means to expand further, that AFD can be applied. On the other hand, if someone repeatedly nom'ed athletes that met the pro game part of NSPORTS and each time was rejected rather quickly by evidence of sources, that starts becoming less in bad faith.

The whole point that the pro game crtieria exists, as I have been told several times, is that into getting into the pros, your amateur/college career would have been likely highlighted and discussed in sources. That's a reasonable fair assumption, but like all assumptions, we all must recognize it infallible. I would not be surprised if there is a pro athlete that may be on the 3rd string of their team, was a mid-season replacement, or something so minor that their prior career may have been underwelming and not written about; there is likely no way to build out an article about this person if the only claim to fame is spending 5 minutes on the field in a pro game. What needs to happen is for us to recognize these as exceptions to presumed notability that can occur, and that being able to challenge notability is how these exceptions are weeded out.

Sure, I do believe that the net that NSPORTS casts is far too large for an general encyclopedia though not a specialist one or the like. But I don't think changing NSPORTS at the present time just because of the Hanry Oxley AFD is an appropriate action. It requires much more thought, as to what extent sports coverage in a generalized encyclopedia should be. (As has been noted, the fiction projects have had this thought years ago, and figured out what their degree of inclusion is.) But that's a far different discussion. All I can implore at the present is simply to remember that notability is a presumption, not a guarantee. If you want to avoid an athlete article that just bared ekes past a criterai, make sure to add additional sources later. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't be changing it because of Oxley. We'd be changing it because of all the editors who blindly voted in Oxley and the ones that vote like them, and the misconceptions regarding notability that they embody. Many editors seem to not understand that the GNG applies to every article, regardless of whether or not that article meets an SNG. The fact that more editors have chimed in with undetailed "meets the SNG" votes even after it was repeatedly pointed out that that wasn't enough indicates how ingrained this is.

I don't really like KarlB's bright line proposal either, though. There are going to be occasional exceptions, and this would be unprecedented to set a fixed time limit for notability. The normal solution here is to adjust the SNG until it reflects cases that are very sure to meet the GNG, and then merge all the non-notable articles into larger articles. Gigs (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The SNG provides a presumption of notability. While that presumption can be challenged, the burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that even though this person meets the SNG, he does not meet GNG. So far, there has been no demonstration to that effect. Rlendog (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't prove an existential negative like that. I can't prove (or demonstrate) that there isn't a vast library of books written about Oxley without being omniscient. The burden of verifiability is on the person who is adding material, not the person who seeks to delete material, for precisely the same reason. Gigs (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The likelihood of a "vast library of books written about Oxley" is the reason we have the presumption. Well, not necessarily books, but periodicals and other reliable sources. The burden of verifiability is on the person adding the content, but that burden is met by showing he meets the SNG. If someone wants to challenge that presumption, the burden shifts to them. Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to retain information, particularly notability as its impossible to prove the negative. We encourage those placing the AFD to before WP:BEFORE steps to try to justify their case that sources don't exist better, but we hope that they can be proven wrong for those attempting to retain the article by bringing forth sources. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

True, WP:BURDEN is on those wishing to retain information, but that burden is met by the SNG. Hence the "presumption." If someone wants to challenge the presumption they can, but they need evidence that despite the guideline providing the presumption for some reason this particular case fails notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a point currently being discussed at WT:N, but the problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative, that a topic lacks sources; the prove of notability has to come from the existence of sources towards that. But this is why BEFORE is there, so that the nominator has at least done some work to say "hey, I don't see easily-found sources here", and avoid the pointless AFD of an article where sources can be found in a few minutes with a google search. It's also why we have the SNGs, as they are presumptions that sources exists, and generally why will allow articles that just meet the SNG criteria to remain; the strength of that presumption will weaken over time if its clear sources aren't coming forward or being found with ease, or if it is a case where there's reasonable doubt that any sources do exist. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, but the SNGs are based on long experience showing that meeting the SNG almost always means the subject meets GNG. So challenging the notability of a subject that meets SNG - and thus is presumed notable, using language consistent with GNG - need to be able come up with more of a challenge than "I did a Google search and didn't see any sources." Especially when it is obvious that most sources will be offline and out of print. Then seeing no sources in the Google search is basically meaningless and provides nothing challenging the presumption from the SNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we still have issues with BURDEN on the ones wishing to retain. Now, for me, if I encountered a player from the turn of the 19th century with no sources outside of playing a few game, I would likely not be rushing to AFD it, but instead tagging it that sources are needed and expect that in time they will be found and added, due to the non-internet available of such sources. (In fact, I would think this is something htat could be en masse for numerous players of the same era at the same time due to reusing the same sources) The same can't be said of guy that played all of one game sometime after 2000 and never was heard from again. But that's me. Because of BURDEN and BEFORE, editors are free to AFD if they feel there's a problem. We should consider these in good faith but these editors need to be aware of WP:Fait accompli (mass nominations) and when cases are trivial. So while we discourage people placing AFDs on articles that meet SNGs but lack sourcing, we can't stop them. That means we need to make sure editors that work in areas supported by the SNGs not be become complicit in trusting that the SNG will always protect them AFD. It does work both ways. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

re: fixed time limits for notability, we do already have a fixed time limit for notability - look at AfD. If a subject is not notable, it is subject to immediate deletion. Now, this doesn't always happen - there are thousands of articles tagged with the notability tag that linger for years - but technically speaking, any non-notable article can be proposed and deleted INSTANTLY. Thus, my suggestion of a ticking clock (and 6 months was just an initial idea, not a final solution) was a compromise, between the deletionists and eventualists. Otherwise, a baseball player from 1888 who had 5 minutes of gameplay can linger for years, each time the eventualists saying "more sources may eventually be found" - the question is, why for sports articles do we accept this notion of "sources will eventually be found" when as far as i can tell this standard doesn't apply elsewhere. When asked, you need to prove it - otherwise, goodbye. Thus, my suggestion is about giving a reprieve from instant deletion, to specifically give time (and more time than 7 days of an AfD) to find better sources. I think people are taking this idea in the wrong spirit - and again its purpose was to start discussion, not to vote on a finalized proposal. --KarlB (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The guideline is fine as is. Masem has outlined well why presumed notability is appropriate in virtually all cases. The Oxley article in particular is an example of why it is appropriate. Sources dealing with a player from over 100 years ago are likely to be hard to locate, even if they exist. But notability is not temporary, and lasts beyond when the original sources are readily accessible. And as Oxley's article stands now, it is fully sourced giving a reader a good and appropriate albeit short encyclopedic narrative of his life and career. While a 6 month window to find sources in theory addresses the "difficult to locate sources" concern, Wikipedia does not have deadlines, and there is no reason why a particular deadline would be necessary for this. Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • While I also oppose this particular proposal, the primary sources (census records, find a grave) that have been added to the Oxley article do nothing to establish notability. Notability requires non-trivial secondary source coverage. The secondary sources the article has are mere offhand mentions and mechanical statistics from comprehensive guidebooks. Really nothing at all has been added to that establishes notability under the GNG. Gigs (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - it doesn't matter how long it takes, as long as sources can be found then that is the main thing. GiantSnowman 16:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for a number of reasons I have mentioned in this chat and others on the page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Compromise is needed

Can we all acknowledge that it is conceivable that a player (either an existing or a future bio) can meet an SNG but will never have enough sources to meet GNG? If the response is only that there is no deadline, then the "presumption" of notability from meeting an SNG effectively becomes a "guarantee", as it will always be argued that the sources exists but still have not been found. A consensus on a reasonable way to handle this scenario is needed.

We need to be sensitive of the reality that in 99% (give or take) of the cases for a well-established SNG like baseball's, consensus has been that acceptable sources were eventually found to meet GNG. There needs to be some reasonable checkpoints in reviewing an article that might be the 1% exception to the SNG's presumption, while still following the spirit of having no deadlines. Otherwise, let's change "presumption" to "guarantee" and be done with this.—Bagumba (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I agree; the idea above was one attempt to address this issue, though I'm certain other solutions exist. What you point out is exactly the problem - as it stands, SNG + no time limit = guarantee. I don't think this was the spirit or intention. In fact, I point out again that the idea above gives a reprieve to editors who are looking for other sources; as current policy stands, an article can be deleted immediately if it consensus holds that it doesn't meet GNG, and some (possibly worthy) sports bios have been iced on those grounds. The compromise above (or some variant) would be to have some clock that starts ticking as soon as notability is significantly challenged, and then the mysterious "other sources" either have to turn up, or they don't, at which point the discussion becomes a lot easier. And of course, any changes would eventually apply to all of the misc notability guidelines in cases where a given notability guideline presumes GNG, not just within sports. --KarlB (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a compromise?!? That's completely against the critical points raised. Notability for all topics of WP is a presumption, not a guaranty. It is the NSPORTS editors that have to come to meet what the center point is, that these criteria may generate an exceptional case that there is just no sourcing period for a player, and thus not appropriate to have their own article. I grant that there is no deadline but that doesn't mean that you indefinitely can live with a stub. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be a guarantee. However, without some basic acknowledgements from the community, it effectively becomes a guarantee; my preference is to reach a compromise, one way or another, and avoid constantly revisiting this based on the status quo of inconsistent wording. While I hope to avoid it, let's call a spade a spade, if that is the consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is far more than 1%. It doesn't take me very long to find dozens of articles like Bob Allen (1930s_pitcher), Dennis Aust and Vicente Amor. There's many thousands of them like this. There has apparently been a systematic creation of articles based on reference books in many sports, with no regard to notability other than the mere fact that they played in the majors for at least one game. Gigs (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We can quibble about the actual numbers, hence I originally prefaced with "give or take". Unless there is a basic acknowledgement by all that it does or can happen, and there is a willingness to want to address it through consensus rather than avoid it and handle it in an ad hoc fashion, this issue will be constantly revisited.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The general notability guideline always has to be evaluated on an as-needed basis, though, so I don't see any way around it for the cases you are talking about. isaacl (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that individual articles are discussed on a per-case basis. However, without a general framework for how to handle an article that meets SNG that might not meet GNG, the individual discussions will almost always face a "no deadline" argument (and back to the effective guarantee of notability).—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately, though, all article deletion discussions (whether or not a topic-specific notability guideline is involved) face the "no deadline" argument. The current wording of this guideline states, "...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." Perhaps this section should be highlighted to closers of deletion discussions. (Personally I would like this guideline to explain what I've said elsewhere in this discussion on the probability of notability, but the question of defining non-routine coverage often gets in the way of reaching a consensus on this.) isaacl (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"No deadline" can't be used as a crutch if notability has been contested in a completely fair case. I can understand that for players that pre-dated Internet mass media or in countries where media is more spotting, that locating sources on the spot is not something instantaneous, so yes, here's a case where no deadline applies - it makes no sense to push for immediate sourcing, and instead allow the article to continue on based on the NSPORT presumption. But if we're talking a player where locating media coverage should be trivial, and sources simply cannot be found compared to other players in the same sport/timeframe, it's really hard to say "well, there's no deadline, let's wait for more to appear" because its extremely unlikely such will. In which case deletion/merging makes clear sense. Can we set hard lines on that so only the most appropriate AFD cases actually go to AFD? Unfortunately not. The only thing we can encourage is actions on both sides: those wanting to delete to think about how hard it may be to find sources and to not AFD immediately if it may be a problem (instead using talk page to discuss the matter), and for those wanted to keep to remember that AFD challenges are completely fair because notability is not a guaranty, and not to stick blindly to the NSPORT clauses but instead try to point where possible sourcing may exist if at all possible. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"No deadline", while very useful, is also an essay. It makes sense to amend the rule here if the intention is for NSPORTS to not be an effective guarantee of notability.—Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is at least one instance (I've seen several) of a biography of a sportsperson passing the SNG but not having sufficent sources available to pass the GNG. I would propose Henry Oxley's article as an example, but it appears that several AfD participants believe it satisfies the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No Compromise is needed

I'm not saying we can't do better, but compromise from either direction isn't it. There seems to be a few editors that disagree with the way things are now and are demanding "compromise" against the consensus. I don't think we "need" to compromise anything. We can choose to make changes if we all agree. Big difference.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree that we operate on consensus. The consensus can either be to continue with status quo—which includes the constant revisiting of the subject and the hope that it will all just go away—or it can change and attempt to reach a happy medium with the dissenters.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) The systematic creation of tens of thousands of poorly sourced perma-stubs is not looked upon fondly by the community at large, especially when so many of the articles under this guideline are BLPs. If nothing is done, at some point in the future, many thousands of articles on non-notable sports people might simply be deleted, with the ensuing drama and time-wasting. Many other projects have dealt with this issue constructively, merging them into larger articles that are more easily maintained, with notability that is easily established. Gigs (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Baseball WikiProject is an example of a project that has created larger list articles for players of lesser individual notability. I don't think all articles on sports persons can be lumped together as being dealt with in the same way. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Singling out specific groups, rightly or wrongly, is never going to be productive. Let's concentrate on the characteristics of articles and guidelines in question, and please elaborate on "lesser individual notability".—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, then, I don't believe articles on non-notable sports persons should be targeted specifically as ones that have not dealt with the issue of notability constructively. Avoiding specifics, there are some persons who do not meet the general notability guideline for a separate article due to a lack of non-routine, independent coverage. However, they can be sufficiently notable to warrant being mentioned in an article of a topic related to them, such as a list of persons who fit within a specific category which is itself notable. Thus it can be appropriate to place information about these persons in the list article, even if a individual article is not warranted. isaacl (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Really Gigs? Threats of disruptive mass deletion? Resolute 15:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is really BLPs, that is pretty easily addressed. After all, at least recent players with limited playing time will likely have adequate sources easily available via the Internet or in-print books. If they do not, then there may well be a good case that they do not meet GNG. But the pointy recent AfDs have been for players whose careers ended more than a century ago, and who are long deceased. For such players the majority of sources are not necessarily in print or on the internet, and hence the SNG presumption becomes important. And of course, there is no BLP issue for them. There is an intermediate situation for older living players, whose sources may well be out of print and off internet, but those cases are limited. Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If not in print or on the internet, where are they? Are you referring to old printed material that have been destroyed?—Bagumba (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Many newspapers from the 1800's have never been microfilmed and no longer exist. This is what I am assuming he means. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the wording of the SNGs should be tightened to fully define what leagues/achievements/competitions are regarded as notable for the guideline, rather than use phrases such as "any other...", and if wording is added, there should be some evidence presented to show that the league etc is at an appropriate level such that GNG will be met. As an example look at the below list of some of the SNG wordings, as pulled out by Bagumba in a post above.

• "or any other top-level professional league" in WP:NGRIDIRON
• "any other major senior level international competition" in WP:NTRACK
• "any other top-level national league" in WP:BASEBALL/N
• "any other major elite international event" in WP:NGYMNASTICS
• "other such league" in WP:NHOCKEY
• "similar major professional sports league" in WP:NBASKETBALL
• "similar international competition" in WP:NGOLF
• :"similar international competition" in WP:NTENNIS
• "similar exhibition games" in WP:SPORTSEVENT

Does anyone think undefined wording such as the above is acceptable? Eldumpo (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me potentially quite useful. It allows people to use their judgement without our having to write out every detail in the guideline. Though I don't have any particular view about the situation in these specific sports. Victor Yus (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As the expertise for evaluating the individual notability guidelines is commonly centred within the relevant WikiProjects, I suggest you engage one project at a time and put forth a specific proposal for a revised guideline for each sport. As the previous discussion threads seem to illustrate, I don't think much progress will be made by continuing with a general proposal. isaacl (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but it's certainly acceptable. Consensus has supported it for some time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering how the discussion went in that earlier thread (#Consensus), it seems that, for some of these sports, there will be difficulty getting consensus to make the wording more precise, whereas for other sports, this kind of change will be an improvement. As a practical matter, then, it might be a good idea to evaluate each of these bullet points individually, instead of as a group package (as isaacl also suggested). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the WP:NTENNIS wording has already been adapted and should be stricken from this list. In my view the notability requirements for the sports persons seem by and large well thought-out and balanced. Doesn't mean they're perfect or can't be improved but I agree that such improvements are probably better discussed at the respective WikiProject pages. In comparison, the section on games notability requirements seems much less developed and balanced. It has statements about games or series being 'inherently notable' without any explanation as to why that is the case, it covers individual games, series and the Olympics but offers no guidance at all on the notability of (recurring) events/tournaments (e.g. tennis) and it contains unbalanced statements like "the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". It would be useful to focus more on addressing that relative weakness.--Wolbo (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Such "vague" guidelines exist for a reason: sports evolve. Five years ago, Russia's KHL, currently its top professional league, did not exist. The college football bowl games deemed the most important and largest differ now than from a decade ago. The Baseball World Cup, once the only annual sanctioned world baseball tournament, no longer exists; the current World Baseball Classic didn't exist a decade ago. The creation - and amending - of sport-specific notability guidelines has often been a grueling task, with consensus difficult to reach, and I see no reason why we have to change things on an annual basis because some editors need a black-and-white road map every byte of the way. Ravenswing 01:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I have no issue with the group of most interested and knowledgeable editors for a given topic area revisiting the topic-specific guidelines for notability as often as they like. But I think it is more suitable to discuss this individually for each of the topic areas in question, rather than trying to change all of the topic-specific guidelines at once. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, some people think such wording is acceptable, and others are saying that it should be addressed on an individual sport basis. I personally can't see the advantages of using your judgment when the idea is that work has gone into these SNGs to come up with a list that does not need further questioning when an unknown league comes up. Anyway, I will start a separate post regarding a specific sport. Eldumpo (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the better read is this: People think the wording is acceptable on a broad page like this, but that individual consensus as it reads here should generally be worked on inside a sport project and then reflected here. If you're doing specific sport ones, it will end up being about 10 different conversations on 10 different Wikiprojects. Familiarise yourself with their existing notability guidelines before you do that so you can make a better argument. Some one going into baseball without a clear understanding of the debates it not likely to be appreciated. --LauraHale (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Laura sums it up pretty good here. You would have to have an individual conversation about each of the sports separately. That was the whole reasoning behind NSPORTS expanding from what used to be ATHLETE. People realized a broad general guideline applied to all sports didn't work. That each sport needed to be discussed separately. What you are seeking to do here is again use a big broad stroke across all sports. If you hope to get anywhere with it, you will need to do it on a sport by sport basis. Some might change and some probably will not. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal, but I think it's ludicrous that a proposal would be required to go through that amount of red tape in order to happen. This is the discussion page for this guideline. If editors want to provide input on changes to it, they should be watching this page. Forcing any proposed harmonization change through 15 different discussions that could end in 15 different and inconsistent ways pretty much means that such a change could never happen. Gigs (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don`t care where the discussions are held but there need to be 15 separate ones. Whether on this page or elsewhere it doesn`t matter. The whole reason NSPORTS was created was to avoid the overbroad generalizations that people were attempting to apply to all sports at once. Each section for each sport was not intended to be consistent with the other sports. The whole idea was that ever sport gets a different amount of coverage. Each section was essentially envisioned as its own guideline brought together under one "shell" so to speak of NSPORTS. There won't be a consistent level through all sports that was the exact opposite of the intended purpose of this guideline when it replaced the one size fits all approach of WP:ATHLETE. If you want to make an accurate guideline that does what it appears you want it to do based on comments above. Then you need to discuss each sport separately or you are going to have the same or worse issues. Just taking one sport above, removing the word "other such league" from its sentence would require us to then define exactly what leagues we are talking about. There are at least 50 that meet that criteria for just that sport. Assuming there are similar numbers for the other sports, that means doing it your way would create a discussion where we are discussing some 500+ leagues for a number of different sports all at the same time. With numerous people not really understanding the levels of coverage each league gets etc. If you can`t see how that could be needlessly messy and more complicated and more likely lead to no resolution then I really don`t understand you other than to think you are just on a crusade against athletes. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As you may recall from your participation in the discussion threads preceding Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2010#Proposal: develop WP:NSPORT into a guideline., the reason for replacing WP:ATH with WP:NSPORT was that due to the diverseness of different sports, a common set of guidelines for presuming notability could not be applied to all of them, thus harmonization is undesirable. The introduction of this notability guideline page was precisely to allow each sport to be handled separately by those who know the most about the sport under discussion, and so improvements can be made without having to involve the experts from all sports at once. isaacl (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is funny how little has changed. My objections then closely mirror my objections today. I have always thought this SNG in particular (when it was ATH and still today), sets a bar far lower than the GNG in a large number of cases. That said, I do understand Djsasso's position regarding separate discussions for each sport, so maybe harmonization in general isn't a particularly good goal. I still believe sweeping reform is necessary, and that the current situation is completely unsustainable. Gigs (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Asking again How exactly is it "unsustainabble" ? --Paul McDonald (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See, here's where I think the problem is : the editors for each individual sport seem to want to be able to set up specific criteria that apply to that sport to make sure their athletes get included, and there's very little attempt to harmonize this.

I respect the fact that sports gets the largest part of media coverage and thus are generally able to have large number of articles about their players and so forth. But at the same time, that concept has to apply within the field of sports, meaning the far-less popular sports which are rarely covered in the mainstream media can't be given the same level of importance as sports like baseball or backetball. Otherwise, this becomes hypocritical. Remember, our notability guidelines are not out to say "we include all topics about X", but instead to demonstrate if we should include a topic depending on how well it can be sourced, and as you get away from the major league sports, the amount of coverage declines significantly, so I'd expect very few articles on players from sports that get minimal coverage. Unfortunately, reviewing some of the guideline discussions here, it is clear that editors of these less covered sports are trying to get the same type of broad inclusion as the larger sports and thus write their criteria towards that, instead of the sourcing aspect which has to be first and foremost. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think you will find through the past discussions on this page and through the discussions that created the guideline that there was a very large number of discussions to make sure that sports that aren't covered as much have stricter guidelines. There are some people who have tried to get broader meaning for their sport, but generally in those situations they have been shot down. If anything this guideline has been getting stricter and stricter since its creation. It definitely hasn't been going in the other direction. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying this isn't stricter, but the language used is not reflecting that we're looking for sourcing, not just to provide stats and placement for an athlete. Take, for example, the concept of playing at the top championship series for their sport/league. I will give you that players in such games are likely going to have more sourcing available than any normal pro player, but I don't agree all such championships will grant assured coverage of all players in it. For example, I have doubts (not proven, just doubts) that every player at the National Finals Rodeo will have sourcing, when compared to something like the tennis US Open. Just because there is a sport, the sport has some coverage, and it has some type of championship finale doesn't mean its players are inherently notable. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My proposed change for the nutshell summary tried to highlight the underlying principle that it's the probability of relevant sources being available that is flagged by meeting the specified criteria, but this wording didn't achieve overall consensus amongst the relatively few editors participating in the discussion. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I did see that and thought that was a smart change and its a shame it was rejected. --MASEM (t) 16:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree there are some editors who believe this guideline specifies participation in specific events or other criteria that in themselves confer notability upon an athlete, when it is supposed to just specify criteria that, if met, indicates a very high probability that the athlete has received notable, independent, non-routine coverage from reliable sources. Given all the wrangling that went into modifying the nutshell summary recently, and the already existing explanations within the article body text, I'm not sure how to hammer home this point any further, though. isaacl (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it the case in practice though at AfD, that in the vast majority of discussions, meeting the SNG will automatically result in an article being deemed worthy of being kept? Eldumpo (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a follower of article deletion discussions, so I cannot speak from first-hand knowledge. If this is the case, then you can amend my previous statement to include closers of deletion discussions as well as editors. Suggestions of how to make the underlying principle of topic-specific notability guidelines clear to everyone are welcome, in addition to any proposals you may make on modifying the guidelines themselves. isaacl (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• To answer one of Masem's posts above, indeed, it was a hard struggle to devolve notability criteria to the individual sport Wikiprojects, and ditch the unsatisfactory portmanteau WP:ATHLETE. This was a good thing, and the values of "harmonization" are opaque. Quite aside from my perplexity at those who want to tighten up the language advocating setting up an entirely subjective ranking of sports by some vague notion of "popularity," different sports have wildly differing standards of notability. Minor leagues are weak, for instance, in American football and basketball; they are, by contrast, strong in ice hockey, soccer and baseball. No one claims that collegiate baseball or soccer is very notable; by contrast, American collegiate football and basketball and their teams and stars are highly notable. Teenage figure skaters and gymnasts dominate the leaders in world class competition, and do so in no other sport. Some sports are ruled by widely-recognized international federations; others by various national leagues. The notion that there could possibly be one set of notability criteria, one set of definitions, which might apply to all sports equally was farcical a decade ago and remains so today. Ravenswing 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It gets even more farcical when you have some one from the United States trying to figure out the relative notability of New Zealand and Australian notability for sports like rugby league, netball, Australian rules football, basketball and ice hockey. Different countries also have problems. I'm almost reasonably certain that every Paralympian from Australia going into the 2012 Summer Paralympics would pass pass WP:GNG. (And I can and have gotten non-medalists past that barrier.) If you're trying to figure out if Kazakstan ice hockey, basketball and association football playeers would pass notability, not sure how you would do that. So much of this isn't just relative to the sport but to the geography and language. --LauraHale (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • My point is not about popularity of a sport, it is about coverage of a sport in the sports media (and this is after excluding routine and local aspects). Sports like baseball will likely have hundreds of times more coverage than other sports. That doesn't mean other sports should only be covered to 1/100th of the degree but we have to recognize that there is no way that certain criteria that can be enjoyed by other sports due to ease of coverage be translated to these smaller ones. And thus my confusion at something like how we're saying that everyone that participates at Rodeo's major events (which I know is not covered to a great national degree) can be presumed notable, as this only seems to give something to match to other "played at the top championship" for other broadly covered sports. These guidelines should not exist to remove the existing bias there is in media coverage of sports, because we don't let that happen with other fields. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course we do; I was scratching my head over a DYK earlier today of an obscure late medieval composer known for a single work, and that only because of an 18th century copy of a now lost 15th century manuscript. The degree to which that composer is reflected even in dedicated medieval music literature is next-to-nonexistent.

        That being said, the degree to which a sport is being covered relative to baseball (which receives about 1/100th the coverage international soccer gets) is beside the point, with the GNG being satisfied by only two references, and a subject being no more notable for the purpose with two hundred. Ravenswing 05:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

        • The GNG does not require 2 sources. It requires "significant coverage in multiple independent sources", but we never fix a number. The point about coverage is to remember that we're also avoiding indiscriminate information. NSPORTS already acknowledge that local athletes could pass the GNG but they set the bar higher for that to avoid that to some degree. It's important to remember that we are looking for independent sourcing here as well, to avoid a field that may have lots of dedicated publications but no mention in mainstream press. --MASEM (t) 06:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
          • This. I'm reasonably certain a large number of Little Leaguers in the CNMI could theoretically look like they would pass WP:GNG based on the Saipan Tribune and Marianas Variety News & Views, but I sincerely doubt most people would advocate creating articles about them... If some one wants to be make a WP:POINT, Virgil Secharmidal is the little leaguer you might want to consider. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] (Coverage dates from 2009 to 2012.) He isn't notable and worth creating an article about. This is different than a MLB player. --LauraHale (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
            • This is not specifically addressed by this guideline, but by WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: routine news reporting on sports is not considered sufficient to illustrate notability. isaacl (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • While on it, NOT passing notability for a guideline is just as often used to advocate delete as it is for keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Newton, Sr. (2nd nomination)‎ as an example where sport notability is being used to argue for deletion. --LauraHale (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That's not a particularly good thing either. Cecil Newton, Sr. does have the kind of substantial coverage that would generally pass the general notability guideline. There are good reasons to get rid of the article under BLP because he's a low profile individual with mostly negative coverage relating to a single scandal, but that's beside the point. Suppose he had played one game professionally. Then it would be much harder to get rid of the article on him, BLP problems or not, because of the way this guideline is abused as a bright line test to automatic "keep" at AfD. Gigs (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This guideline covers players, the Olympics, team seasons, single games - but not actual teams or clubs. What actually makes Manchester United F.C. notable, or the New York Jets, or any other of the thousands of club articles we have? Other than GNG, of course! I am from a soccerball background, at over at that particular WikiProject we use WP:FOOTYN - but it is just an essay. I feel it is time to get something here as a formal guideline. I'm sure other WikiProjects would also see the benefit. GiantSnowman 15:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Note - is there a quick way of notifying the myriad of WikiProjects this might apply to, as they no doubt wish to provide some input. I have notified WP:FOOTY. GiantSnowman 15:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, given that most pro / league / college teams gain coverage easily from newspapers and magazines, I doubt there's a need for any specific criteria, allowing the GNG to work find for these. Or, more to the point, if you put up a team and can't easily show sources from a google search, you probably don't have a notable team (yes, even for teams that have long been disbanded/merged/etc.) The reason to spell out for athletes is that individual notability will likely be harder to demonstrate and thus the need for some type of presumption. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There is surely presumed notability for clubs as well? There certainly has been in my 6+ years with WP:FOOTY, hence why WP:FOOTYN was written. GiantSnowman 15:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think some further elaboration would be useful, particularly to non-sports editors (like me). I should also point out that the intro to the guideline currently says, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline" and yet doesn't address leagues or organizations per se in the rest of the guideline.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me back up. The only reason that one should be writing specialized criteria for a subject-specific notability guideline like NSPORT is if it is the case that a topic is presumed to be notable for meeting that criteria and it is known that sources nearly always can be found, but it takes time and effort to locate those sources. With that presumption, that means that such topics shouldn't be immediately AFD'd because of lack of sources, as we're presuming notability to give time for the editors to find and grow them. If it is the case that sources can be easily found for specific sets of topics to meet the GNG, this criteria isn't necessary. My understand and read of sports news is that for teams that would be included in WP, they nearly always can meet the GNG without major difficulty in locating sources, and thus no special criteria is needed. I do think that making sure that local high school teams aren't called out like we don't call out high school students, but beyond that I dont believe you need to say anything beyond going for GNG coverage. If you think that there are teams where they are in pro/league formats and sourcing is difficult, it would help to have examples before considering crafting a new criteria. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Any of the teams in the mid-to-lower levels of the English football league system, which are considered notable via WP:FOOTYN due to playing in the national cup competition, but which probably don't meet GNG and probably won't any time soon. GiantSnowman 15:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the question to ask: if one of these English football league teams wins the national level, is there coverage of that team in non-local sources? And at the same time, if there is a league team that never has gotten to the national level, is there any non-local coverage of that team? --MASEM (t) 15:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The BBC Sports website covers non-League teams below the national level - usually those who reach the first round of the FA Cup or beyond, but they also do coverage of clubs in the non-League pyramid (e.g. Conference North, Conference South) and those reaching the latter stages of the FA Trophy (many of whom play below the national level) and FA Vase (all of whom play below the national level). Print newspapers tend to cover the very late stages of these competitions[22][23][24]. Number 57 16:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

So, if it is true that (at least within FOOTY) that editors agree that not all teams in these leagues merit notability but some do if they reach these final rounds for championship, then it seems that it's much easier just to rely on the GNG than to create a specialized criteria, which in this case for the English leagues, would have to define what level play the team must have reached, etc. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Number57 - the BBC, unfortunately, rarely covers non-league in any great depth other than transfer news which would fail WP:ROUTINE. But we also have NonLeagueDaily.com.

Masem - but what about non-FOOTY members, as Bbb23 has commented on earlier? GiantSnowman 16:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The point of creating specialized criteria is when editors find there is difficulty in retention classes of articles that ultimately should be able to meet the GNG but at the time of creation cannot, and thus need a different means of presumption to avoid deletion. What I'm seeing being said here is that at some levels of play, there's agreement that teams that reach the top level of play as reported by non-local sources are notable, while most other teams are not and nor are appropriate to include. Because we appear to be able to make that distinction with the GNG, that means we don't need any specialized criteria to do that. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"when editors find there is difficulty in retention classes of articles that ultimately should be able to meet the GNG but at the time of creation cannot, and thus need a different means of presumption to avoid deletion" - you've pretty much described the entirety of Category:Football clubs in England. GiantSnowman 16:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

But that counters just what's been said, as league winners are reported in newspapers, and ergo are GNG sources? Or are there examples of team articles that should be notable but GNG can't be found? --MASEM (t) 16:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Who mentioned league winners? WP:FOOTYN - which is currently in use for this when it really shouldn't be - states "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." GiantSnowman 16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. As with pretty much everything else here, team notability has to be viewed individually for each sport. e.g.: In hockey, the top levels of junior hockey easily meet GNG (e.g.: the FA-class Calgary Hitmen), but comparable levels in other sports may not. (e.g.: in baseball, it would be a cross between high school and the first years of college or rookie ball. The rookie class pro teams would be notable, the college teams might and the high school teams probably not.) It is impossible to draft a general guideline that would satisfy all sports. Resolute 16:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It is done on a sport-by-sport basis for player notability - why not the same for clubs/teams? GiantSnowman 16:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Though there is a time cost involved in polling each sport project for what the local experts believe would meet that notability threshold. However, is it worthwhile to do so if there is no obvious need? In short, what are we hoping to fix here? Resolute 16:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects can add their respective sports as and when they feel the need to. But I feel that WP:FOOTY has a need, as WP:FOOTYN (currently in use) is a mere essay and certainly not fit-for-purpose. GiantSnowman 17:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me put the question another way. The reason for the individual athlete criteria per sport is that there are athletes that have achieved some merit in their sport that are not immediately able to satisfy the GNG (due to difficulty in getting sources) but should have articles for that merit; ergo we have created the criteria as an alternative presumption of notability. The same question needs to be asked of sports teams: are there teams out there, that have received merit that makes them worthy of inclusion in WP, but presently lack easy-to-locate GNG sourcing? What is being said right now is no, in that teams that have achieved the desired level of merit will have GNG-like coverage, and thus the GNG is a sufficient requirement that generalizes for all teams; no alternate presumption of notability is needed. That includes the above example of the Calgary Hitman, and to the various league teams suggested by FOOTY. If that answer is instead yes (that there are team articles that are struggling to be kept because of lack of GNG coverage) those examples need to be given so that further determination of what proper criteria (generalized or by sport) can be issued. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we're not quite getting each other - not all teams that meet the notability threshold at FOOTYN meet the GNG - infact, very few do. Exaples are Abbey Hey F.C., Abingdon United F.C., Achilles F.C., Albion Sports A.F.C., Alnwick Town F.C....need I go on? GiantSnowman 17:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Being pedantic, why should these teams have articles? (ignoring that FOOTYN allows for it). Ok, they fail the GNG, but is this because the sources to meet the GNG are hard to find? Or is that there will never be GNG-like sourcing for these teams? Will there ever be any third-party sourcing for these teams (a minimum requirement of WP:V)? --MASEM (t) 17:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

They can meet GNG - but sources are hard to find, especially online. There's a multitude of books out there but I don't have access to many. GiantSnowman 18:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I was trying to get. And thus yes, it probably does make sense to consider per-sport guides for teams. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I do believe teams fall under WP:ORG atleast that is what I have seen at Afd. I recall in past discussions maybe on this talk page as well as their belonging under ORG was the reason we don't mention leagues or teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it says it right in the guideline itself. "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ORG doesn't actually cover sports teams - I was actually going to originally post there but thought here would be better. Perhaps we can agree on the merits of sports team notability guidelines, and then decide whether they belong in ORG or NSPORTS or elsewhere later? GiantSnowman 19:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well a team is an organization, aka a business. Thus it would fall under their guidelines just like any other business/organization would. I don't really think there needs to be a specific guideline for a certain type of business. Because suddenly would would see individual ones for all sorts of businesses. I think what ORG has covers teams well enough as is. -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

But sports teams are not normal businesses. GiantSnowman 19:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. They are no different than any other company except that their product is entertainment. In particular athletic entertainment. Some are for-profit businesses (pro-teams). Some are non-profit (some amateur teams). But they all are fundamentally the same, they are a group of people engaged in pursuing a similar goal. In the case of pro's the goal is athletic entertainment for money. -DJSasso (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the previous discussion on using WP:ORG. While some aspects of sports teams are certainly unique for an organization, why do you believe they should be handled differently for the purposes of notability?—Bagumba (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Because "No company or organization is considered inherently notable" - which, as we see above, can be an issue for sports teams which are considered inherently notable. GiantSnowman 20:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No topic on WP is inherently notable. Instead, what you're claiming is that certain teams that participate in championship level events within their sport are likely going to be sourced but may take time to find said sources. That's a far cry from inherent notability. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case, no sport team is any more or less inherently notable as a given business of its equivalent size and coverage. This page isn't about being inherently notable. This page is about when a player has enough coverage to likely meet GNG. Just like ORG is the same thing but for organizations. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Any team that has competed in a national cup is considered inherently notable. GiantSnowman 20:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That isn't true, they are notable because any team that competed in a national cup is likely to have had lots of coverage in newspapers etc. Inherent means notable even if they don't have sources. But everything on wikipedia eventually needs sources. -DJSasso (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Compared to the thousands of athletes whose bios could be created, the number of sports teams is small enough that we can rely on ORG and GNG for judging notability without adding yet another SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This would have an impact on thousands of articles - nothing to be brushed off lightly. Another SNG would surely allow us more control over notability? i.e. it would have a positive impact. GiantSnowman 20:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

GS - I understand the point you're making, as we often have discussions at Footy about club notability, and about the current essay we have at FOOTYN. I raised the previous thread here about whether club notability should be covered at this guideline. It seems the current consensus is it should not be dealt with here, and I can understand why people should want us to fall back on GNG. It may also be that our current rule of thumb sets the bar too low. Can I suggest a way forward is for the Footy project to seek internally to revise our essay so as more of us are happy with it. We could then subsequently look to get it strengthened into a guideline later. So maybe another post at Footy is best? Eldumpo (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the content of the club notability section is wrong, in fact the wording is good - but the essay as a whole needs to be scrapped as it serves no purpose. Consequently, we need a new home for it. GiantSnowman 13:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the current wording needs a lot of work. It states clubs playing in the national cup are notable, but I'm not sure there is any evidence behind this statement. Also, there is wide variation in the number of teams that play in the various national cups. Eldumpo (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Long standing consensus. GiantSnowman 12:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronwyn Wilson which hinges on whether athlete's whose only apparent claim to fame is having competed in a demonstration sport at the olympics are notable. A naive reading of WP:Notability (sports) suggests that the athlete is notable, but all of the editors who've commented so far are uncertain as to whether this is the spirit of the policy. Broader input is requested. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would say that they are not notable. In the technical sense, I do not believe people in demonstration sports "competed" as much as they "performed an exhibition" in these sense of the term used here. In a more holistic sense, I do not think that demonstration sports receive the type of media coverage that would make their competitors most likely notable as their non-demonstration sports counterparts. RonSigPi (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ron's turn of phrase makes sense to me; do we presume that artistic performers at the Olympics, for instance, are notable? I'd say notability for such athletes stands and falls on the GNG and on such notability criteria as exist for their sports. Ravenswing 23:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• I don't mean to step on toes, but I'd say the question at AfD is closer to: "Does WP:NOLYMPICS (inherent notability) include individual athletes in demonstration sports at the Olympics?" I think Olympic demonstration sports do not make individual athletes inherently notable for a stand-alone biography, though they are likely noteworthy in other articles. I think the spirit of WP:NOLYMPICS is that competition for a medal as a national representative and the prospect of winning an event makes notability inherent among Olympic athletes. I think WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and the several sub-parts of WP:ATHLETE are sufficient bases for notability. JFHJr (㊟) 06:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I don't believe that competing in a demonstration sport at the Olympics is sufficient, on its own, to show notability for an athlete. Meeting WP:GNG and/or the notability criteria for their particular sport still provides an opportunity to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• What about winning a medal in a demonstration sport? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Youth Olympic Games are controlled by the International Olympic Committee and done the same way as the Olympics, the only difference is the age requirements. Skilled athletes from around the world earn their way there, and get ample media coverage worldwide. So shouldn't competing in this make them notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? Dream Focus 07:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the media coverage of the youth Olympics can really be called ample. I'm a big sports fan and I wouldn't be able to tell you when or where they were held. I think that the youth Olympics should be included with point 4 of the athletics guideline which covers the other major youth events - win a medal (I think gold only is too limiting and that should be changed) and you are probably notable. The-Pope (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that limiting it to gold only is too restrictive. If you win an Olympic medal (even if it is a youth Olympic medal) that's a pretty big deal and will be covered by media somewhere. And without getting into WP:CRYSTAL arguments, a youth athlete who wins a youth Olympic medal will likely become a pretty major senior athlete at some point. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• As far as news coverage, Google news gives 1500 results for "Youth Olympic", and Google news archive gives 9,510 results. [25] The athletes get national coverage in their own nations when qualifying, and international coverage once competing. Dream Focus 14:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I can tell you in Canada atleast I bet most people don't even know the Youth Olympics exist, I know I certainly have never once seen a news article about it. Only reason I vaguely knew they existed was from seeing them mentioned on Wikipedia. They definitely don't get the coverage necessary to assume its competitors are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it has to be on a sport-by-sport basis. Most gymnasts at the Youth Olympics are near the age where they would be competing in senior championships anyway, and are more likely to be notable (Viktoria Komova, and Sam Oldham, as two examples—both went from gold in 2010 to being named in this year's Olympic Games teams for their respective countries). By comparison, a Youth Olympic athlete in judo or taekwondo may not make it to the senior ranks for a few more years. I don't think it's a good idea to lump all Youth Olympic athletes together. That said, I'm in broad agreement with The-Pope that winning a medal is probably a good line to draw for notability. And (disclaimer) that's coming from someone who has created a number of articles on Youth Olympic athletes. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 13:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would jude or taekwondo not be notable, while Olympic boxing is? I always found the bobsledding things rather ridiculous. The Olympics have archery. [26] I think anything the International Olympic committee approves as a sport, for either the Olympics or Youth Olympics should be considered the same. Dream Focus 14:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think competing at the Junior Olympics is grounds for automatic notability. There's certainly nothing to indicate that was the intention when the sports notability criteria were drafted. For most sporting events, the consensus seems to be that junior events and success do not show notability. I've seen entire junior world championships deleted as non-notable in the martial arts project. I'm not saying that junior athletes can't be notable, only that they're not automatically notable for competing at the Junior Olympics (which, at least in the U.S., most sports fans aren't even aware of). Jakejr (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• In other sports age group competition doesn't confer presumed notability, why should these sports be different? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The current wording of WP:NOLYMPICS is ableist is that it presumes notability for all Olympic athletes, but only for those Paralympians that have won medals. Therefore, I suggest the following wording: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have won a medal at the Olympic Games or the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan" Well-known Olympians who have not won medals are likely to be notable under WP:GNG. G. C. Hood (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed before, and not very long ago. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 12#Discrimination against Paralympians. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• N.B. The proposed wording above would reduce presumed notability, deferring to WP:GNG for non-medalled Olympians. The previously proposed wording would have expanded presumed notability. G. C. Hood (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume that the intent of the original guideline was not to be discriminatory. Presumed notability is based on coverage in sources. As I stated in the earlier thread, "Perhaps some examples of non-medalists and their coverage would sway the naysayers."—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Haven't medalled yet (Paralympics still a while away), but we have at least two: Ni Nengah Widiasih and David Jacobs (Indonesian athlete). I must say, I consider the double standard disheartening. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion raised the possibility that coverage varies by country. In the US, I dont regularly encounter coverage of Paralympians, but maybe I'm not reading the right sources. To satisfy my concern with US coverage, I would like to see multiple reliable sources that generally would cover a Paralympian. For example, for NFL players, I can regularly expect to find coverage in hometown papers, Associated Press, ESPN, FoxSports, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Sporting News, etc. Without this general expectation of coverage, GNG would instead need to be demonstrated on a per-article basis.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Without sources, the "disheartening" part would be a reflection of the disproportionate coverage in society, not because of any discrimination by Wikipedia guidelines. Some have argued that even Olympians dont merit an SNG; not being an expert on Olympians, I'll assume that is not the case. The other option is to "right the imbalance" by getting consensus to ignore all rules for Paralympians.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to Right Great Wrongs. If the Paralympics get less coverage than the Olympics, we follow what the sources do, not attempt to "correct" it. If you think sources are shafting the Paralympians, by all means, contact them and get them to write about it more, and we'll follow suit. But in the meantime, we work with things as they are, not as we wish they were. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I agree with Seraphimblade. The point of subordinate notability criteria to the GNG is not to establish "We think this is important," but to presume that a person who fulfills one of the subordinate criteria will likely fulfill the GNG. The simple fact is that Olympians are considered and treated - in the media, and by society at large - as highly notable, and Paralympians are not, and attempting to force parity here constitutes social engineering that forms no part of Wikipedia's remit. To invoke IAR here is a singularly bad idea, which would readily and rightly be seized upon by any special interest group which feels that its potential article subjects are important enough to set aside notability and verifiability policies in their favor. Ravenswing 22:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While I suggested IAR as an alternative. I personally wouldn't support it, and it would take more than a special interest group to establish consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since the Paralympics are the highest level competition for athletes with disabilities, that would certainly imply notability. We're not talking about regional competitions, like the ASEAN ParaGames, we're talking dozens of countries from all over the world competing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Are you saying that athletes with disabilities are barred from the olympics? I understood that that was not the case, but if it is, that changes things slightly. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am unaware of any athletes with disabilities which would have qualified them for the Paralympics having competed in the Olympics since the Paralympics were established, although I do not know if there is an explicit ban. It should be noted, however, that the Paralympics includes sports especially for disabled athletes which would not make it into the Olympics, and thus the highest level for these sports is the Paralympics. (Wheelchair basketball, Goalball, etc.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no presumption that the highest level of a given sport is inherently notable. This SNG is based on the presumption of significant coverage of a sport.—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is at least one of an athlete competing in both: Oscar Pistorius, who medaled at the 2004 and 2008 Paralympics and is scheduled to compete at the 2012 Olympics. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oscar Pistorius is not the only disabled athlete to compete in the Olympics. In 2008, two disabled athletes competed - Natalie du Toit in swimming and Natalia Partyka in table tennis. Disabled athletes in the Olympics even predate the Paralympics (e.g., George Eyser) and at least one disabled athlete has won multiple Olympic gold medals (Olivér Halassy). Therefore, disabled athletes are clearly not banned from the Olympics. Further, I think this would raise question to the assertion that the Paralympics are the highest competition level for disabled athletes since disabled athletes can and do compete in the Olympics. RonSigPi (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• The Massachusetts Special Olympics is, if that is the criterion, the highest level competition for athletes with such disabilities resident in Massachusetts, but in like fashion, there is no automatic presumption that those competitors meet the GNG on that ground alone. You are, Crisco, making the common error of equating "I think this is important" with "This passes our standards for notability." Ravenswing 03:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that WP:NOLYMPICS is ableist. There is no doubt about that, since it treats paralympians as different from other olympians. WP:NOLYMPICS is ablesit not because we set out to be ableist, but because it rests upon WP:GNG and thus in turn upon the coverage that olympians recieve in reliable, independent sources (whose coverage appears to be ableist). Given that everything we do is required to be based on reliable, independent sources, we can't just ignore this requirement. What we can do is work to achieve good coverage of the paralympians within our remit and raise our profile of them, their sports and their games. For example, I aware that User:LauraHale has done excellent work with Australian paralympic biographies. I think in the short term the best approach might be an aggressive marketting approach to convert Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics participants to Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics as one games end and the others start. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• I support presuming notability only for medalling competitors in para or regular. There are plenty of non-notable competitors that never medal. Gigs (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I also support auto-notability only for athletes who medal in both paralympics or olympics. Certainly paralympics is far far less notable as a whole in tv or newspaper coverage so it at least should be medals only. But really, the standard Olympics should have the same medal auto-notability as well, even though many more athletes will actually be notable case by case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• I support keeping any Olympic athlete as notable and any Paralympic medalist as notable. As others have said above, while it may be unfortunate that Paralympic athletes do not gain the coverage of Olympic athletes, it is reality and wikipedia should be in line with reality. RonSigPi (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Ron, for the same reasons. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have not previously voiced my opinion on this subject, but I have followed this debate for some time. I support a continued presumption of notability for all Olympic athletes; however, that presumption, properly understood, is not the equivalent of an automatic grant of notability and a get-out-of-jail-free card. Such a presumption should be rebuttable in the absence of any reliable, independent coverage of the subject athlete. Many Olympic athletes are eliminated in the early qualifying rounds of the games and simply do not generate any significant news coverage; in such cases, I believe that the presumption can and should be rebutted, but many if not most participants in our AfD discussions do not understand this concept of "presumption" and mistakenly treat specific notability guidelines as absolutes. As for the Paralympians, I believe that they should continue to be subject to the general notability standards. Having followed both U.S. Olympians and Paralympians during the 2012 cycle in some depth, I can say that it is simply not the case that the average U.S. Paralympian generates anything like the media coverage that the average U.S. Olympian does, and such coverage does not merit a presumption of notability either for all Paralympians or even all Paralympic medalists. Undoubtedly, this is both "able-ist" and unfair to some world-class Paralympians, but Wikipedia notability standards accept the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. If there is a problem with the media coverage, Paralympics advocates need to take it up with the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Sports Illustrated and ESPN, not Wikipedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• At last we get to the real nub of the issue - this "standard" is based on the exceptionally low media interest in Paralympics in the United States. The rest of the world has far more respect for Paralympians than the US media - the heavy criticism of NBC and American media in general for their lack of coverage of the just past Paralympics is fairly persuasive. So please American Wikipedians, bear in mind that in other countries Paralympians are generally far better known than yours. Roger (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Roger, I'm sorry but I cannot watch South African television, nor do I read online South African newspapers with any regularity. My comment, as an accurate reflection of media coverage in the United States, does not preclude you or any other Wikipedia editor from demonstrating the extensive South African coverage of the Paralympics in independent, reliable South African sources to establish the notability of Paralympians from South Africa, the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, Vietnam or anywhere else. Whatever their many faults may be, the American media cannot be blamed for a lack of media coverage of non-American Paralympians. That blame falls on the media outlets in the countries which these athletes represent. Again, Wikipedia only reflects reality, not the world as we wish it to be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the men's athletics events made a pretty big splash in the media for the most recent Paralympics. There are lots of good articles out there. Pkeets (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1, Nor do you read the Australian, Great Britain, New Zealand, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu news. The United States is actually lags behind the rest of the world on this, though the sources almost certainly exists to prove 2012 USA Paralympians pass notability from inside the USA. (Though maybe not, as they only really seem to promote Visa and Coke sponsors athletes, and veterans.) The rest of the world can, and does, take care of itself with out the USA media needing to report on it. --LauraHale (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@LauraHale. Excellent. Then let's stop kvetching about the disparity in SNG standards between Olympians and Paralympians, and start adding these available sources from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, etc., as footnotes to the existing Paralympian articles, as well as those new ones that can be created based on the available sources. Your comment seems to suggest that there is some sort of unwritten rule whereby Wikipedia editors may only use American sources for Paralympian articles. Wikipedia is an international English language project; if you have the sources, then please use them. Every Wikipedia sports biographical article – whether Olympian or Paralympian or otherwise – should be well-sourced with independent, reliable sources. Really, sometimes I think these SNG standards are more trouble than they're worth. Too often they become the camel's nose under the tent for a whole raft of less-than-objectively-encyclopedic sports biographies that kinda sorta satisfy the particular SNG, thus calling the whole presumption of notability under the SNG into question. IMHO, too often the Wikipedia notability standards have been manipulated to the point where they are no longer objective, but are more often subjectively malleable and easily manipulated by the most sympathetic editors from a particular sports WikiProject. You've done good work, Laura, but too many editors are ready to create eternal stubs, scream for sympathetic treatment under the particular SNG, and then do absolutely nothing to build the articles in controversy with even the most readily available sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And beyond that, how about someone prove the assertion that Paralympics coverage in these other nations are so much more on a par with Olympics coverage there? Hm. A straight, unscientific look at hits for "Olympics 2012" on the Australian Google? 38,000 hits. [27] For "Paralympics 2012?" 13,000. [28]. On the South African Google News from solely South African sites? 7,400 vs. 4,000, and that's with a fellow named Pistorius who might have had some local impact. On the New Zealand Google? 11,000 Olympics, 2,400 Paralympics. Google News UK? 130,000 vs. 56,000.

Hrm. Do we read the news media from the Solomon Islands or Fiji? I do not, but I rather doubt Ms. Hale does either. Ravenswing 01:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Ravenswing , Your doubts would be wrong. I do read Pacific Island news. I had a chance to interview the Chef de Missions from the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa. The Fijian who won a medal had a national parade and a house was acquired for him after winning a medal. I talked to the press attache from the Solomons, and they had mentions of their athletes several times in the newspaper. The Google News search result VOLUME does support the argument, as it was not being put forth that athletes were as notable as Olympians, but that they were likely to be notable for having competed. There is a difference. You're drawing a false equivalence, and making assumptions that are untrue.--LauraHale (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I said nothing about reading news about the Pacific islands ... I said that I doubted you read news media from them as a matter of course. Now if you can claim to have issues of the Solomon Star News or the Fiji Times at your dinner table, that's another thing, but hearsay conversations with natives of those nations don't constitute evidence that media coverage of the Paralympics in those nations is on a par with that of the Olympics, as you assert. (Even if those conversations touched on that very issue, which I likewise wouldn't find a credible assertion.) And as it happens, if you do a search of those two newspapers' websites? Fiji's relative success at the Paralympics notwithstanding, the ratio of the Fiji Times coverage runs 6:1 in favor of the Olympics.

Once again, if you have any actual data refuting this, feel free to present it, but you'll have to do better than a mere "Well, you're wrong." Ravenswing 06:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)