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.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability is supposed to contain a broader definition of notability related to figure skating, while the summary in this article covers only the most important bullet points. However, when an inconsistency between two articles is found, what kind of action should be executed? The two articles are watched by two different groups of editors and the criteria for one article would not be same as the other one, so it would not be easy to reach a consensus within a short duration. It would be helpful if there was a precedence for similar situations or explanations on the procedure. Seameetsmountain (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Seameetsmountain: We have adopted several NSPORTS specific notability guidelines (SNGs) in the last year or two which are over-inclusive. Adding new SNGs is not simply a matter of a particular sports WikiProject saying, "oh, we would like to expand the notability guidelines applicable to our sport." All SNGs should satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG at a 90 to 95% or greater rate, and all proposed changes are subject to approval on the NSPORTS talk page and by the Wikipedia community at large. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: I see. Does that mean modifying the notability guidelines should be proceed in a two-step process? For example,

• An idea is suggested on the talk page of a particular sports WikiProject and a consensus is obtained.
• Then the item is posted on the talk page of "Notability (sports)" and should be waiting for a second consensus.

Seameetsmountain (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Generally, yes, Seameetsmountain. You could skip the first step and take it straight to NSPORTS, but usually it is good thing to get a solid majority of the active WikiProject members in agreement before bringing it to the NSPORTS talk page. That said, I have specific concerns about the following:

1. "A coach or choreographer who has worked with many notable skaters, including at least one Olympic medalist or senior World Champion . . ." There are going to be a sizable percentage of coaches and choreographers who satisfy the criteria who are not going to satisfy GNG.
2. "Judges or other officials who have been involved in judging scandals." Most judges and other lower and mid-level skating officials are unlikely to satisfy GNG, although those involved in major scandals would be more likely to do so. International sports organization chief executives from the modern era are almost certainly notable, e.g., Seb Coe, Dick Pound, Juan Antonio Samaranch, etc.
3. "Professional skaters who meet the criteria for notability as entertainers." I would simply reference and link to the SNG for entertainers.
4. "Individual members of the World Figure Skating Hall of Fame, or a major national figure skating hall of fame, such as the U.S. Figure Skating Hall of Fame." First, I note the removal of the word "major" as a qualifier from "national figure skating hall of fame" -- I think that's a mistake. There's a big difference between probable notability of members of the Canadian and U.S. halls of fame, and, say, the Lichteinstein, Monaco or even Spanish halls of fame. I would kind of like to see a list of which national halls of fame you would like to include; I assume that there is an international skating hall of fame, and I would be much more comfortable with that as a criterion.
5. "Other individuals who have made significant contributions to the development of figure skating as sport or entertainment, other than as competitors, whose accomplishments are verifiable by multiple reliable sources." I think it would be simpler to reference GNG as the standard for this subcategory and as a general catch-all.

Please note that GNG is supposed to back-stop all of our specific notability guidelines (SNGs); the idea being that a strict interpretation of an SNG should yield the same result as full notability analysis under GNG with a 90 to 95% or greater level of confidence. Satisfying GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Please note that each of the elements of GNG is a term of art with a specific meaning and a lot of history.

"Significant coverage" means non-trivial, non-routine coverage of the subject per WP:ROUTINE and other exclusionary guidelines. "Multiple sources" two or more sources with significant coverage, but excluding multiple articles, etc., in the same publication; e.g., ten articles with significant coverage in the same newspaper count as a single source. "Independent sources" means those sources that are unaffiliated with the subject; this obviously excludes the subject, but is properly interpreted to exclude press releases, record books, publications, websites, etc., of organizations with which the subject is affiliated -- national sports leagues, associations and governing bodies (e.g., USOC, USAG, USA Track & Field, MLB, MLS, NBA, NFL, NHL, etc.), and international sports federations and governing bodies (e.g., IOC, FIBA, FIFA, FINA, IAAF, ISU, etc.), sports teams and clubs, college sports associations and conferences (e.g., NCAA, NAIA, Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC, etc.), university sports programs (e.g., "Ohio State Buckeyes," etc.), alumni associations, and so on. "Reliable sources" usually means sources that exercise a measure of professional editorial control and have a reputation for accuracy, e.g., professional newspapers, news magazines, sports media, etc. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Thanks for the long explanation. I am planning to add an entry at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Figure Skating", explaining what has been going on this side.

One more note: There had been two edits done by me on NSPORTS. I noticed that you've reverted the second edit, but not the first one. Concerning the first one, there are two major differences between the original and the modified version. One is about senior level winners of the national championships, and the other is about ISU Junior Grand Prix winners or ISU Junior Grand Prix Final participants. The rest of the modifications are minor wording changes or clarifications. If you prefer, you can revert the first edit also.

I will add the corresponding request concerning the first edit on this talk page sooner or later. The discussion items related to the second edit are many, so it will take longer time on that part. Seameetsmountain (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• I endorse Dirtlawyer's comments. At this point, for any expansion of any NSPORTS criteria to cover people who weren't previously covered, I want to see what evidence the proposer has compiled to show that there are a lot of figures who would be covered by the expansion who would meet the GNG. The judging scandals bit, for one: even for a major judging scandal, I've noted that individuals are named in articles, but seldom receive "significant coverage" which discuss them in detail ... it's the same as the fleeting mention of athletes' names explicitly debarred as routine match coverage. Ravenswing 19:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think the actual problem here is that the page being referred to was replaced by this page in 2010 and was not updated to reflect the changes that happened at that time or was not marked historical to indicate that these were the new guidelines. I think Seameetsmountain was just unaware that that page had long ago become obsolete and was only a draft document to begin with (as mentioned in the first line of that page). I have since marked it historical to avoid any future confusion, editors in that wikiproject can also update it to these guidelines if they would rather that than the historical tag. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I see, so the two projects got diverged in 2010. With the notability guidelines of WP:NSPORTS, I expect a dozen pages on ISU Junior Grand Prix medalists should be removed. - Seameetsmountain - Seameetsmountain (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. Unfortunately it seems that many figure skaters could get deleted, as mentioned above. Nevertheless, I think it needs to be taken into consideration that figure skating gets very little media coverage (as do most sports with a mainly female audience) so it's much more difficult to demonstrate a skater's notability than for example, a baseball player. Hergilei (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well that is sort of how notability works, if they don't get media coverage, or written about in books etc then they aren't notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand. What I meant was that there's a media bias against female-oriented sports which then puts them at a disadvantage on Wiki. Hergilei (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd disagree here. Figure skating is a highly notable, media-soaked endeavor, and the women get a great deal more coverage than the men do. It just isn't a sport where the 27th place finisher at nationals is going to get significant coverage. Ravenswing 16:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at the sports sections of news sites. Figure skating is generally hidden away while sports more appealing to men get their own sections and considerably more media attention. While it seems to be true that female skaters get more attention than male skaters, the sport as a whole gets relatively little media coverage because most men don't find it interesting. The gender bias in the media then gets reflected here on Wiki because it's a lot easier to find news sources on sports preferred by men. Hergilei (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hergilei: The concept of "notability" for determining whether a subject is suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article is based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. It's not our job to determine whether some sports get more coverage than others, or whether such coverage is "fair"; notability is based on coverage. I suggest you review the general notability guidelines at WP:GNG before commenting further on proposed revisions to the specific notability guideline for figure skating. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a drive-by comment: the NSPORTS guidelines are not ever intended to supersede GNG, rather they are a guide to what helps establish GNG; basically it provides a way to not have to explain 10,000 times that, for example, the Foo Championships are a major big deal and hence a win helps establish notability. Also, for a sport that doesn't get the 24/7/365 coverage seen in major sports, the press for that particular sport can help establish notability in the field, you don't have to use Sports Illustrated or ESPN; I mean, the Canadian national champion of Curling probably could met GNG... just as an example. Montanabw^(talk) 09:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of WP:ATHLETE states:

"This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below".

That statement is contradictory. In the first sentence, you are saying that WP:ATHLETE exists to help determine if the subject meets GNG. In the next sentence, you are saying that the subject must meet either the GNG or the SSC. It would be illogical to have a GNG if certain people who merely satisfy an SSC at its lowest level can thereby bypass GNG, so I would assume the first sentence is correct and that WP:ATHLETE is intended to provide evidence, not to be an alternative determining factor as the second sentence literally states.

I propose amendment of the opening paragraph to read:

"This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the sport specific criteria set forth below in order to assist evaluation".

If there is no opposition to my proposal within the next seven days, or if there is a consensus in favour, I will assume it is agreed and make the change accordingly next Sunday. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the discussion above this, with reference to figure skaters, is directly relevant to this. I'm not sure that the problem is per se with WP:ATHLETE (or with WP:SPORTCRIT) but the issue may well be with at least some of the sport specific criteria - as I think is suggested by the discussion above. Having said that at least your proposal is unambiguous. The FAQ at the top of this page, however, adds a lot of context to the sport specific criteria and I would think this proposal would directly contradict that. I might suggest that a little longer than 7 days at the time of year might be helpful by the way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Right now the wording makes no sense at all. An article exist if the person meets the general notability guideline or a subject specific guideline. You don't have to do both, never have, and never will. Dream Focus 13:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment- the confusion arises because people are mistaking a necessary condition for a sufficient condition. An article, at the very least, needs to show that it meets the GNG or the SNG commentaries on it, but just barely meeting some SNG does not guarantee an article. To win the lotto I need to buy a ticket, but buying a ticket does not automatically make me a millionaire. This is an important point to keep in mind, especially since Wikiprojects tend to craft SNGs that most non-enthusiasts would regard as unreasonably lenient. Reyk _YO! 13:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent change; very clear, and consistent with everything else on the page. StAnselm (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, we probably should further clarify the relationship of the NSPORTS specific notability guidelines with the general notability guidelines, but I'm not entirely sure this is it -- especially if this is intended to do what DreamFocus suggests above. I believe that GNG should and does backstop all SNGs, and that SNGs properly understood and interpreted are, in effect, a short cut for establishing that a given subject, based on past experience with the SNG's criteria, are highly likely to satisfy GNG (90 or 95%+). Given the far-reaching implications of the needed clarification, discussion should be open for no fewer than 30 days, and I would vehemently oppose any attempt to close this on the 7-day schedule proposed above. We need a lot more input from many more experienced editors, with a very firm understanding of what is intended, before I will support any such change. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1. I've seen discussions open on these pages before which go nowhere and perhaps attract at most a single comment. I agree a longer period should be allowed so I've altered my proposed limit above from one week to the end of January. I entirely agree with DreamFocus, but the problem is that the guidelines lack consistency and are open to different interpretation. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

But this is a very conservative change - it merely brings the errant sentence in line with everything else on this page. In fact, this is almost the sort of change that editors could boldly do by themselves. I also would be opposed to a radical new direction being adopted in these circumstances, but that is not the case here. StAnselm (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but I see TWO different interpretations of the same proposed change above. Moreover, today is December 20: no major change should be made between now and January 1. By all means start the discussion, but please state unequivocally what the change is intended to accomplish in practical terms. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I've said above, I will not make a change until the end of January. The purpose of the proposed change is to stop the sort of confusion that has arisen in AfD about whether meeting an SNG such as NCRIC is sufficient in itself to determine notability or whether both SNG and GNG must be satisfied. The message I'm getting from this discussion so far is that SNG on its own is sufficient. We have an AfD about a Sri Lankan cricketer who just meets NCRIC because he played in a single first-class match in 1991, but very little is known about him and we have just two sources which are independent, definitely reliable and widely used in WP. There is an argument that the SNG is not enough and that he fails GNG so the article (a two-paragraph stub) should be deleted. Against that, the arguemnt for keeping the article is that he satisfies NCRIC and, thereby, WP:ATHLETE so GNG is superfluous. As it happens, I support the article and StAnselm is one of those opposed to it, but it seems we are in agreement here about the need to establish what WP:ATHLETE and WP:N should be saying. Is an SSC like NCRIC on its own enough to confirm notability or does GNG override it. Do we have an either... or... determination or do we have SSC as evidence to help evaluate GNG? Jack | ^{talk page} 15:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's be honest: the problem you mention above regarding NCRIC is that there are significant percentages of cricketers who fit the criteria of NCRIC who cannot satisfy a critical analysis under GNG because there is no significant coverage in independent sources of the particular players. And NCRIC is not alone in this, the same could be said for American baseball players, American football players, and others; many of our sports editors are in complete denial about this, and that is why they fight so damn hard to maintain that the NSPORTS criteria are "independent" of GNG. Frankly, this thing went off the rails a long time ago when we permitted individual sports WikiProjects to effectively adopt their own SNGs whose criteria granted a presumption of notability to significant percentages of athletes who do not have the sort of significant coverage contemplated by GNG. Even more so when we recognize that many AfD discussions have been relying on contemporary newspapers accounts of then-current events, which should be treated as primary sources, not secondary sources. At this point, large numbers of articles are involved, and we have a situation that may be politically unresolvable as concerned sports editors do not want to risk their articles being deleted under revised SNGs that come closer to the GNG criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that editors for Major League Baseball players are in denial regarding if MLB players can meet the general notability guideline. As can be seen from a discussion above, there are those who think the guidance is stricter than required, given the coverage that minor league baseball players receive. In all the discussions I've seen, consensus has always been that the general notability guideline must eventually be met for baseball players. isaacl (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Any time you want to put that to the test for a half dozen one-game wonders who played major league baseball in the mid to late 1800s or NFL football in the early 1920s, I will be happy to provide the list of test cases for whom no significant coverage exists in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources and for whom the only means of verifying their existence as sports figures is either Baseball-Reference.com, NFL.com, Pro-Football-Reference.com, or a similar entry in another stats website or sports almanac. There are plenty of American pro athletes in major league sports who have articles who will never satisfy the GNG criteria. And I suspect you know this already. I might also add that sports editors routinely ignore the requirement that reliable sources should be secondary sources, too, meaning that much of contemporary newspaper sports coverage are primary sources, and should not be used for purposes of establishing. For future discussion purposes you others may want to review WP:SECONDARY and the surrounding sections. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

For better or worse, I can't determine who shows up to an article for deletion discussion. Nor can I alter English Wikipedia's current consensus on being very liberal regarding allowing for time to uncover appropriate sources. (On a side note, I am well familiar with the guidance on secondary, non-routine, independent, and reliable coverage; I've written out explanations of these more often than I can count.) isaacl (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Isaac, but my point that many baseball editors believe that the "one game" notability rule is sacrosanct and inviolable and not subject to further scrutiny is accurate, even for some of our more sophisticated and knowledgeable AfD participants. In the modern media era, this is usually not a problem because of the depth of coverage of high minor league players, but there are plenty of "major league" one-game wonders from the sport's early years who cannot and will never satisfy GNG. And that was my point about which many sports editors are "in denial" -- and that includes American football players and most other categories of athletes too. The "one-game rule" is and always has been over-inclusive, and should remain explicitly subordinate to the GNG criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Weak support It would be good to have a wording that makes the relationship between the GNG and SNGs (as noted above by Dirtlawyer) clearer, and in particular makes it clear that DreamFocus's interpretation is completely off. (We do already have the FAQ to do this, but it's hidden away here on the talk page.) I'm not sure how well this new wording does that job, but it is better than the existing wording.

I do not see this proposal as contradicting the FAQ like Blue Square Thing suggested; quite the opposite. The problem with the current wording is that it has given some editors the impression that an article has to meet the GNG or the SNG, and by extension that meeting the SNG is sufficient even if GNG is not met (which does contradict the FAQ). The new wording would make that particular misinterpretation less likely while carrying the same intended meaning as the old wording.

As I read it, this proposal is not intended to change the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs at all, only to change the wording used to explain that relationship. Thus, it shouldn't have any very far-reaching implications. Sideways713 (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• You might well be right. But given the context that this has come from I'm less sure. As the proposal reads I **think** it suggests that if a source can be found to say that an individual once played a sport at an appropriate level - even if that individual is only documented on, say, a scorecard or programme and no other details are known about them - then they will automatically become notable. The key, to me, is the second sentence of the proposal:

The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the sport specific criteria set forth below in order to assist evaluation.

If that's read in the way in which I think you intend then I'm OK with it - and perhaps I simply need "assist evaluation" clarified; if it's read in such as way as to do simply identify an individual as having existed then I'm less happy. Perhaps I'm wrong with my interpretation, but it would concern me given the context under discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination). Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm familiar with the context, and I'm concerned about it as well; that's why I only weakly supported, worrying that the new wording is still too open to misinterpretations. But to my eyes the new wording is less open to the bad reading than the old wording – even if that wasn't what Jack intended. Sideways713 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Because "evaluate" is mentioned previously in the paragraph, it must mean that a reliable source is required to determine whether the subject is likely to meet GNG. StAnselm (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose. A similar "mixed messages" poll has also been posted for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability. This poll should be consolidated at one place. It's fine to transclude it to both talk pages, but the discussion should be consolidated. Cbl62 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There are two different discussions because there are two different pages, each with different wording. It is conceivable that there is consensus to change one wording but not the other; there is nothing wrong with that. StAnselm (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability is about the relationship of GNG and subject-specific guidelines in general, not just NSPORT. The discussion here is specifically about the relationship of GNG and NSPORT and should not be consolidated with the other one. Sideways713 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the FAQ, it is included within the page as well as the talk page. The proposed wording appears to make the subject-specific notability guidelines on this page mandatory, when they are not. I suggest dropping the sentence currently in bold in the first paragraph, as it does not provide any additional guidance on top of what is already stated in the lead section. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I could support that. Sideways713 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the original proposal This change fails to understand the guideline which is not just an application of GNG, but also an application of NRVE. In order to understand this, you have to read the answer to the second FAQ which says: "For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics." So a sports person doesn't have to satisfy GNG, they just have to be likely to. That said, I would support modifying this guideline in such a way that it is clear that a (dead) sports person, to whom BLP does not apply, is notable if they satisfy the criteria in this guideline, even if it is beyond doubt that they do not satisfy GNG. In fact, I would strongly urge this change. It should also be modified to indicate that a sports person can be notable for satisfying a different SNG, such as BASIC, which is technically independent of GNG. James500 (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• @James500: Have you ever actually read WP:NSPORTS before today? I was unaware that you edit sports articles with any frequency. WP:NPSPORTS specifically refers to the general notability guidelines more than a dozen times throughout the guideline, including TWICE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. Oops. Oh, and for the record, WP:NRVE is part of WP:GNG, not a separate notability guideline. Oops again. Of course establishing notability requires verification by reliable sources; that does not mean NRVE is a separate way to establish notability. Oops. Strike three. I strongly urge you to read more, listen at least sometime to other editors, and do your homework first. Many of your comments here and at WT:GNG are factually incorrect or based upon false assumptions -- like your comment immediately above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• That is nonsense. I have read NSPORTS many times before today. Whether I have edited sports related articles with any frequency in the past is irrelevant under WP:OWN. The number of times NSPORTS mentions GNG is not relevant in of itself. NRVE is not part of GNG, it is a separate part of N. NRVE does in practice offer an alternative route to inclusion (if suitable offline sources are likely to exist, per NRVE's inclusion criteria, it may be completely impossible to prove that they don't, even if, unknown to us, that is actually the case, which will result in continued inclusion). I might be more familiar with N than you. I have not said anything that is factually inaccurate or made any false assumptions. And let's not personalise this. James500 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Clueless response on virtually all counts. Your comments include many opinions, but demonstrate little command of the policies and guidelines at issue. I see no need to repeat myself in response; my comment @ 1:57 stands as written. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• No, sir, you are confusing the guidelines with your preferred interpretation of them. As if your preferred interpretation was the only one possible, which it isn't. James500 (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• As the primary author of the FAQ, it makes it clear through multiple references to past discussions that the consensus view of the participants on this talk page is that the subject-specific notability guidelines on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. The case I described regarding special circumstances about persons for which no coverage is extant was intended to cover rare situations from the distant past and is deliberately worded conditionally with "may" as the operative verb. However if it causes confusion, the case can be removed. Every single discussion I tracked down on this subject concluded with a consensus that the general notability guideline must eventually be met, with respect to the sports-related guidelines on this page. isaacl (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• If that is the talk page consensus, the guideline does not communicate it clearly. That said, since "the general notability guideline must eventually be met" (and I presume "met" means "proved to be met") would be at variance with the normal position under NRVE, I personally oppose that, as I don't think a deadline is desirable in view of the very large number of undigitised offline sources that exist, the difficulty of searching them, and the difficulty of verifying that others who claim to have searched have actually done so, and the fact that any deadline must be an arbitrary one. James500 (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The FAQ already discusses the open-ended nature of a reasonable time to uncover appropriate sources. isaacl (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: I do think the intro paragraph could be a little clearer, but we need to convey that a) NSPORTS does not supercede GNG, but rather b) These guidelines help people determine what conditions within a sport are widely viewed as notable... for example, let's take NRODEO; most people wouldn't know that the NIRA is the college rodeo equivalent of NCAA for basketball. I view this page as a guide to know what's significant in a sporting event and what's not... JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 08:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The FAQ covers this as this very sentence has been discussed to death a million times. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this back-and-forth [1], regarding one editors attempt to incorporate WikiProject Rugby Union's project-level "notability" standards into this page. No existing NSPORTS specific notability guidelines (SNGs) should be modified, or new ones added, without being discussed, vetted and formally adopted on this talk page. Any number of the various WikiProjects' project-level "notability" standards are over-inclusive, in that the project-level notability criteria does not correspond to the same results as a critical analysis under the criteria of the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) for 90 or 95%+ of the included subjects. My personal AfD experience in dealing WP:Rugby Union's project-level "guidelines" leads me to believe they do not meet that standard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:PGBOLD, I have no problem with the bold addition of new SNG criteria that are more inclusive than existing criteria, provided that it is understood that once bold changes have been reverted they must not be restored without discussion, except where WP:SNOW, or some other valid exception, applies. James500 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• The whole notion of devolving the creation of sports-specific criteria to the individual WikiProjects was based on the (accurate) premise that -- for example -- rugby fans knew a great deal more about what's notable in rugby than the rest of us do. None of the rest of us had to get a "Mother may I?" from other editors to do so. Now anything posted to this page gets to be torn apart by everyone else, as usual on Wikipedia, but I see no reason to block new guidelines which enjoy the consensus of a sport's project. If you think that an individual SNG is too loose, then that's a separate issue, and one that ought to be raised here for discussion. Ravenswing 20:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Ravenswing: If 25 or 30% or more of athletes included under your favorite NSPORTS SNG fail the GNG criteria, then, yes, we should be discussing those existing SNG criteria, too. The days of two or three WikiProject editors inserting a new SNG for their favorite sport without critical review have passed. From practical experience over the past five or six years of AfDs, it has become increasingly apparent that several of our existing NSPORTS SNGs are over-inclusive, and the proprietary resistance of vested editors to revisit, revise and tighten those SNGs has made adjustments almost impossible -- thus making increased scrutiny of proposed new SNGs or proposed modifications of existing SNGs inevitable. No one to blame but ourselves. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest that editors rejecting proposed changes to a SNG is less a sign that the system is somehow broken than that they disagree with the proposed changes. As far as it being impossible to tighten the guidelines, nonsense; the hockey guidelines, for one, have been tightened a good bit over the last couple years. Ravenswing 06:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yup the hockey ones for example are tightened every few years as someone finds a "hole" that they try to exploit. At which point the people knowledgeable in the sport come together again and tighten the guidelines. The whole idea of this page was that the knowledgeable editors in the various sports could create their idea of what is likely to meet the GNG and put it on this page. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them, they will be torn apart like anything else. But we certainly don't prevent them from being bold and adding them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I changed that part (diff, giving reasons for removal in the summary. It was reverted quickly because it had not been discussed, but 'no arguments were made against the removal. (diff). The material removed was based on a term that is not strictly defined(Major cricket) and was possibly too inclusive, as many players with few first-class cricket matches have likely no coverage beyond some statistics databases (and those usually do not constitute significant coverage) .--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you point to where you've discussed this with the cricket project? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I am discussing this right here, where it belongs, and members of the cricket project can partipiciate in this discussion. Where is the problem?--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said there was a problem, but the assumption of you making such a change would mean you've already discussed it at length with those concerned. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

In my addition, I included a mention and a link of WP:BOLD to indicate that I did not partipiciate in any previous discussions, and I never intended to re-revert if I would be reverted(that was someone else). This discussion, however, should be continued on my talk page if you have further comments regarding my behaviour in editing this page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse change. The current version promotes the creation of articles based entirely on bare statistical entries. As demonstrated in a recent AfD, there is a problem with stats sites getting the identity of obscure players wrong. They can occasionally conflate two players with similar names, or divide someone who's played for multiple teams into two apparently distinct people. This means problems regarding our verifiability and biographies of living people policies. I think any notability guideline for cricketers should demand at least some prose in the sources, so that we can have some confidence of getting the player's identity right. Reyk _YO! 14:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cricket notability has been discussed many times at the Cricket Project over the past 10 years and more to my knowledge, with widespread participation and many differing views. For editors who have never before seen fit to participate in those discussions to seek to alter the whole basis of the project without informing the project on the project talk page seems to me to be highly discourteous. Johnlp (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not sure sparing the feelings of a wikiproject's participants is reason to avoid concerns over Wikipedia-wide policies like WP:V and WP:BLP. After all, the Cricket wikiproject does not own this disputed guideline. Reyk _YO! 14:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)WP:CANVASS forbids me sending alert messages to groups that I think to have a predetermined opinion on this matter. This edit indicated that this might be the case.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  In addition, there has been not a single argument directed against this change directly at all.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  I'm talking about common courtesy here, another policy that I thought was meant to be Wikipedia-wide. Johnlp (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  Hang on here, Müdigkeit -- are you seriously suggesting that you declined to notify the cricket WikiProject that you were unilaterally changing cricket notability criteria due to fears of a CANVASS violation?? At the most charitable, that's a profound misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS. As far as arguments directed against the change, you made that first change just eight hours ago during the holiday season. Is there some deadline for comments of which we should be made aware? Ravenswing 15:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  No, there is no deadline. However, I would have expected arguments right at the time of the revert, because reverts should normally be followed by reasons beyond "no discussion"(which is no argument against a change at all, per WP:BOLD.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Leaving aside the sheer highhandedness of unilateral changes to notability criteria because you're not enthused by the result of a contentious AfD -- behavior I hope and trust won't be repeated -- cricket is hardly the only sport on the NSPORTS list where notability is considerably more complex than can be expressed in an NSPORTS soundbite (as witness the lengthy exposition at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket#Notability_criteria_guideline_for_article_inclusion), and something better understood by those knowledgeable in the sport than the average drive-by editor. I agree with Reyk that notability criteria is generally too loose for sports figures, and that lacking substantive biographical information beyond a player having played a single match in 1854 should mean that an article cannot be sustained. It does not therefore follow that the cricket WikiProject cannot be trusted to have a voice in cricket notability criteria, and I'm startled at the implication that an editor who apparently knows nothing about cricket believes himself better equipped to set notability criteria for the sport than those who do. Ravenswing 14:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  What of these changes I made do you not want and why? I am open to discussion, and if you think that the criteria should be changed, but not in the way I did, please make your suggestions.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What I think is that you should head on over to the WP:CRIN talk page and open a dialogue there with what portions of their commentary you disagree and how you think they ought to be changed. So far, it doesn't appear that you've attempted to do so, and given that you haven't made a single constructive articlespace edit in cricket-related articles to date, I'd be ready in your shoes to defend your qualifications to do so. (I admit concern that in all that time you have fewer than 300 edits to articlespace, the great majority of which is tagging of articles you've AfDed.) Ravenswing 16:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The cricket notability guidelines, surely, should not be the "whole basis" of WikiProject Cricket; if they are, then that basis badly needs altering. The cricket notability guidelines, like all sport-specific guidelines, should reflect the general, Wikipedia-wide basis (WP:GNG) and not try to create a new one.

Going back to 1697 (the starting year of the existing guideline) and looking at the article on cricket's early history, one match from that year is mentioned; it doesn't seem to even be known which teams played in that match, so the notability of the individual players on those teams (or the umpire) based on their appearance in that match seems very dubious to me.

That said, while WikiProject Cricket editors don't own the cricket notability guideline, they are undoubtedly better placed than most others here (and certainly better placed than me) to estimate what is likely to make a cricket figure meet GNG. Sideways713 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I am going to echo Sideways here. It is not about ownership. We should be wiser to defer to people who are experts in a particular field. To go against commonly held opinions (as expressed over a decade) goes against wikipedia principle. and would need some overwhelming rationale to overturn it. Trackinfo (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry. Not the "whole basis", indeed. But a fairly fundamental part of the project, and one that has been endlessly discussed on its talk page over the years. Johnlp (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC).

Sideways713The reason for using 1697 as the startpoint is that the match in question is clearly not village cricket (i.e., minor standard) and is the earliest known major or "great match" (as the report says). We know of only two players who were active at that time: one is the Duke of Richmond who was principally a patron, the other is William Bedle who probably did not play in this particular game. Research into early cricket is ongoing and information is being rediscovered. It is unlikely, given constraints on sports reporting before the 1730s, that we will discover much more about early players than we know already but the possibility exists and so we need a startpoint, based on current knowledge, for the standard of cricket necessary to meet the SNG. We know that a match which is classified as "great", "important", "major" or (the equivalent of the post-1894 official term) "first-class" was played in 1697 so that is the date we have agreed at CRIC to use in WP:CRIN which is the basis of NCRIC. If you wish to recommend a different date then by all means do so but I think you will have difficulty deciding on one that is suitable without being exclusive. Hope this helps. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This change is under inclusive. It amounts to saying that no number of such cricket matches can indicate notability, even if that number is large, since it rips out the entire criteria instead of modifying it. I am particularly not impressed by alleged counter-examples from LEDCs where languages other than English are spoken, because notability depends on the existence of sources, not on our ability to find them. I strongly oppose any attempt to use notability as a vehicle for imposing BLP sourcing requirements on dead people to whom BLP does not apply. If we had to be confident that we are not conflating two long dead people, we would not be able to have an article on Homer! So that can't be right. James500 (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The bone of contention here is the cricketer currently at AfD, not if the benchmark/sources for cricket biographies are "good" enough. All the sources are created by humans, and as such can lead to issues, errors or conflicts between reliable sources. There's no doubt the person in question did play, but do two current sources have a mis-match of info? To then say that "major cricket" can't be defined and should be removed is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And as a side note, thanks to James for linking to the article on Homer. From the second paragraph - "When he lived, as well as whether he lived at all, is unknown." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any change to NCRIC. Müdigkeit complains that no arguments were made against the removal, but his remaining 2 point criteria focuses entirely on associate/affiliate country cricketers. Almost all of whom, despite playing for their national team, actually have even less notability than most players of "major cricket" due to cricket being ignored by most people in those associate/affiliate countries. Hence we'd be left with a guideline that doesn't cover virtually every player from any of the major cricket playing countries!

In my opinion, the criteria doesn't need to be changed at all. What needs clarifying is the age-old disagreement over whether GNG trumps/outranks/overrules NSPORTS or vice versa. And we all know that views on that are generally split and entrenched. The-Pope (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would agree with that analysis - and given the entrenchment of views nothing short of an RfC is going to even come remotely close to helping - in all probability that's also a complete waste of time. But, yes, it's the interpretation of how sport specific criteria in general need to be applied which is the problem. To my mind that's simple (the FAQ at the top of the page with WP:NCRIC on it is very clear about the point you make) but I appear to be in a minority and will probably just give up bothering. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal. As it is, Major cricket is admittedly undefined. Without that, we fall to the WP:GNG absent one of the other criteria. I would support a list of particular leagues instead since "major cricket" tells us nothing at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC

• That is a completely false statement. Since the 1940s, "major cricket" is very well defined by the ICC and other controlling bodies. It is a just shorthand for first class, List A and official twenty20 games. Prior to the 1940s it is less well defined, but all games have been retrospectively allocated as either first class or not by the controlling bodies or statistical societies. The definition of major cricket should in no way be questioned. I think we have a cultural misunderstanding issue regarding the explanations on the major cricket page, between the understated British/academic way of being cautious in definitions, rather than the brash certainty which is the American way. The-Pope (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• The-Pope Could you provide some links to the ICC or other controlling bodies using and defining the term "major cricket"? For the life of me, I've never been able to find any. Harrias ^talk 07:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• I can't, because, as I explained above, and Jack did below, make cricket is a shorthand single term to cover the modern 3 types of cricket (6 including internationals) as well as the historic games that have been now considered first class. Up until now, it was a very convenient short cut that most people easily understood. The-Pope (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• The-Pope Harrias Guys, I think we ought to discuss this point over at WT:CRIC. "Major cricket" now is a loose term only as was "first-class cricket" before 1895. Using "first-class cricket" in the criterion would be strictly incorrect as it is a particular form of the sport (i.e., double innings, eleven-a-side, at least three days, etc.) and it did not exist officially before 1895. The SNG must also encompass pre-1895 cricket of what was de facto "first-class standard", historic single wicket, modern limited overs matches known statistically as List A and top-class Twenty20. It is a difficult point but the loose term major cricket does encapsulate all the requirements. I will raise a discussion at CRIC and the outcome of that may have a bearing on this one. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per James500: removing the points suggested more or less defeat the purpose of having NCRIC in the first place. The players that are covered by the points left are minor international cricketers, playing at what is generally a lower and less notable level than most domestic players. I don't like the use of "major cricket" which is a term I've never come across outside of Wikipedia, but there is no easy way to define matches otherwise, so I'm unsure what alternative could be used. Harrias ^talk 07:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Removing the key sentence means that only cricketers who have played in a ICC World Cup Qualifier or an ICC Trophy final a World Cricket League match are notable. It would mean that all other major players, including those who have taken part in Test, LOI and T20I as well as first-class and so-called List A matches, should have their articles in AfD. If there is to be a review of NCRIC with a view to preventing articles about the one game only players, discussion needs to focus on the wording of the key statement itself: "A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". The term "major cricket" is essential because "first-class cricket" is an officially defined form of the game that began in 1895 and therefore excludes all major matches before then as well as excluding limited overs and Twenty20 matches played by major teams. The term does not itself have an official definition but if you read the article carefully you will see that the sources include ECB and MCC who do use the term in a semi-official way. The problem which opponents of NCRIC have is fundamentally about the "one match" criterion. So, should it be two matches, ten matches, 857 matches or what? One match does the job because it sets the standard: this man or woman was good enough to play in a major cricket match of whatever type and so has met that standard. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, your first point is based on a false assumption that only the SNG carries weight. Even if this change happened, most articles would be safe, based on GNG. Harrias ^talk 09:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course, thanks for clarifying that. The change would, however, make a total nonsense of the SNG. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Harrias ^talk 09:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - my views on the Major cricket article are established and I see no official or even semi-official use of the term that makes it useful. For what it's worth the ICC does a pretty good job of defining Official Cricket (PDF). Given WP:NFOOTY I would think that a less ambiguous way of defining what constitutes a "major" cricket match might be worth considering and, given the ICC. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing, you're missing an important point. The ICC's Official Cricket dates from 1947 only (current version is dated 2010) when they defined "first-class cricket" globally (it already existed officially in GB from 1895). Their definition of first-class cricket includes the express ruling that it has "no retrospective effect". Therefore, there was no first-class cricket before 1895 in GB or before 1947 elsewhere. There was cricket of the same standard, of course, but it was not "first-class" because it was not officially so. Therefore, we have to rely on loose terminology within substantial sources to determine which earlier matches meet that standard. The loose terms in use in GB before 1895 included "great", "important", "major", "top-class" and "first-class". Like many other people and organisations, including ECB and MCC, we use "major cricket" as a convenient term to signify which matches including those which are officially first-class were played at the highest international or domestic standard. I suggest you join the discussion which I've launched at WT:CRIC to try and resolve this wording issue. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Suggestion. I've launched a discussion about this at WT:CRIC as input is needed from the cricket project which created WP:CRIN and, thereby, WP:NCRIC. Interestingly, the opening criterion at CRIN is worded differently to that at NCRIC although, strictly speaking, it has the same meaning. At present, CRIN begins with:

(The) following guidelines for notability of a cricket person to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia:

• has appeared in at least one cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire, played at the highest international or domestic level (for convenience referred to as a major cricket match)

Conversely, NCRIC opens with:

A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she:

1. has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire

NCRIC is missing the essential point that the match played was "at the highest international or domestic level" and does not qualify the term "major cricket" as "for convenience only". Would it help if we replace the NCRIC line with the CRIN one? Jack | ^{talk page} 12:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong venue I think this should be properly discussed at the Cricket WikiProject, not here. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Anyone interested should go to this discussion. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree that the main discussion should be held at WP:CRIC, but it's also important to recognise that there are two inter-related issues here. One is a NCRIC/CRIN definition/description of major cricket to include pre-1895 and in terms that non-cricket people can readily understand; the other is the long-standing practice that all players who have appeared in a major cricket match qualify as notable under NSPORTS. The second part of this isn't just a cricket issue: there are other sports such as baseball and football where the NSPORTS criteria similarly confer notability on individuals with limited careers and often limited information. I note that the instigator of this discussion has put Hillebrand (baseball) up for AfD: this is the baseball player I cited a couple of times in the Perera AfD as pretty analogous in terms of short career and sketchy details. The result of that AfD may bring us back here to discuss NCRIC within a broader context of NSPORTS; and in any case it's worth keeping an eye on this page in the mean time.Johnlp (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

John, I think reference to a similar case in another sport is an excellent approach. As you say, this discussion is not just about NCRIC. It impacts probably the whole of NSPORTS. Re football, the last paragraph of NCRIC is actually based on NFOOTY. I added it a few months ago after we had a plethora of u-19 players going to AfD and I thought the NFOOTY wording fitted the bill for us too. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note. With the Hillebrand AfD re NBASE now in progress and given that part of NCRIC was derived from NFOOTY, this discussion is adopting a broader scope and I think the baseball and football projects, at least, should be aware of it as it may ultimately impact their SNG definitions. I will write to those projects and invite them to take part. If anyone wishes to invite other sports projects, please do. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I believe there was a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BOLD by the editor who unilaterally changed NCRIC. For changes to an individual article, being BOLD is perfectly acceptable. For changes to notability guidelines, being BOLD is not acceptable; any changes to such guidelines require the consensus of the community and of any concerned WikiProjects. I agree that the standards of some sport-specific guidelines may not be strict enough, but NSPORT does include the caveat that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept" (emphasis original), and several articles on association football players have been deleted even though they technically met NFOOTY but had a career which spanned only a few games in a fully-professional league. There is a discussion currently ongoing at WT:CRICKET regarding the wording of NCRIC, so I will make this my last comment here unless pinged. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• Development. Despite the best efforts of Müdigkeit, who was completely unsupported, the result of the Hillebrand AfD (see comments above) was a resounding "snow keep". One interesting contribution was a reference to WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, which states: "Athletes and other sportspersons are subject to outcomes which vary according to the sport in question. In general, professional athletes in major sports are always kept, players who fail to play in top level professional leagues are often deleted. Participants in sports at a national level are more likely to be kept as notable than participants at a local level. The notability standard for athletes is Wikipedia:Notability (sports)". Meanwhile, the discussion at WT:CRIC continues and we have set a deadline of Sunday, 17 January, when we will bring a proposal back here based on a new definition for WP:CRIN. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The time limit on the discussion at WP:CRIC has been reached and a new wording has been adopted for WP:CRIN which takes into account many of the points raised above. The key sentences in this wording have been used to update WP:NCRIC. It is essential that CRIN and NCRIC are in synch. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In view of the discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Notability guidelines it appears some ambiguity exists on criterion #2 under WP:NBOX. In view of the result of that discussion, I am proposing the following change:

"Has fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title for of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF Latino, WBA Pan African, WBC International, or WBO European) or an affiliated organization of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated (NABO))"

While there was also some discussion on criterion #3 being changed, I think for now the focus should be making what is out there clear. RonSigPi (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this is much different from the existing criteria. It seems both generous and vague. Equating a U.S. or European championship with losing a Lichstenstein title bout seems wrong to me. There are so many organizations and titles that the previous criteria of world title bouts, while restrictive, was clear, precise, and a true indicator of notability. Jakejr (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It is different in that addresses regional titles of the world sanctioning body. As an example, this would put the WBO Asia Pacific title on par with the OPBF title - both are major regional titles of recognized bodies, but one is more clearly part of an affiliated organization and one is less clear. The way it is currently worded, it is not clear on what to do with the WBO Asia Pacific title, so it would eliminate vagueness. Is there a specific Lichtenstein title associated with the IBF/WBA/WBC/WBO you have concern about or was that just hyperbole to illustrate you think the guideline is too broad? To my knowledge, no such title exists and the vast majority of national titles of those bodies are the U.S. and the U.K. (it might exclusively be U.S. and U.K., but I don't want to assert something I am not 100% on). RonSigPi (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

My example was hyperbole, but my concerns are not. I looked at recent boxing discussions and found national titles being used as notability indicators for boxers from New Zealand, Australia, Poland, and probably others. Jakejr (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If the New Zealand, Australia, and Poland titles were sanctioned by IBF/WBA/WBC/WBO affiliates, then according to WP:NBOX the contenders would be considered notable. As far as I can see, New Zealand, and Poland are not, whereas Australia is a member of OPBF. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here's why some people think the standards are too loose because there are too many champions. I just went to the WBA website and they currently list 42 world champions[3]! That doesn't count any champions from their 9 regional affiliates or the many national organizations under those. If you combine that with all the different boxing organizations, I think it's easy to see that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of champions at any one time--and the criteria doesn't even require winning one of those thousands of championships! Jakejr (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Since when does a number of people notable matter? WP:NAFL can introduce a presumption of hundreds of new subjects of notability each year all for a country of only about 24 million? There are currently 14 recognized golf majors per WP:NGOLF and all someone has to do is make the cut at one of them to meet the presumption. Using your logic, about 70 make the cut so every year over a thousand of golfers meet the metric. Why does a number of fighters meeting the standard matter? What matters is if it appropriate to presume coverage exists for WP:GNG purposes. Boxing is a major and worldwide sport that receives significant coverage. You called out the WBA and their 42 champions - well those champions are from about 17 different countries. That is a pretty broad base for coverage. Also, as is clear from the guideline, its not "any champion" of regional bodies, but only the full champion. This was addressed previously regarding the actual concern of too many champions (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 19#Boxing - interim titles). The problem is that there is actual vagueness in the criterion that should be clarified. RonSigPi (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If an article for a professional is created from scratch, and they have only fought for e.g. a WBA Fedelatin, IBF Pan Pacific or WBC International title, I would say that they are not yet notable enough to warrant an article. Notability should arise only when they fight for, at minimum, an interim or WBC Silver title. Or, if they already have significant amateur credentials. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

When the WP:NBOX had its last major update, consideration was given to avoid US/UK-centric, or English language restrictive notability. Consequently, of the fifty, or so, European countries (only two with English as a national language), only the national boxing titles of those organizations affiliated to the European Boxing Union (in-turn affiliated to the World Boxing Council (WBC)) are considered notable. In the intervening 2-years, I don't believe there has been the creation of massive numbers "non-notable" boxer articles on Wikipedia. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the difficulty with boxing is the hierarchy is not as clear as in, e.g. association football (soccer) which has one (albeit corrupt) world governing body (FIFA), and one administrative body per continent (Africa, Asia, Europe, North/Central America & Caribbean, Oceania, and South America). Perhaps the relative notability of boxing titles could be indicated by identifying the world-ranking of the current holder of those boxing titles; as identified by, e.g. BoxRec, and if a title hasn't been fought for a (yet to be specified) period of time, it could be considered non-notable, unless it is considered to have historical significance. We could then be prescriptive as to those titles that are considered notable, and those that are not. The downside with this could be is it is just a snapshot, a title that is currently held by a low-ranking boxer, may have been held historically by boxers of a significantly higher ranking, or vice-versa. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to use rankings to determine which titles are notable, why not just use the rankings themselves? At one time boxers had to be either ranked in the world top 10 or have fought for a world title. That was clear and consistent. Jakejr (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Are the historic top-ten rankings readily available, e.g. who were the top-ten middleweights in October 1964? 2. Why does a boxer have to have fought for a world title, while a Mixed martial artist has only to have fought three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization? The British Boxing Board of Control is a a top-tier boxing organization, but three professional fights under its auspices does not indicate notability under WP:NBOX? I'd prefer notability indicated by some percentage of BoxRec's all-time lb-for-lb, or more than a certain number of points on BoxRec's all-time lb-for-lb. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Annual rankings are available from Ring Magazine going back many years. Pound for pound rankings are incredibly subjective so why use them? I'm not saying we must limit the rankings to the top 10, my point was that we need clear guidelines and that it's very difficult to deal with the thousands of titles that the current criteria incorporates. I agree the MMA rankings are too loose, feel free to vote to toughen them in the discussion below. Jakejr (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The Ring Magazine rankings may go back many years, but their historic rankings don't appear to be available on their website, or any other site that I can find. I'm not sure the BoxRec lb-for-lb are subjective, the higher ranked the opponent is, the more points are awarded to the winner, the more bouts taken part in the more points are accrued, at whatever weight a boxer takes part in, which is more helpful for boxers who move between weights. Every boxer is in there, so why not top-2%, or those with more than 50-points? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Boxrec has Ring's annual rankings going back to 1924.[4] Jakejr (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to the annual ratings. It's interesting that in the, e.g. The Ring Magazine's 1964 Annual Ratings ~ middleweights; №7 Hurricane Kid (Johnny Bird) from Samoa doesn't appear to have Wikipedia article, and wouldn't otherwise be notable under WP:NBOX. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The bar for notability of boxers is already set as one of the highest of any Notability criteria that I have read through. I believe it is unwise to raise it even further. --

Donniediamond (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Kickboxing requires a title match for a major organization or a top 10 ranking by a major independent source and there's an AfD going on for Robin Haley where it's being argued that twice finishing second at the U.S. judo championships is not enough to show notability, so I don't think boxing's notability criteria are terribly out of line with other martial arts.Astudent0 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Robin Haley was deleted. Jakejr (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

With respect to kickboxing, a sport I have a lot of respect for, it is an extremely niche sport in comparison to professional boxing. The notability for MMA is to have participated in just three fights sanctioned by a major organization. Again, whilst MMA is gaining in popularity it would be very difficult to argue that is anywhere near as big an international sport as boxing. We recently had the AfD for Maciej Sulęcki. I found really disappointing that it was deleted, but WP:NBOX was completely ignored. Are we really going to argue that he is less notable than someone at the UFC that has had three undercard fights? Again, it is my belief that when compared with the criteria for other sports, not just combat sports but sports like Baseball, Basketball, Curling or Cricket (who I have merely selected as they are either side of WP:BOX) the bar for professional boxers is way too high. I remember that the old criteria was that a pro boxer had just one professional fight and they got automatic notability, I am not advocating that we go back to that but I do think things have swung far far too much in the other way now.--Donniediamond (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see a clearer explanation of what titles confer notability. I don't think either the current or the proposed really is clear.Astudent0 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Maciej Sulecki, I believe he did meet the criteria for WP:NBOX №2… ' Has fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title for an affiliated organization of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g. IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated (NABO))' … as Poland is an affiliated federation of the European Boxing Union (EBU). Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My reading would be that he did not meet WP:NBOX number 2. The national titles need to be of an affiliated organization. The Polish titles are affiliates of the affiliates. For example, in ice hockey, low level minor league hockey teams would affiliate with higher level minor league teams. For example, a United Hockey League team would affiliate with an American Hockey League team. Similarly, the American Hockey League team would be an affiliate of a National Hockey League team. However, this did not necessarily mean that the UHL team was affiliated with the NHL team. Similarly, a lower title under the EBU would not be a national title of the EBU's parent organization. However, a national title of the parent organization, such as the USBA to the IBF would be. So while I think it did not, I think you are showing the need for more clarity to WP:NBOX. RonSigPi (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

All recognized national titles in Europe are EBU affiliates that includes the BBBoC, BDB, BUI, FFB etc, not just the Polish. My reading of WP:NBOX Criteria 2 is that he does pass it, and rightly so as Criteria 2. A national champion of a major boxing country is rightly notable.

I also propose that in line with the MMA criteria, boxing should have a criteria which states that if a professional boxer has had 10 pro fights (or 10 pro wins) or more then they become automatically notable. This is in line with the logic used for the majority of other sports for which the criteria is based on playing a single game of professional Curling or Cricket. --Donniediamond (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're a bit confused about other sports notability criteria. Other sports require competing at the highest level (see the basics at WP:NSPORT). That means baseball players must play in the major leagues, not just as a professional, and the same is true with other sports. Also, MMA requires competing at the highest tier--not just as a professional (which is what you're proposing for boxing). I do think the boxing criteria are remarkably loose and certainly confusing.Mdtemp (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not in the slightest confused. Just look that the criteria for WP:NCURL, WP:NHOCKEY, WP:NMMA to see the bar is much much lower for those sports. I understand that the 'two fight rule' for MMA effectively means two fights in the UFC now, but are we really saying that an MMA fighter with two untelevised fights on the preliminary card of a UFC Fight Night bill is more notable than a professional boxer who has is 20-0 and had a number of fights in the Premier Boxing Championship?? Because at the moment until a boxer has have fought for a significant title then they are pretty much locked out.

I realize the lack of structure in professional boxing makes it difficult to define the criteria for notability but I believe the bar for notability is highest for boxers than pretty much any other sport and it needs addressing and the bar to be lowered.--Donniediamond (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'll admit I find boxing titles a bit baffling. How can one organization have multiple world champions in the same division at the same time? Even if consensus says all of these lesser titles are notable, I think that the requirement should be winning the title. Other sports, like athletics, require competitors to at least be national champions. I would make an exception for boxers who lost world title bouts. I'm beginning to understand the point of view that would eliminate SNGs and rely solely on WP:GNG for notability. Papaursa (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this type of belief goes more toward pointing out the criticisms of boxing as a sport rather than notability. The common argument is "boxing has too many titles and too many weight classes, it should go back to eight classes with one title." This has been echoed for years by the UFC on why they are superior to boxing. Fair enough to anyone's opinion, but that really does not matter to notability. The determination is on notability and that is based on type of coverage. I would also admit that I am confused by your point. At first you say the requirement would be winning the title, but then say an exception would be made to those losing the title. Then why not have fighting for a world title as the standard? RonSigPi (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My point was that if lesser titles (national/regional) are deemed by consensus to confer notability, I would like to see the requirement be winning those titles. If finishing second at the U.S. track & field championships or U.S. judo championships is not considered enough to show notability, then why should losing a national title boxing match do it? The exception I made was for world titles, when I said I was willing to agree that merely fighting for one was enough to show notability. Have I clarified my position? Papaursa (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, now I think it is clear and I think your stance is very reasonable. RonSigPi (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Lets look at raw numbers. Their are 88 boxing world champions according to List of current world boxing champions that come from 24 different countries. Most world champions on average fight about twice a year. So that means each year, at best, 176 challengers would become notable under SNG if this were limited to just title fights (and that assumes all 176 fighters have never challenged before). By contrast, nation specific sports such as Australian rules football and Canadian football would only be able to produce 7 notable athletes under SNG (1/24th of 176). The numbers would be lower if we tracked all the nations of world title challengers (e.g., that include nations not already on the 24, such as Australia). This shows how strict only world title bouts would be for SNG. Add the fact that similar to tennis and athletics, boxing truly is a worldwide sport (note the 24 nations). Further, boxing is a major sport - it is in the Olympics and its superstar athletes are as notable as any other sport. One could easily say Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson are in the same breath as Pele, Michael Jordan, and Tiger Woods for notability. This is also more historical - look at comparisons of Babe Ruth, Jack Dempsey, and Red Grange. Plain and simple, without regional titles or something outside of just world title fight, boxing would be FAR tighter than other sports.

So why this all matter? This matters because in 24+ nations boxing is being covered - and covered extensively. Examples in English include sports specific sites such as ESPN and BBC Sports as well as boxing specific pages such as Boxing News and Ring Magazine (I will not go outside of English in view of WP:BIAS). That means very extensive coverage exists for fighters in the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. This coverage does not go just to world title holders, but to other fighters not fighting for world titles. For an example, just look at what some of these sites produce each day (especially the boxing specific ones).

For context, let's look at track/athletics. They allow many regional and similar competitions to count while still being "at the highest level." So a bronze medalist in the Asian Games (a regional competition) is notable, but someone who fights for a world title might not be? Also, athletics crowns multiple world champions - one in indoor, one in outdoor, a golden league champion, and an Olympic champion. How is that significantly different that four light heavyweight champions? The guy finishing 3rd in the Ottawa 10K is notable (not even an Olympic event), but a Canadian fighter that fighting on HBO that wins the NABF title would not be? I just don't see how a sport with the worldwide reach of boxing, an in turn the worldwide coverage, can be forced into such restricted SNG (or worse yet, not have any). The only reason I see is that people want to knock boxing's ills (e.g., too many titles, UFC is better, etc.) and ignore its reach and coverage. I cannot see how the community can downplay a sport with such a worldwide reach, historical and current relevance, and and clear coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)