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.

Passing either GNG or sport-specific criteria

Proposal for demotion of NSPORT

A request for comment is open regarding a proposed change to the WP:NFOOTY guideline here: RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline. Input is welcome. Hmlarson (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A simple question. All the medalists are notable? --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think in the specific case of track and field, a large majority of medalists, but not all, are notable; NTRACK #3 may apply; given a random Universiade T&F medalist I would expect them to be notable (even if they met no NTRACK criteria other than #3); but it would definitely be a rebuttable presumption, and the number of non-notable medalists would not be negligible. I would also estimate that the notability level of T&F medalists at the Universiade has stayed fairly stable over its 60-year history. I have no idea how either part of this compares to other sports. Sideways713 (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I would do a lot of research and testing assumptions before adding this to WP:NSPORT. It is highly dependent on the sport and country. For example, the USA basketball team is the Purdue University basketball team this year. They may medal, but normally the (for example) 10th-12th man for a major college team is NOT considered notable (don't generally get the press coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG). A blanket statement on notability of medalists would be a mistake in this case in my opinion - "it depends." Rikster2 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Universiade is a competition of longstanding, but there are competitions that have been around a lot longer, and every medalist from them aren't automatically notable. IMHO, if someone can demonstrate that 90%+ of these medalists are notable by virtue of medaling at the Universiade (as opposed to later fame in the Worlds, or the Olympics, or ...), that works for me. Ravenswing 14:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

And that's part of the trouble. I have actually had trouble finding coverage of Team USA's basketball team to follow them at the Universade. I have a hard time believing all medalists would be notable for these events if I can't even find basic coverage of the games in mainstream media. Rikster2 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:SPORTBASIC, a player might be notable if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. The following are major international-level tournaments organised by FIVB:

• FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship
• FIVB Volleyball Men's World Cup
• FIVB Volleyball World Grand Champions Cup
• FIVB Volleyball World League
• FIVB Volleyball World Grand Prix
• FIVB Volleyball Men's Club World Championship
• Swatch FIVB World Championships
• Swatch FIVB World Tour

Does participation in any of the above tournament count towards WP:SPORTBASIC? I'm asking this here because unlike other games the criteria for volleyball player's inclusion hasn't been explicitly mentioned on Wikipedia:Notability (sports). --Skr15081997 (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent discussion seems to indicate strong support for the principal that participants in any sport must pass WP:GNG, so seek to fulfill that criteria regardless of participation in any competition. Jack N. Stock (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Until now any volleyball player must pass WP:GNG. Discussions have started and die without consensus yet. --Osplace 17:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This does not look like it satisfies any criteria for WP:NTRACK. Although a regional championships the standard of performances is very low and certainly not on a comparison with any other regional champs. Should it be mentioned that it is an exception to the criteria? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

This was meant to be in reference to the notability of individual athletes as per NTRACK #3, not the Championships themselves. My apologies. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• If you're asking whether the competition itself is notable, perhaps it doesn't satisfy the criteria of NTRACK. But that of course is not the sole arbiter of notability. The question here is whether the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 09:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The subject, in this case Aaron Booth, does not met any NTRACK criteria except top 3 at Oceania Champs and as of 12 hours ago, 3rd in Universiade. Given that the latter is still unclear (as per thread above), whether a placing in the Oceania Champs is sufficient is crucial for notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

His 3rd place at the Universiade is a much stronger notability argument than his medal at the Oceania Champs. Booth might even be a decent test case for notability of Universiade track medalists - it's hard for anyone to medal at the Universiade with fewer previous merits than Booth, so if Booth is notable then nearly all Universiade athletics medalists will be notable. (I'm not sure if Booth does meet GNG yet, though, and the best source I could find predates both of his medals.) Sideways713 (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. AFAIK all other NZ T&F medal winners at Universiade also placed in top 8 at Comm Games and/or competed at WC or OG. Booth still needs to improve to get nominated for CG but would be extremely fortunate to make top 8 next year. I'll skip Afd and just tidy up the article, eventually. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have said this a lot of times before, while there is an interrelation, notability does not equal good. Eddie the Eagle and Eric the Eel were not good, but still notable. Considering the size of the major cities in Australia and New Zealand, and in turn the media they generate, as well as the relative affluence of some of the smaller nations such as French Polynesia, and in turn the media generated from the high literacy, I would think it's fair to assume an event such as this gains enough coverage to merit applying the event to criterion 3. It does not have to do with the standard of performance and how it compares with other regional championships, but how much coverage an event like that generates. RonSigPi (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is that Australia and New Zealand don't really take the Oceanian Championships seriously, which both causes the low standard of performances (much lower than at the Australian NCs) and means the meet only gets a fraction of the media coverage you'd expect for an area championship. Sideways713 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. The standard at this event is far below that of any other Regional Champs. The only exceptions will be athletes who are chasing qualifiers for bigger events who already satisfy other NTRACK criteria. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Fair to assume?" Arguably. Can we assume? Certainly not. Either the subject meets the GNG or it does not, and if the former, reliable sources must be produced to back that up. Ravenswing 23:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Ravenswing Don't agree, but that is a question hashed out 100,000 times with no real answer, but at least some solid guidance. I am sure you think otherwise and that is fair, but no need for everyone to go down that rabbit hole yet again. To Sideways713, your rationale is why, in my mind, it goes under criterion 3 and not 2 (i.e., requiring top 3, not top 8). To me, its not just tied into what they did in the competition, but what they did leading up (and the coverage produced in the lead-up). In the same line of thought as the guy that plays in one National Football League game - its not just the coverage from the one game, but the coverage from what is presumed to be a pretty good college/university career leading to making it to the NFL, even if for one game. Similarly, a medalist at the regional championships has had a significant career to the point we can presume notability. That is my rationale at least. RonSigPi (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• "a medalist at the regional championships has had a significant career to the point we can presume". Wrong. As stated above, at this particular regional championships the standard is considerably inferior to other regional champs. More often than the the medalists would not qualify for the Commonwealth Games, and of the few that did most would be at the bottom end of the field. Those that attended an Olympics or World Champs would do son on the basis of the entry criteria of (paraphrased) "1 athlete per country, regardless of meeting the qualifying criteria". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
• Errr ... RonSigPi, whether you "agree" or not is not at all at issue. The plain fact, whether any of us like it or not -- and I'm only now realizing that you're not arguing for the notability of these championships, but for the presumptive notability of competitors at this championships -- is notability rises and falls on the GNG, and that all the NSPORTS criteria are predicated on the high probability that an athlete that can meet one or more can satisfy the GNG. If media outlets don't take a competition seriously enough to cover it, that is not somehow an excuse to waive notability standards in the competitors' favor; the competition is just plain not notable enough to confer presumptive notability. Beyond that, the obligation of an editor who wants to keep material to produce reliable sources if challenged is likewise not optional. Ravenswing 06:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

We seem to have some confusion in the current guidelines. Sometimes it says that someone meeting the WP:NSPORT "is likely" to meet the GNG. Sometimes it says that a person is "presumed" to be notable if they meet the SSGs. To me these are completely different things. Surely much of the discussion on this page has been to the effect that GNG trumps SSG and so the use of "presumed" seems all wrong to me. I'm also not convinced about "is likely", which seems too weak. Surely something like: "is very likely" or "is almost certain" is required. Nigej (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I thinks it's a reflection that we don't blindly follow rules, so we leave wiggle room with words like "presumed" and "likely". What would you suggest? Whether it's "likely" or "very likely", we still need to deal with those occasional instances when we should delete even though the SNG is met.—Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

We are continuing to experience problems at AfD because of the GNG-NSPORT relationship. Complaints are made about the way GNG is set out in terms of its scope, purpose and wording. There are, equally, concerns about how to interpret NSPORTS and I believe many editors are being misled by the current introduction. The main problem is the first paragraph's GNG OR SSC condition (highlighted in bold) vis-à-vis the "No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline" in the FAQ. The two things are contradictory. In addition, NSPORTS has not been amended to take into account the result of the VPP discussion in which consensus was a confirmation that GNG remains the controlling guideline.

Proposal. Replace the current NSPORTS introduction with the following (note that this is a draft and, if approved in principle, is subject to review for its final wording):

This sport specific guideline (SSG) is used to help evaluate whether or not it is likely that an article about a sports person, club/team, venue or league/organisation will eventually meet the general notability guideline (GNG) and thus merit standalone inclusion in Wikipedia. The article MUST cite reliable sources showing that the subject meets either the GNG itself or, at least, the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does not yet meet the GNG criteria but does meet the relevant sport specific criteria, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to eventually satisfy the GNG criteria. Failure to meet the relevant sport specific criteria means that notability must be established by other, topic-specific, notability guidelines, if not by the GNG per se, but failure to meet the SSG criteria does NOT mean an article must be deleted, as notability by other means may eventually be established. The SSG should aid editors who are deciding whether or not to keep an article that has been raised at AfD. It is important to remember that SSG must be used in conjunction with other relevant guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS.

If anyone wants to contact me directly to ask a specific question about this, I'll be glad to help if I can. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment- I'll reiterate my opposition to articles based on purely statistical, rather than biographical, sources. If a player meets some specific sports guideline solely on the basis of having played at least one game, and nothing else, then it is probably best to present this information in a list of players. The reason is that, for some obscure players for whom only statistics are available, it is sometimes difficult to determine if it's one player or multiple similarly named people. There is also a danger in inflating stats to prose of adding things the sources don't say, which in some cases can be a BLP issue as well as obviously a WP:V issue.

And I'd just like to head off inevitable accusations of hypocrisy here. Yes, I have in the past written articles like this. It was in the course of writing them that I became aware of some of these issues, which is why I changed my opinions and don't write these kinds of stubs anymore. Reyk _YO! 08:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that but the proposed revision should resolve your problem because it would place an onus on the article creator to meet GNG within an agreed period. If an article is created which cites a reliable statistical source then it passes SSG but has not yet satisfied GNG. You may argue that it should be deleted immediately but that would go against the spirit of SSG wherein "it is likely that sufficient sources exist to eventually satisfy the GNG criteria" and the editor should be given time to find and cite those sources. For example, you recently opposed the cricketer Whitehead and, to be fair, it was a very old article and still only a stub that had not been developed with just the one statistical source inline. There were, however, three or four book sources listed in the biblio section that had not been used inline. Once they were cited, the article met GNG. I agree that there can be confusion in the sources with common names if little is known about the person in addition to the fact that he did once play in a top-class sporting event; therefore, it we place an onus on the editor to find additional sources within a reasonable timeframe, the problem can be resolved. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I am confused by the use of the word "eventually". Are we referring to whether the person (for example) will eventually be notable, or whether the article will eventually be up to standard? Also I'm not keen on specific timescales (eg 1 month), best to be vague in my view. Will depend on circumstances. Also I would get rid of "(amateur or professional)". My main issue is that we need to have some confidence that the SSGs do actually define players (or whatever) so that it is likely that that they will eventually satisfy the GNG. It is really true that someone who's played one game is notable. We need a process in which the members of sports projects review their SSGs and revise them. At the moment this is nearly impossible since some of those with no interest in the sport insist on an unrealistic amount of evidence that the SSGs are valid, when most sports projects are just struggling to keep their heads above the water. The current situation is that the SSGs are left alone when they could be improved. Nigej (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nige, it's the article that must eventually meet GNG so I've made a small amendment above to clarify that. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

And I've removed "(amateur or professional)" as requested because it is immaterial. Several of the SSGs do specify the single top-level appearance so maybe this discussion could rule that the others follow suit, unless the responsibility rests with the individual project? Jack | ^{talk page} 08:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Where we need to get to is that there are clear guidelines about SSG v GNG and then let the sports projects decide the SSG details for their sport (in good faith) without those who know nothing about the sport getting involved, unless the sports projects produce SSGs that do not follow the guidelines. Nigej (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Using eventually is a problem, because the SNG isn't used to help determine if it eventually will, its used to determine if it already does. Remember, meeting GNG and reflecting that it meets GNG on the article are two different things. -DJSasso (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A good point that I thinks been glossed over this far: the GNG applies to the article's subject, not the article itself, let alone the article's current state at any given point in time. That an article does a poor job demonstrating the subject's notability has no bearing on whether or not the subject meets the GNG. oknazevad (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• agree in principal and probably clarifies a bit better, but don't see it as being different in intent from what is there. I see the main issue being that editors take a technical pass of these guidelines and argue that the subject must be notable because they have done that. The problem with this approach, taking NFOOTBALL as an example I am familiar with, is that they take no account of actualities. The intent of that sub-guideline is that for a player to have played in a tier1 international, he must have been acheiving (or he wouldn't get selected) and therefore there is most likely coverage somewhere, and prior to the internet becoming popular this was in papers and magazines which are hard to find the information in now. But, the guideline also says if they have played in a FPL; same thing sort of applies, except more and more countries are starting FPLs and lots of teams in minor leagues have fringe players that get one or two appearances, but actually haven't had that coverage and do not pass GNG. Recent (post internet mainstreaming) players should Be easy to find info, but some are not in the case of these fringe players. The lead of NSPORTS already says an article I see ultimately supposed to meet GNG and that these guides are an aid to decide if that is likely. The intent of that is to protect pre-internet articles from summary deletion to allow time (how long?) for that information to ultimately come to light as old newspapers are gradually put online or interested parties scan archives and books etc. ClubOranje^T 08:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ClubOranje. There should be no change in intent because GNG still prevails. The main purposes of this proposal are to confirm that and to place an onus on the editor to provide the extra citations that meet GNG in addition to SSG. We need to remove ambiguity and ensure consistency between SSG and other guidelines, not least SSG's own FAQ. I like your point about pre-internet players but I think we should always seek book sources for any article. In cricket's case, its internet sources become less reliable as you travel back in time and book sources are essential for any subject prior to the 1860s. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thought that is what the proposal was getting at. Thanks for confirming. ClubOranje^T 10:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

However, we need to avoid being overly focused on traditional English-speaking countries. Doubtless there are loads of South Korean (for example) footballers, golfers, etc who meet the GNG but there is little or nothing in English about them. Nigej (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

True, per WP:BIAS ClubOranje^T 10:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I like it in principle, but let's be extra careful that we remember that WP:NODEADLINE remains a commonly accepted guiding principle of editing. In short, while an article may do a poor job of demonstrating the subject's notability, the current state of a given article should never be taken as definitive proof of a subject's notability one way or the other (which also ties into the WP:BIAS mentioned above, a very good point). oknazevad (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A fair point, Oknazevad but you must remember that WP:NODEADLINE is an essay and therefore a recommendation only. I think it is fair to agree a reasonable timespan, though I removed the given example in case that becomes problematic. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NODEADLINE & WP:BIAS which is a very crucial aspect of the wiki which while are essays is the entire point of SNGs. There is no deadline, there are always going to be articles for notable people where the sources are hard to access, we rely on volunteers. Placing a deadline completely invalidates the whole purpose of SNGs. I would also note the result of the VPP discussion held no conclusion that NSPORT wasn't already doing, so there was no amending to be done. This seems like just another attempt to try and bend NSPORTS to what someone wants to be when it the very recent discussions a couple sections up failed. -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Djsasso. I don't see anything in the current wording that suggests GNG is not the primary notability guideline still. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Neither do I. Yet recent discussions indicate some people clearly do. ClubOranje^T 11:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think its less that people think it says that, and more that they try to pretend it says that to get their way. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support as I agree the current wording leads to confusion at AfD. I believe most experienced editors who work on sports-related BLPs already interpret the SNGs in this manner (and it tends to be applied accordingly), but newer editors who read the SNG without seeing it applied in practice tend to conclude that the SNG is a bright-line that requires no attention to the GNG. I think the proposed language would clear that up. Jogurney (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the explicit text of WP:N which makes it clear that SNGs are on equal footing the the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment This is more a broader idea related to notability that I've presented there before, but a lot ties into the idea of "presumed" notability. WP:N describes the desire to have articles that are universally agreed to be this quality of "notable" - a unfortunately subjective value on en.wiki but one defined by having significant, in-depth coverage in multiple independent, secondary sources that provide context of how the topic fits into the whole of mankind's knowledge. Things like World War II, Jupiter, New York Yankees are clearly meeting this goal without having to presume anything. It's in the smaller topic areas where presumption is used, and that's where the GNG and SNGs like NSPORTS come into play. We do recognize that there are aspects outside of what are provided by secondary sources that are also important as raw data that would be in a complete, notable topic, such as the Yankees' seasonal win-loss records. (That's why we are a tertiary source combining primary and secondary sources).

The GNG establishes that if you can some some coverage that is similar to what we would expect to be in a "notable" topic, then we presume the topic is notable and allow for a standalone, giving the necessary no-DEADLINE time to develop. This allows for inclusion of appropriate primary data while giving the time for more secondary coverage to be found. GNG-meeting articles can still be challenged if editors feel they don't meet the "notable" goal we have above.

The SNGs establish conditions for topics where the type of secondary sourcing is not readily available or is expected to come due to some event, but where other information exists that, at minimum, shows why the likelihood of secondary sources coming about can be met, such that we can presume notability as to allow a stand-alone article to be build immediately with other primary information and fill in the rest as such sources are discovered, again without any DEADLINE issues. For NSPORTS, as an example, this is where we assume that any player of a professional league that has played at least one game will have a past history discussed in their amateur or collegiate days to show how they got there, and it is just a matter of time and effort to get those sources. When those sources get into place, then at least now, at minimum, the GNG is met; it may not yet be to this desired "notable" level, but it's less of a problem as the GNG is more preferred than the SNGs in the long-term (since it matches what we want to see in completed articles). Even if the SNG is met, the presumption can still be challenged, though as for all AFD, the onus is on the nominator to demonstrate the lack of sources, which in most cases requires legwork to the library for print sources.

Mind you, none of this is explicit in WP:N, but it is the way I feel it is best understood to know the practical relationship between notability, the GNG, and SNGs. The target is this no-longer-presumable case of "notability", with the GNG being the best presumed way to get there, and the SNGs as acceptable ways to at least get to the GNG. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• • Masem, we edit conflicted, but I like your analysis in some ways better, so I'm replying to it. I really think that the conversation around notability is misplaced, as notability is a guideline that helps us apply two of our core policies: WP:V and WP:NOT. DGG has made this argument re: NOT before, but I'll expand on it re: WP:V. The SNGs are much better at helping us determine if something meets WP:NOT. The GNG was written in the early days of Wikipedia and press coverage, startup culture, and the internet have changed the way information is distributed to effectively make the GNG meaningless for determining whether or not something is important enough not to fall foul of any of the prohibitions in NOT (not indisrcriminate, not a directory, not an advertising platform, etc.)
    The SNGs, however, are very bad at telling us whether something is likely to be expanded to the point where it meets WP:V in that expansion. The GNG is much better at this. If something can be shown to meet the GNG it automatically has verifiable sources that can be included in the article. That doesn't tell us much as to the relative importance of a subject or whether or not a minor celebrity who will be forgotten in 15 years should be covered as compared to a distinguished professor.
    How this relates to the relationship between the SNGs and deletion policy is in my mind more of a question of how they meet WP:V. Failure of V is a reason for deletion, and I think that the conversation on reform of notability that we have been having throughout the project really since the OUTCOMES RfC would be better to focus on this aspect than the notability aspect. Something that is notable per an SNG but that is utterly unverifiable can still be deleted. Something that is notable per the GNG but runs afoul of NOT can still be deleted (per WP:N). Focusing on our core policies rather than guidelines will help us in these conversations, and I'd like to thank you for the commentary above which I think highlights some of the main issues we are dealing with in these conversations. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Some of your issues are mirroring things that I saw happening at WP:NPROF (acamedics). There, it struggles to be seen as a valid SNG because editors supporting it recognize that secondary coverage of academics is next to none, but we can apply a lot of weight to primary data sources (number of publications, number of times cited, etc.), so we should support these articles on academics without worrying about the GNG, and there is plenty of opposition to that. It goes back to an RFC at WP:N years ago, that affirmed in the community's view that SNGs are not equivalent to the GNG, in that they cannot override what the GNG (and notability as a whole seeks). Thus the way to view SNGs like NSPORTS is to demonstrably show via sourcing a criteria that may not be secondary but is generally something of merit that assumes the athlete has or will attract attention from RSes, beyond just being a bunch of stats. Having that attention will likely at least met the GNG in time, and ultimately towards assured notability that no longer has to be presumed.

As for policies, I think the better way to think of it is that WP:N, and the GNG by extension, are there to assure WP:V and WP:NOR are met (in establishing how the topic fits into the larger world picture which is only something secondary sources can do, and would be OR for WP editors to do). The SNG's purpose is to help establish metrics that will get there, as well as avoid some of the pitfalls of some parts of WP:NOT (eg NEVENTS is specifically supporting NOT#NEWS). That's why it is important to remember that all notability does is determine if a standalone article can be made about a topic. As you state, there are polices like NOT and BLP that would apply to remove an otherwise GNG-meeting standalone article. Notability, the GNG, and the SNGs are only there as minimum requirements to assure V and NOR (and to some extent NPOV) are met or can be meet keeping DEADLINE in mind. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

We are obviously on slightly different sides of the fence on PROF, and on N. I was inactive during the RfC you mentioned (my recollection from the 2007 era is that they were treated as equal, and I think it makes infinitely more sense to do it that way, even more now than it did then.) At the same time, N explicitly lists the GNG and SNGs as equal, and has for quite some time now. Whatever the outcome of the previous RfC, the fact that N has been stable for years on this point makes it the stable consensus at this time (through lack of objection). Changing that would require a new RfC, which I think as the discussion WT:PROF is showing, would likely not result in making all SNGs subject to the GNG. You'd likely get no consensus on the point. All that being said, I agree with your point below that the presumption of inclusion in SNGs can be challenged, and I would extend that to the GNG. Ultimately, notability is but one guideline that we take into account when deciding whether or not to have an article. I'd personally prefer to see the GNG fade and a better SNG system be created as opposed to the current system, but any reform here is going to have to start with broader recognition of how notability fits in with the rest of our policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The equivalence of GNG and SNG is primarily around/near the article's point of creation, either can be met to allow for the standalone. What does happen over time, recognizing the conflict being our ultimate goal of quality articles versus having no deadline, is that meeting the GNG becomes more important than meeting the SNG. The time frame for that is impossible to quantity, but it should be obvious at infinite time, we don't want articles that only show an SNG being met as part of our function of being an encyclopedia (I clarify this because we also are a gazetteer, having articles on places that are never likely to be notable but complete this part of WP; any other similar reference function would need to be decided at a broad scale). Since the GNG sets a state that is closer to what we consider a quality article, that's where the GNG is superior to the SNG, but that should only be applied with "enough time" given to review the situation. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Good try, but IMO not a good idea. There is a logical quandary / problem in the relationship between GNG's and SNG's which can't be solved here. The necessary "OR" statement in GNG basically says that in the case of meeting a SNG, the SNG overrides the other requirements of GNG. An "and" statement would be even worse, giving SNG's the ability to veto an article which passes the other requirements of GNG. The fuzziness of Wikipedia is what makes it more or less still work. The de facto standard is following GNG with a slight influence from SNG results. The main change in this proposal is addition / creation of prescriptive stuff which I think would make the complexity even worse. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the same reasons as those above and for the same reasons many similar threads failed. The guidelines are fine the way they are and dont see a pressing need to change them.. also oppose anything that uses any sort of artificial deadline. Spanneraol (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

North8000, :TonyBallioni, :Masem, :Djsasso, :Fenix down, :Spanneraol. Thanks very much to all of you as your comments are really helping to get down to essentials. There is clearly opposition to anything which impacts WP:NODEADLINE so what would be your view of the proposed revision if the two sentences mentioning timeframes are removed? I would merge the second paragraph into the first, as done because this is a draft wording, so that we simply state the situation re an SSG failure. In its intent, this is not different to the current version. Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely nix the timeframe, but I would remind editors that a work that meets only the SNG but fails the GNG can be fairly challenged by a proper AFD (eg one that the nom has shown a good demonstration of BEFORE-work to show no sourcing seems to exist). It stresses that we're not in a rush to delete/complete articles, but we don't accept the SNG-only state forever. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It still uses the word eventually which is a problem as mentioned above because the SNG doesn't help determine if it eventually will meet GNG, but rather that it does meet GNG already. As I mention above there is a difference between meeting GNG and showing that it meets GNG on the article itself. GNG is about the subject, not the state of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Masem that any presumption in an SNG can be challenged in an AfD. Same with the presumption of the GNG. Notability is a guideline and it can be challenged at an AfD for any number of reasons. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "eventually" does infer an indefinite timeframe but, as Masem says, we don't accept SNG-only forever. If "eventually" is removed, how does that look? Jack | ^{talk page} 16:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It would fix that particular problem yes, but again, I don't really see the need for the change like others above mention. What is there already says all the things you are trying to say in your new one. It really appears like trying to fix something that already works. It doesn't matter how you rearrange the words, people who want the SNG to be able to do the things they want it to be able to do will act like it does and argue like it does any way. The issue isn't that the guideline isn't clear. The issue is that people will pretend it says what they want it to say. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is only too true. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes I did not mean to infer that it couldn't be challenged. It is just that eventually infer's that it doesn't already, when the purpose of the SNG is to help determine if it does already. -DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, if clarification is needed, a statement in bold at the very top underlying that GNG is the overriding notability guideline and passing any element of NSPORT is merely an indication that an individual is likely to pass GNG rather than confirmation that they do. Fenix down (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This is where the problem is probably as someone above mentioned WP:N actually states that the SNGs are equal to GNG "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". (bolding mine) Most of us that edit NSPORTS don't treat things that way and we in fact state through it that GNG is the overriding notability guideline. Really WP:N probably needs to be cleared up before we worry about NSPORTS. To do that would require an RfC. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

What really needs to happen is heavy work on GNG to make it calibrate to the situations covered by SNG's, and then to eliminate the SNG's. Or else enshrine the actual defacto standard which is to follow GNG with a slight influence from the applicable SNG. North8000 (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

But when we've talked about that in the past, a few editors have always opposed it on the grounds that SNGs, specifically this one and NPROF, seem to disagree with it. So we have a chicken-and-egg problem: We can't fix the GNG because this SNG hasn't been fixed, and now you say that we can't fix this SNG because the GNG doesn't demand it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This SNG already very clearly says at the top that GNG needs to be met a couple of times. So anyone arguing that based on this SNG is using faulty reasoning. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I think that the big steps would very difficult to craft but not that difficult to get accepted. One would to develop the objective of wp:notability in a way that is not 100% circular. I.e. "what is this "encyclopedic notability" quality that wp:notability is trying to execute." I think that the rough answer is (for English Wikipedia) suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia that would have only 10,000,00 articles. That enables the second step which is to acknowledge the differences in the "enclyclopedic notability" to sourcing ratio (which is mainly why the SNG's exist) and say that appliers of GNG should calibrate for it. North8000 (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support, as more consistent with the intent and site-wide interpretation of GNG, and with virtually all other topical notability guidelines (AFAIK, only the one for academics has a similar conflict, which is also currently under discussion). Anyone one opposing this even in principle just doesn't understand how WP policy works, starting with WP:CONLEVEL. I'm not going to entertain any minor copyediting quibbles; we can work out trivia later. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC), revised 22:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support in principle, and you can assume that I'll support any similar statement.
  I'm confused by all of the "but there's no deadline!" objections. First, there actually is a deadline for some content: the deadline is "immediately", and you'll find it in WP:BLP. Second, why does anyone think that eventually is a deadline? "Someday, at an unspecified point that can be safely assumed to be far, far in the distant future" is not a meaningful deadline. So I think that all of these objections are based upon invalid reasoning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not that eventually is a deadline, that wasn't the point. It is that eventually implies the guideline is about predicting if it will at some point in the future meet GNG, when the SNG is actually about determining if it already does meet GNG. The deadline thing wasn't connected to the eventually issue. They were two separate things. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you quote the exact words that make you (or others) think that this change adds a deadline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The OP already removed the wording that added the deadline from the proposal. It basically said that at the end of a discussion a deadline should be agreed on when it can be deleted. I could go back through all the history of this page if you would like to try and find it. EDIT: Here I found what it used to say "Failure to meet the SSG criteria does NOT mean an article must be deleted immediately, but notability by other means must be established within a reasonable timeframe agreed by discussion among interested parties. Conversely, meeting the SSG criteria does NOT necessarily mean that an article will be kept because it must eventually comply with GNG and, again, a reasonable timeframe must be agreed for this to be achieved." (bold mine) -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support I like the language and personally don't see the supposed NODEADLINE issues that other editors are prattling about. NSPORT is a guideline to help editors in their decision making, especially during Afd's. I don't think this language does anything to imply any further intent or jurisdiction of NSPORT but instead clarifies it. -Drdisque (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• The language has been getting changed as people comment. The deadline stuff was already removed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Spanneraol. I don't really see a need to change the existing reading. Lepricavark (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  WP:N is the controlling authority, and it is controlling over both GNG and SNGs; except I'd say WP:EVENTS, which is a hybrid with the policy WP:NOT.  WP:N is not a content guideline, as wp:notability is defined outside of Wikipedia, which means that article content, such as evidence therein of wp:notability, is outside the authority of WP:N.  Nor is WP:N notability a guarantee that there is the reliable prose sufficient to write an article.  It just means that we have evidence that there are readers who want an article.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as an improvement WP:N very clearly says that the GNG is only the usual rule, not the only rule. I would very much prefer that the SNG for sports were the rule for sports, rather than the GNG, just as WP:PROF has been repeatedly confirmed as the rule for academics. (the rationales are slightly different--the use of the SNG by itself is to permit us to have articles on earlier athletes where sources are much harder to find. ) And I would similarly prefer to have subject specific SNGs as the only rule, for as man y subjects as possible. The attempt to harmonize the two rules using the doctrine of presumed notability has only one virtue: it makes for thousands of interesting AfD discussions about the finer specifics of sourcing, and the relationship between the rules. It fails to do what a notability guideline should do: distinguish in an objective and understandable way between those who should have articles and those who should not. My views on these have over the years not been accepted, but the more I do here, the more confirmed I am that the GNG was a clever idea appropriate perhaps to getting the encyclopedia started, but not to the current WP. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. I don't see where there is a huge need to change things as the guidelines work pretty well the way they are. GNG is a guideline too and needs flexibility in doing it's job... SSG's handle that load. Editors that are much more attuned to the specific sports have laid out better guidelines for those sports than GNG could ever possibly hope to accomplish. They are close to equal footing with GNG always having the last word in disputes. If we didn't do it that way we'd be squabbling day and night. At Tennis Project we let the SSG do all the heavy lifting for notability and whether an article gets created. However, if the article fails the SSG, and the authors go through the process and can show the subject passes GNG, then the article stays (though usually without a Tennis Project tag.) The two guidelines (SSG/GNG) work hand in hand in mutualism as it stands right now... so why are we trying to mess with it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment can this be re-proposed in a new section? I think I agree, but I have seen a few versions and people's comments above are not always on point as the language has changed. Its getting hard to track what points people made under what version. RonSigPi (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I hear what User:Fyunck(click) says about "mutualism" between SSGs and the GNG and am pleased that it works in some (perhaps many?) sports. But there are others where there is apparent conflict. I agree with Fyunck(click)'s statement that "Editors that are much more attuned to the specific sports have laid out better guidelines for those sports than GNG could ever possibly hope to accomplish", but that does not seem to be universally upheld as a principle. I'd see the revised wording as, at least in part, giving the subject specialists some recognition of their expertise in determining notability for their specific sports and some ammunition, or perhaps some respite, in defending individual articles from attack. Johnlp (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Would rather the term "will eventually" did not appear. Notability either exists or does not, it is not dependent on the state of the article, and that wording implies that the article text is what determines notability. However, ANY movement to reduce the importance of the SSNGs over the GNGs is always a Good Thing, and I think we can tweak wording later. Other language is very good, such as the opening "This sport specific guideline (SSG) is used to help evaluate" is a good start, but any suggestion that the SNG is sufficient in the absence of actual sources is a Bad Idea. This has the start of something good, but later veers too far into the "SNGs are good enough even if sources never materialize" atrocity we have now. --Jayron32 01:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per North8000. I would also like to add that "it is likely that sufficient sources exist to eventually satisfy the GNG criteria" is an incorrect assumption at least for cricket in the Indian subcontinent. Despite the immense popularity of the sport, first-class cricket in this part of the world does not get as widespread a coverage as, say, second-tier baseball in the US; so it is impossible to find the required sources (other than statistical databases) for obscure players with very few first-class appearances. GNG should be the primary criterion for inclusion, and, if there are no sources in an article currently to meet the GNG, it does not merit inclusion. The article can always be recreated at a later point if and when these sources are "eventually" found. Dee03 08:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I feel this whole area needs to be clarified a bit better. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 September 17#S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) myself and another editor came to different conclusions from reading this guideline. I would support some change in wording. I think part of the problem is that the intro repeats itself a few times, but alters the wording enough that it causes some confusion. It really only needs the first sentence and the third paragraph, the rest just muddies the waters. AIRcorn (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aircorn: That DRV seems to be missing the spirit of NSPORTS that GNG needs to be demonstrated, but not necessarily ASAP. Per the Q3 in the FAQ (top), "The sports-specific notability guidelines ... are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist." However, that point is not mentioned in WP:SPORTCRIT, so I can see where editors could give less credence to NSPORTS if online sources are sparse (and we don't even know the full name and birthdate of the person)—Bagumba (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The DRV is two years since the article was deleted so it already has a decent buffer. The problem is too many editors think in black and white (meets then is notable, doesn't then should be deleted) when it comes to these SNGs. There are going to be some articles that will be edge cases either way and the guideline should reflect that. AIRcorn (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
      • NSPORTS already says that meeting it does not always result in a keep. And WP:IGNOREALLRULES is always an option anyways. Not sure what more needs to be said for edge cases?—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
        • My solution would be to remove stuff from the lead, not add anything more. If it was up to me I would just say

          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. Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

The bolded part is just talking about WP:V, which is still mentioned. The the second paragraph has caused confusion as it has been read to contradict the opening one and the GNG is already mentioned (it even links it again). To me this still captures the main idea behind SNGs and is simpler and clearer. AIRcorn (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

However, I do support the proposed change as an improvement on the current wording. AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Just remove that whole opening paragraph. We should be looking for sufficient significance plus sources to verify that. The GNG is ok as a means of showing that something is notable, but not being able to identify significant coverage is a poor way of determining non-notability. The GNG is a means to an end, that end being to show that a topic is encyclopedic. It is not an end in itself. --Michig (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. While I'm all for rewording the guidelines to make it clear what they actually mean, since there's clearly some ambiguity around them, I think it's important to emphasise that the intent of the existing system has no major flaws, and it's just misinterpretations of it that cause these endless discussions. Relying on GNG when far more specific and useful guidelines have been developed is just nonsensical - it's called the "general" notability guideline because it's meant to be used when there aren't specific notability guidelines. If someone takes issue with an article they deem non-notable that meets a sport-specific guideline then that may be an indicator that the sport-specific guidelines could use a review, but it's also important to keep in mind that those sport-specific guidelines tend to be written by people intimately familiar with the sport. A large number of the comments in recent months about notability have come from people with little to no familiarity with the sport (including at least one case where someone unsuccessfully AfD'd an article about an Australian rules footballer despite not even being aware of the sport's existence ten minutes prior), and this almost never has any productive outcome. If people believe that there's a problem with any specific sport's guidelines as constructed by their WikiProject members then I'm sure discussions on potential changes would be well-received by those communities, but I feel like it's just a matter of respect to garner at least some familiarity with the subject matter before starting one, lest everyone's time be wasted. Sellyme^Talk 12:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  Excellently said. I think my biggest concern about the rewording is... what does it really do? Right now we have "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria." What change does this new wording really do to the original? It seems like a waste of time to me. Who doesn't follow this mantra? I mean there are always exceptions, but those are rare. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  This is the reason we need to provide better clarification. Editors above are adamant that the guideline says the exact opposite (which is supported by the recent rfc). AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  Well, that's crazy. When I read the conclusions it says that SSGs do not supercede GNG... that is true. They work in tandem, being mutualistically linked. GNG is our guiding light here at wikipedia, but it simply cannot cover everything..hence the term "general." That's where SSGs come in to help out. They can be more specific because they are usually written by editors that know the specific sport better than any general guideline can ever hope to achieve. If the original can be misinterpreted, then this new version, that really says the same thing, will also be misinterpreted. My question would be, what's the key word or phrase that makes this new version "iron-clad" with no chance of "misinterpretation?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  Easy. If Jack Crack is a backup Beater for the Mudville Muggles (who are, technically, a professional Quidditch team), but all we can find in reliable references is that, "Jack Crack is a backup Beater for the Mudville Muggles" isn't an article. It's a list entry. So, have List of players on the 2017 Mudville Muggles, and note him there. If next year he goes to the Gryffindor Greats, starts some games, and substantially more is written about him, now it's time to write an actual article about him. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  That misses the point. Of course there can be differences of opinion on what "should be" written here or whether certain SSGs are too inclusive. I was talking about what is written here today at Notability (sports). IMHO it seems crazy to interpret "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria" except that the two are on pretty equal footing. Fulfilling either guideline will work. I don't see where this new proposal makes it any different, and it's why I opposed fixing something that ain't broke. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  That doesn't answer his question. The proposed text doesn't actually say anything that isn't already there in the current version. It is a change for the sake of a change but doesn't actually do anything. -DJSasso (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  I am not saying that the proposal is perfect, but for me the biggest advantage is getting rid of the bolding on The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Being bolded gives it prominence and editors see it, read the "or" statement and assume that is the take home message of the guideline when it clearly is not. Personally I would remove it completely as this is already covered in WP:V, but this is at least a step in the right direction. AIRcorn (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  Ok, so it's not bolded. However, if we make an article we DO have to provide reliable sources that either show it passes SSC or it passes GNG. One or the other or both. You can't escape that fact. So whether it's bold or not doesn't really change anything except emphasis. When I make an article I usually follow the SSC and make sure that the criteria the project wants is sourced properly. If a person doesn't match any facet of the SSC it usually gets put up for deletion (often a proposed deletion first). If facts are brought up that this person squeaks by with GNG even though they fail SSC, it stays and the deletion request goes away. Same the other way around. I do this week in and week out. But sourcing is a necessity regardless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  After years of telling people to read all three paragraphs in the introduction, I think it may be worthwhile revisiting what is set in bold, to discourage people from assuming that one phrase summarizes everything in the lead. isaacl (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hmlarson (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, we write from sources. If the only "sources" that exist are directory entries and name drops, that's not enough to write an article with. If such referencing does exist, then we can support an article with it. But this is leading to confusion at AfD, and sometimes to the retention of BLPs on people who are in fact not notable. This is a serious issue and this wording will help address it by clarifying that SNGs provide a rebuttable presumption of meeting the GNG. They don't override or nullify the requirement for substantial, reliable, high-quality source material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

  Well said. This is why the "well, it says or somewhere" wikilawyering is just flat-out wrong. You can't use an interpretational niggle, a semantic technicality, about a single word in a page churned over by innumerable people – many with little actual writing experience – to get around a core principle of the project.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• To those who think rewording is unnecessary, I've spent seven (no idea why I wrote seven; it's more like) five years begging people to read the introduction in full, and pointing out everything they want the guideline to say is already there. And yet at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) editors are still rolling out the out-of-date notion that everyone who's played one professional game in any sport is deemed to meet English Wikipedia's standards of inclusion. So I'm open to trying new wordings, even if they say the same thing as the current text. On a somewhat contradictory note, I'm also tired of closers ignoring the intent of this guidance: it's been made clear in more conversations than I can count, and summarized neatly for them in the FAQ. Why focus on an "or" as being a Rosetta stone to interpret the guideline? We've explicitly told you what the meaning is! isaacl (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Isaacl: Generally, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS only allows closers to supersede participants' consensus regarding the policies (not guidelines) of "verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons". It's up to the community how they choose to interpret guidelines. Do you have specific examples we could examine?—Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't follow AfD; I'm only going by the people who come here complaining that articles are being kept solely due to a sports-specific notability guideline being met when a search for suitable reliable sources providing significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage has failed. But I disagree that a small group of participants at a given AfD discussion should be able to disregard a broader consensus that has been established repeatedly amongst a pretty good spectrum of editors, including those who regularly edit sports articles, and those who do not. isaacl (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      • For guidelines, it's up to the people in the discussion to choose to follow the "broader consensus". Remember, there are no hard and fast rules in WP, and a closer generally should not WP:SUPERVOTE to override local "common sense" (they should vote! and not close it yet)—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I disagree; the point of having a guideline is to record a consensus agreement made by the broader community so the same decision doesn't have to be made over and over again, taking up everyone's time getting involved in every discussion. Otherwise, we may as well dispense with marking any guidance as guidelines. isaacl (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Plus in this case we're talking about editors who simply said "Per WP:NSPORTS", and not "Per WP:NSPORTS except for where it says the presumption of meeting the standards for having an article can be challenged by examining if the general notability guideline has been met". The closer is choosing not to apply the full guidance from WP:NSPORTS. isaacl (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Not because the wording is perfect, but because it's always unclear if there is a consistent problem that needs to be solved, or this is a reaction to one-off AfD outcomes. My suggestion is to compile a list of cases involving conflicts with NSPORTS so we can investigate if there is a common pattern and come up with a solution(s), if needed.—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflict between this guideline and established policy, specifically BLP1E, has come up in an ongoing and very contentious AfD. It seems to me that there needs to be a sentence inserted somewhere making it clear that articles based upon one event are subject to deletion per that policy. Coretheapple (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Coretheapple, I actually think the high school athletes guideline fits nicely. It requires prolonged coverage. I would personally like to clarify that more with a phrase such as ...(3) typically continues after the student has left secondary education. Obviously a high school quarterback who starts for two seasons is going to get coverage those two seasons. The question as to if they had a notable impact is best judged after they leave school. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an improvement. But I was thinking a specific passage to the effect that "student athletes known for only one event do not generally warrant coverage" would be a good reminder to editors that we can't have articles that focus just on one thing the kid has done. See, one can validly argue that the kid in that AfD has indeed gotten prolonged, and certainly substantial, multiple and non-local, coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally consider it prolonged (obviously, I'm the nominator), but that is why I think clarifying what we mean as prolonged. I'd consider it substantial coverage after leaving school, and I think that's a reasonable way to read the guideline. I'd also support something along the lines of a paragraph stating For living people, especially those who are still minors, the subject must also meet the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy for notability based on one event. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree on both points. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see the conflict to which you are referring. WP:NHSPHSATH already requires "substantial and prolonged coverage that ... clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." This is already a very high standard indeed. I would not support the further element proposed by TonyBallioni. Cbl62 (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm referring to Holly Neher. She has received prolonged, substantial coverage concerning one event. Hence my concern, especially in the context of high school athletics. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• However, as Tony points out above, one can interpret "prolonged" as indicating post-graduation coverage. I suggest clarifying both points, BLP1E and what is meant by "prolonged." Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The coverage of Neher plainly is not "prolonged". And it's clear from the discussion there that BLP1E remains in force -- indeed the first AfD was closed as a delete on BLP1E grounds. It's always a danger to try rewriting policy based on a highly unusual and controversial case like the Neher AfDs. People need to just calm down and let the AfD run its course. Cbl62 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking beyond the AfD, which is something of a lost cause at this point. Definitely not seeking any change to impact that AfD! I should make that clear. Any action on this guideline, if any, should be after that mess concludes. But I do think that there is too much wiggle room in the guideline, as noted. And your point re prolonged, is reasonable, but reasonable people are making the opposite conclusion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

People are free to make arguments that stretch the boundaries, but there is no need to rewrite the guideline in this case. Trying to rewrite policy every time a controversial AfD arises risks turning the guideline into something akin to the tax code. Cbl62 (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment  Notability is a guideline to separate standalone articles from those whose material belongs in a broader topic.  Deletion policy limits deletion for notability to topics and material for which there are no WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. 
  If there is actually any merit to this proposal, which looks like a misunderstanding of WP:ATD and the use of reliable sources, the proposal here belongs in a WP:NOT guideline, not a WP:Notability guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment going more to the heart of the section, generally I don't think this guideline conflicts with BLP1E. This has come up a number of times before. I will use American sports because that is what I am most familiar with. Let's say a player competed in one NFL or NBA game. That player is very likely to have had a significant and successful college career. So it's not one event, but more of a clear capstone to a career to show notability. Similarly, let's say a player competed in one NHL or MLB game. There is a lot of coverage on minor league systems and prospects. If someone appears in one of those leagues, their rise through the minors likely created a lot of coverage and this is a capstone to notability. Regarding the issue you raise, its more with high school athletes. They don't have the "one appearance" standard, so its a different animal and I don't think conflicts with BLP1E. I think everyone would agree that in high school LeBron James and Tiger Woods were notable. However, how far down we take the standard has never been addressed. More conservative would be only the true mega-star high school athletes. Maybe only a few a year in football, baseball, basketball, tennis - the top 3 recruits or junior players. A more liberal standard would include award winners like Minnesota Mr. Hockey and Mr. Football Award (Ohio). I don't think any consensus has been reached on how far down we go with high school athletics, but Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 25#High school coaches? might be a good starting point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RonSigPi (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion has produced some interesting points but I don't think it is going to move us forward because the proposed wording has produced too many talking points and, as a couple of people have rightly complained, the language has changed since it was first presented. In his above post yesterday morning, Nigej is right that "likely" and "presumed" lead only towards uncertainty. I think a new appproach is needed which is based on one simple change to the NSPORTS intro.

The introduction to WP:GNG states:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

"Either...or..." means what it says. WP:NSPORTS is listed and so a sports person article must qualify if it meets one of the sports specific criteria (e.g., WP:NBASE, WP:NCRIC, WP:NFOOTY) that insist upon a single top-level appearance. Obviously, the article must comply with WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc.

The opening paragraph of WP:NSPORTS 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.

Proposed wording amendment. It seems to me that the problem in this introduction is "the general notability guideline" in the first sentence, especially as the "either...or..." is repeated in the second sentence (in bold too). I suggest that "the general notability guideline" is replaced by "the notability guidelines". The second sentence then stipulates what the notability guidelines are – either GNG or SSC. It does not make sense to specify GNG in the first sentence and then say either GNG or SSC in the second. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – I'm not sure exactly what is being proposed here - perhaps give us the proposed new wording? The whole thing could be removed as redundant. WP:V already covers the need for verifiability and we don't need it restating in guidelines. GNG in practice comes down to whether significant coverage is found - it's a very poor guideline for demonstrating that a topic belongs in an encyclopedia, and even worse for demonstrating that a topic doesn't belong. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Michig. Certainly. The revised wording (opening paragraph of WP:NSPORTS) would be:

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 notability guidelines 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.

Much better than what we have now, but it would be better for the last part to read "Meeting the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below must be verifiable via reliable sources." as otherwise it's judging notability based on the presence of citations in the article rather than the existence of suitable sources. --Michig (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – this would be a significant shift in policy against that previously agreed in the VP RfC. Harrias ^talk 12:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Harrias, therein lies the problem because if we attempt to clarify the ambiguous wording, we defy the agreed policy. It makes no sense whatsoever that both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS say "either...or..." while NSPORTS is also saying "meet GNG (only)". Something is not right and it needs to be fixed. If GNG is wrong then, as User:Djsasso said above, we need another RfC to correct it. What do we do? Jack | ^{talk page} 14:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - whilst I understand what you're trying to do I would find it difficult to support something that appears to 'water down' the need to meet GNG, notwithstanding what the bold text already says. Eldumpo (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NOTABILITY does not require that sources proving notability must actually be present in the article, it only requires that such sources exist. An SNG waters that down to a presumption that such sources are likely to exist. This proposal is in fact setting the bar higher than even GNG, something which no SNG can do. The whole point of SNGs is to lower the bar for certain subjects that we can safely presume are notable (without presenting any actually evidence) - meaning that sources required by GNG will eventually be found, but are not known to be available right now. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - seems we have some who object because it waters down the GNG and others who object because the SNGs currently water it down and they don't want it tougher. In other words we have reached the stage where the current text is now set in stone and can never be changed. I suggest we all go off and do something useful. Nigej (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• That pretty much sums up my thoughts every time someone brings it up. Whats that saying, a good compromise is the one that no one is happy with. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment  Instead of confounding NSPORTS with other definitions of Wikipedia's notability, take a look at WP:PROF.  WP:PROF is like WP:NSPORTS in that it has criteria that are metrics.  Note, though, how WP:PROF leads editors to WP:V as the companion to a guideline that does not require sources.  This is the right approach.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)