Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Timing of meeting GNG

At the recent DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_September_17#S._Perera_.28Kurunegala_Youth_Cricket_Club_cricketer.29, there was a disconnect that one of the reasons for NSPORTS (or any SNG?) was to provide a time buffer for expanding articles to meet GNG when the multiple sources of significant coverage had not already been identified (explained at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q3). The sources are presumably offline, subscription only, non in English etc. Granted, this was an extreme case, because the bio could not even identify the subject's full name or birthdate. However, the AfD and DRV highlight the confusion over

1. WP:N mentioning that either GNG or an SNG needs to be met (equal weight)
2. NSPORTS seemingly contradicting and saying GNG is the master
3. NSPORTS does not mention that GNG level of sources likely exist by meeting the SNG, and sufficient time might be need to expand the article (WP:NODEADLINE)
4. The AfD closer does not weigh NSPORTS as a guideline, treating it more like a WikiProject/local consensus. He reiterated this in the DRV.

Again, maybe this AfD was a one-off because we can't even find the birthdate of the subject. However, we might be concerned that a precedent could be set to discount SNGs altogether.—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What sort of time buffer are we talking about? WP:NODEADLINE could theoretically be forever, effectively making the SNG the defacto notability guide. AIRcorn (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

FAQ Q4 does not seem to imply forever.—Bagumba (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking here. WP:NSPORTS makes it clear that articles that meet it can still be deleted if a genuine attempt at WP:BEFORE has occurred, which in some cases may mean searching physical archives for older subjects and in this case other languages. However, as Aircorn mentions there is no deadline so if no one makes a call to prove it then it can last theoretically forever. I am sure you are also aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. There are no precedents set based on single Afd outcomes. -DJSasso (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I was pointing out inconsistencies, holes, and points of confusion. I'm not sure yet what the solution is, and am intentested if people think one is even needed.—Bagumba (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Well the ongoing discussions above I think clarify if people think one is needed, there seem to be people on both sides of the topic. I don't think #1 & 2 are necessarily inconsistent. One says they are given equal weight, and as part of the other one it says but we defer to GNG as part of that equal weight. But I see how that could confuse some people. #3 It does say that. "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" #4 NSPORTS allows for articles to be deleted even if they meet the criteria if they don't meet GNG so an admin could make that call. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE applies, as ever. We can't have hard and fast rules about this. GiantSnowman 19:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Common sense has to apply and that includes eradicating any ambiguities and contradictions between the various notability guidelines. If AfD is persistently being impacted by confusion over GNG v SNG, then something has to be done to the guidelines to remove the points of confusion. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the FAQ

Could someone review the changes currently being made to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ. I'm not convinced that these properly reflect discussions here but have been reverted and am not happy to revert again without looking for the opinions of others. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As it says in the edit summary, the FAQ as written had answers that were insufficient, incorrect, misleading and open to misuse by certain people at AfD. Blue Square Thing is himself the main culprit at AfD as here where he claims that the FAQ supersedes the guideline, even though the FAQ contradicts both the SSG and WP:N itself. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The answer to Q1 in the FAQ did not specify the necessity for the person to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject – in accordance with each of the general notability guideline (GNG), the sports notability guideline (SNG) and the basic guidance on the notability of people". An FAQ must be clear, unambiguous and thorough in its explanations. It is not enough to say reliable sources only and misleading to relegate the basic people guideline to "see also" status.

The answer to Q2 directly contradicted unequivocal statements in the introductions of both WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes to the FAQ for now pending further discussion. The FAQ does not attempt to provide a full re-explanation of the general notability guideline, or all other relevant guidelines. It only seeks to explain that the sports-specific notability guidelines provide a temporary reprieve from deletion based on an article not currently meeting the general notability guideline. This is the consensus agreement that has been reached repeatedly on this talk page and earlier this year at the Village Pump. For better or worse, the participants at this talk page have not reached any consensus to change the wording for this guidance page, as various persons have provided their specific justifications for the current wording being necessary to express the current consensus. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Reversion aside, that is not the consensus agreement nor is it how the wording on this guidance page reads today. I didn't think this guidance page needed changing because of the near equal weight the two items have now, and how well they work together and prop each other up when one side or the other is lacking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There is, of course, no single viewpoint that encompasses the positions of all participants in the many discussions, some of which are linked to in the FAQ. However I believe it is a fair summary of the outcome of the initial RfC that promoted this guidance page to guideline status, and is in alignment with the viewpoints expressed by most participants in the last Village Pump discussion, such as the version expressed in Masem's statement below. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment  The proposed change is a "not" statement, so is unclear.  The fundamental problem here for NSPORTS is the cross-claim on behalf of WP:GNG, that WP:GNG creates content requirements.  GNG doesn't.  GNG is a sub-guideline, a part of WP:N.  WP:N defines notability outside of Wikipedia.  The attempt to make WP:N a content guideline has a long history, but is always rejected because that function is for core content policies, policies that long predate WP:N.  An attempt to define notability on a Wikipedia article leads to the circular reference problem that a topic is notable if it has a Wikipedia article. 
  The path forward is to guide readers to WP:V, as is done in WP:PROF.  For the attempts to prove that a topic is not notable, guidelines for WP:NOT are the path forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Unscintillating: One big difference I see in WP:PROF is that it does not require GNG to be met: "Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." Is that the main change you are proposing?—Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a misstatement of the issue, particularly given problems at PROF. WP:N's goal is to have every article have sufficient sourcing that meets V, NOR, NPOV that leaves no question as to the importance of a topic, ala World War II, significantly sourced through secondary and tertiary sources (as to meet NOR and NPOV) and of no question that the topic has been noted widely in the rest of the world. That's the point of WP:N overall. We recognize one is unable to likely write that type of article from the start and that we have no deadline, so we need a method to allow these articles to remain and avoid hasty deletion by editors that don't care. That's where the GNG and the SNGs come into play ; they both create the presumption of notability that allows for a standalone article, but that can be challenged if it can be shown that there really isn't extensive sourcing available (eg WP:BEFORE). The GNG establishes a criteria that is based on the types of sources we want to see, hence why it focuses on coverage in secondary sources. The SNGs establish criteria based on merits of a topic within a field, that if X occurs, sourcing will likely follow or does exist and just needs to be found.
    The only gotcha is that we do want to see articles that start as meeting the SNG to transition to meeting the GNG in a reasonable amount of time to actually demonstrate those sources came around, particularly for any post-2000 topic where Internet searching is trivial. Eg if we have a topic on a new rookie player in a sports season this year playing professional games, and I find nothing outside of his name on a roster in any Internet searches, that probably means the presumption was bad. Alternateively, I might find one or two secondary sources about the player, enough to satisfy the GNG, but not the quality we want by WP:N, so I would at least argue to keep that topic. The problem with PROF is that it wants to completely bypass WP:N and instead be an inclusion guideline, which we do not do outside of WP's function as a gazetteer for geographic places. PROF needs to direct articles to meeting WP:N, which a state culminating in meeting V, NOR, and NPOV. That should mean the same thing that its SNGs should direct people towards getting sources to meet the GNG en route to WP:N. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I suspect that part of the "problem" is that the ways in which some of the SNG are written means that it is possible to argue that articles should be kept when there is nothing more than inclusion on statistical databases. So, for example, it is possible to argue that by playing one first-class match that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Amaranath meets the relevant SNG, despite a lack of biographical detail and any coverage beyond statistical sites Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
      • There's technically no problem with SNGs resting on a statistical database as long as, previously determined by consensus in crafting the SNG, that there is a path from that to coming up with a quality article. The A. Amaranath AFD article is problematic in that while the standalone was granted by the NSPORT criteria (one professional game), no one seems to have performed a search of offline sources as stated by WP:BEFORE; until that's been done, then technically there's nothing yet to challenge the presumption of notability and the NSPORT SNG still applies. It's more the rigor of the matter - I fully expect that there are no further sources for that athlete, but that needs to be shown. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I'll respond to that on the specific AfD page - but thank you for raising it. I would then argue that the issue becomes the writing of the specific SNG and whether that is fit for purpose, but that's an issue that keeps on coming back here so is best left out of this discussion I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
          • My suggestion at #NSPORTS introduction (above) was to start compiling closed AfDs that are deemed problematic as specified by NSPORTS. Then everyone can analyze if there's a specific pattern of failures for a given sport's SNG. I've always been wary of opened-ended SNGs about playing one game at the highest level of any country, which makes a dubious presumption that each country would have the same level of coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
            • I actually run into the opposite problem. We get a 17 year old tennis player who only played a couple minor league tournaments and doesn't merit SNG. It goes up for deletion and someone finds five Bulgarian language newspaper articles to show GNG, so the article gets voted to stay. Heck that's happened with high school players. What SNGs really help with are players from 100+ years ago. When every player playing at Wimbledon is easily notable for the past 50 years, finding info on players from 1893 isn't easy to find but they are always presumed notable per SNG, and no timetable is going to change that. We would always hope to find the relevant non-statistical material, but it is not a requirement to do so... we don't start some arbitrary clock ticking. We would waste an incredible amount of time on deletion/inclusion requests if we didn't use SNGs as a bare minimum standard and then move on to more important things to take care of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
              • Yes, this is key; if I see an article that is only presently sourced to a 1950 stats book, that otherwise passes the SNG, its on me to go out and reasonable prove there is nothing else referencing that player. We don't judge deletion on notability grounds based solely on the current sourcing of the article. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
                • And on the flip-side GNG is by definition "general" in nature. It's a basic framework. It can never hope to satisfy everything at Wikipedia because it's not specific enough, nor is it informed to the extent as many SNGs. Neither of them are policies, they are guidelines that work hand-in-hand to better this encyclopedia and our reader's experience. I don't give much credence to anything that I feel is not in our reader's best interest. If the race car drivers guideline says that the winners of TholienWeb racetrack are notable (and it's been around 100 years), even if you could show that there is nothing written about the first 5 winners of the early 1900s, they should be included in articles if all the other winners are, per the SNG. This is where SNGs and GNGs work together mutualistically to create the best possible experience for our readers. It's why there is an "or" in sentence two of the lead. Personally I haven't had many problems with GNG/SNG working together. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
                  • This is actually a fair question that I don't think has received much attention. Notability aims to address the "potential" of a topic, and we want to be as inclusive as possible while making sure core content policies are met and we're not being indiscriminate. So in this, it absolutely makes sense that if all but 5 of the winners of a specific race have been shown notable, while we presently lack sources for those first 5, then we should reasonably allow for those articles. That's established. But if I go out and do the most thorough offline/print search possible and cannot find sources to be able to expand the article on , say, the first winner (that is, I have followed BEFORE) do we keep the article just to "complete" the set? If yes, this transforms the notability guidelines to inclusion guidelines, and we have been very strongly aware that this is not appropriate for topics outside of geographic places (as part of our function of being a gazetteer). There are other ways to include that information - likely we have a table of winners where the name would be listed, and we can redirect indefinitely to make the name searchable. Even taking it to an extreme: a race run for 150 years and every winner is clearly notable well beyond the minimum the GNG/SNG requires, except for one person, whom all we know is they won the race, and BEFORE has shown zero sources, then we'd still probably delete/redirect the article to the race winner list rather than leave an unexpandable stub around. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
                    • Then that is where we would differ per the SNG. I would have no trouble including those missing persons, and almost every delete request would fail on those persons. The SNG project would dominate the deletion request and I think with good reason. The tables would be red-linked over and over again. Chances are there are other stat related entries that could be found for those 1–5 winners. No stories mind you, but other published stats that could be included in a stand-alone article. "If" that one stat of winning the TholienWeb race is the only stat ever found for one particular driver, so that is the only thing we could include in an article, you have a good point. A single chart can handle it without any link. But come on, that is rarely the case at wikipedia for any article based on an SNG. There are usually plenty of other stats found, but it's weak on sourced prose publications. They are usually borderline cases, with some editors strictly wanting to follow GNG, and others SNG. I would tend to follow SNG in those cases as long as those stats are properly sourced. Again, that's what the "or" is for in my book. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
                      • We are talking about two different parts of the process. If the fact that 95 of the 100 winners of a specific race clearly show notability by in-depth coverage in secondary sources, then a reasonable presumption of notability can be made for the other 5 so that we can at least have a stub or start article and encourage editors to develop it, without any deadline. The only point where push comes to shove is if I have done a whole lot of work, well documented and showing appropriate searching of print sources for the most part, and there is absolutely nothing more we can reasonable expect to come, then I have successfully challenged that presumption and AFD and deletion/merge/redirect is the appropriate case; without those additional sources, the article fails NOT#STAT and several additional content policies. If I have not done that work, and just complain "it's just one stat source", I should be laughed out of the AFD, because I didn't show how the presumption can be challenged. (Though others may argue that if it's just a stat, it might fail WP:NOT#STAT and be deleted for that). What we want from SNGs are criteria where this situation is the rare rare exception. If we had an SNG criteria that said "Every winner of the Smalltown 500 was notable", and could only show that 25% of the winners actually had additional sources, that's a bad SNG criteria. For the most part, the NSPORTS SNG do have reasonable ones that keep to a low number of "false positives" where the presumption falls through. What we don't want are SNGs to be treated as inclusion criteria: just because it meets an SNG does not mean we are going to have an article on it, if that article fails the core content polices (of which the GNG tries to guide towards).
                      • The reason for "GNG or SNG" is that what if it is the case that in a race, the second place finisher, who never ever finished first, had a lot of sources talking about him, in-depth (maybe he was the regional underdog, I don't know). He's not going to qualify for the SNG, but we can presume notability by the GNG and allow the stand-alone article. Again the same end-term applies - if the article is only a stub from that, and I can prove reasonable no more sources are coming, then it can be named at AFD.
                      • This is why I'm trying to suggest that there's an implicit level of notability above the GNG where we aren't going to ever question or have to presume the notability of the topic, ala World War II. The GNG and SNGs exist since we know no article necessarily starts at this state, and they equally serve to define conditions to give a editors the space and time to build out an article without fear of deletion , barring appropriate challenge to the topic (But this onus is on the deleter, not the editors). --MASEM (t) 15:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Rivalry AfD

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball–Fox rivalry on whether Ball–Fox rivalry (the rivalry between NBA rookies Lonzo Ball and De'Aaron Fox) is notable.—Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

NHOCKEY, routine coverage, and player notability

The hockey project is currently looking into adding a women's league in the SNG for its players. There have been several AfDs recently where the majority of the sourcing is highly of the WP:ROUTINE-variety (signings and transactions and such) as seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Packer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Fritz-Ward, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Barley-Maloney. As there are many sports related projects here and a limited number of "hockey people", I am looking into outside opinions in regards to all sports and on how much weight routine coverage should give towards meeting the GNG for participants. Yosemiter (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It feels like there should be a second tier of leagues. In real life, there is a relatively small set of leagues (like the NHL or the NBA or the English Premier League) where every player who logs even a minute would meet WP:GNG. There is a second set of leagues where every player may not be notable, but stars (however that should be defined) are always notable and a third tier where less than half of players are notable but some meet GNG. If we could define those tiers for all sports (with maybe the definition of “star” varying by sport) it would help these discussions. Frankly, this is why we in basketball have a pretty short list of leagues that meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

We actually do that in NHOCKEY. We have 3 tiers. But I think the issue Yosemiter is asking about is more to do with how to weight routine coverage.-DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

DJSasso is correct, that is exactly I what I am asking. Just looking a general sports-based consensus/opinions on routine coverage for player notability. Per SPORTBASIC, it says not count game coverage towards GNG, but says nothing about transactions and signings. Yosemiter (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends on the depth of coverage with some degree of gray in the middle. One one extreme, box scores, brief "transactions" announcements, and passing mentions in game coverage are WP:ROUTINE. On the other extreme, in depth profiles of an individual are clearly not WP:ROUTINE. Looking at the Madison Packer case, the coverage clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE. Examples of in depth coverage include this from the Wisconsin State Journal, this from The Michigan Catholic, and several articles from Excelle, though I am not familiar with the latter two publications and can't speak to their reliability, which is a separate issue from whether the coverage is routine. Cbl62 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call coverage of signings and transactions as routine. Perhaps you are referring to ones that are trivial mentions e.g. one or two sentence blurbs?—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I think I mean more specifically signings and transactions that do have some depth, but are only reported/published by local or primary sources and not in a national or widely distributed source. Using the above AfDs for example and limiting to articles more than mentions, Barley-Maloney has articles by the local paper for her NCAA team, the NWHL itself (primary), her NCAA athletic conference (likely primary), her former university's student paper (likely primary), and a SB Nation-backed site (for the Islanders covering NY hockey); Packer has multiple by Excelle Sports (a women's sports news site), The Michigan Catholic ("The Official Publication of the Archdiocese of Detroit", as in it covered her because she attended the Catholic high school in that archdiocese), Wisconsin State Journal (local paper for her NCAA team), the youth league team website where she coaches/coached (primary), the NWHL website (primary), and two SB Nation-backed sites (one for the Rangers and one for women's hockey). Packer definitely has more coverage, but all of the above could possibly fall into the SPORTBASIC criterion of "Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject" (with the possible exception of Excelle Sports, which reliability would be the only unknown). Yosemiter (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: GNG wants secondary and independent sources, which rules out quite a few of the ones you mentioned. I usually don't rule out local sources per se, and just treat it as one of the "multiple" sources of significant coverage that we need. I usually fall back to WP:WHYN, namely: can we reasonably expect to be able to "write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic"?—Bagumba (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it from a biographer's perspective: without non-routine sources, nothing more than appearances and results can be written about an athlete. English Wikipedia could decide it wants to be that type of sports encyclopedia, covering a person's statistical history. As far as I can tell, though, the community wants to be able to cover a bit more than that. This implies sources that have some level of additional depth beyond usual game/career activities are needed. The desired level of additional depth, of course, is the debatable point. isaacl (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a position that would see a very large number of sports "biography" articles here deleted. I don't necessarily disagree with it as a position, and I certainly don't disagree with the idea of looking for non-routine sources to support an article, but it would certainly throw the cat amongst the pigeons in terms of the Sports Notability Guidelines. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak about how it's applied for all sports, but in the major U.S. / Canada league-organized sports, that's exactly what is done. Non-routine sources are required for an article to meet English Wikipedia's standards of inclusion, and the underlying rationale is so that something can be written about the athlete beyond what they did in game X or how they joined team Y. isaacl (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in practice I'm not sure that I see that occurring at all. If I were to pick out, say, Scott Aldred or, for a current player, Jeimer Candelario - I happen to be a Tigers fan - I just don't see that level of coverage being required - unless I'm looking for something different to what you're taking about of course! I'm not disagreeing with you at all that we, perhaps, should be looking for much better coverage and higher levels of notability. But the coverage on both of those pages looks pretty routine to me - certainly it's similar (or worse) to at least two of the female hockey players listed above. I think. Unless I have the wrong end of the stick - which is perhaps quite common. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

By "level of coverage being required", if you mean that a certain minimum level of detail is required in an article to avoid being deleted, then as there is no deadline to complete Wikipedia articles, the standard is very low. (The absolute minimum to avoid rapid deletion is a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines.) But the intent for athlete biographies is to eventually cover more than just what you'd get out of a statistical summary of a player's accomplishments and movement between teams. To this end, to meet the standards of inclusion, it is necessary to have significant, non-routine secondary coverage from reliable sources. Additionally, the coverage is required to be independent and non-promotional, in order to provide a more objective view of the subject. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Or it has to meet the sport specific guideline, which is also a standard for inclusion. GNG or SSG is fine. But the SSG should be well vetted and visible for all to see. However I'm not so sure that most players in a women's league would routinely pass GNG, so to include all of them in an SSG is pretty dicey. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was discussing the topic in the context of the original post, which was asking about the suitability of routine coverage for establishing whether or not the standards of having an article are met. However in the context of the sports-specific notability guidelines, they are rules of thumb that provide an indication that appropriate coverage exists such that an athlete biography can be written that consists of more than what you'd get out of a statistical reference. isaacl (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

And your point is well taken when considering the parameters of a group and whether to include it in sports notability... not so much for individuals who meet the minimum SSG. SSG's are not rules of thumb... they are guidelines just as GNG is, and they really help out to avoid lengthy arguing and thousands of deletion requests. They are often a better judge of importance than GNG. That said, we should strive for GNG whenever possible. We write our SSGs with GNG in mind. If it's looking like 90%+ athletes in a particular category are always found to be notable, then we take that category at the SSG and make it notable for all players in that category. That's good enough for inclusion. Sure there are always a tiny fraction that should or shouldn't be included, but we either leave them be or take care of those through discussion. It works well. But if a category has only 25% that would pass GNG to begin with, then it shouldn't be in the SSG for auto-inclusion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, personally I see a rule of thumb as a type of guideline, so didn't think using the term would imply otherwise. I didn't get into the topic of sports-specific notability guidelines because routine coverage generally isn't an issue with them, and so it's not important with respect to the original question. Perhaps we can split off this portion of the discussion into another section? (But to be honest I don't have anything new to say about it; we've both covered it umpteen times already.) isaacl (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm cool with things also. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Volleyball players layout

There is a discussion about the volleyball players layout being held in the WikiProject Volleyball talk page. Please visit us and help us with your contributions. --Osplace 16:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sports executives

There are no guidelines for the notability of sports executives, such as presidents for international sports governing bodies. It could be useful e.g. in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grigory Granaturov. Do anyone have any suggestions? Boot Blues (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The conditions for all of them would vary so much that this is a case of something better handled directly by GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Some, like the commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, is exceedingly notable. Then you might have the person who runs the World Tiddlywink Championships who probably has no notability at all. There aren't going to be all that many heads of sports governing bodies so case by case GNG is best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

When I hear "sports executives'" I also think of people like team presidents and general managers - maybe even college athletic directors - and would agree with Djsaasso that the range is pretty wide and that we should just rely on GNG here. Rikster2 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, never mind team presidents and general managers: we all know full well that the consequences of anything other than "meet the GNG" is going to be people at AfD blaring that Assistant Directors of Minor League Operations and Deputy Chief European Scouts are "important sports executives." Ravenswing 22:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Grammatical Error In Figure Skating Section

Medaled at a non-Grand Prix international senior-level event (commonly referred to as "senior B" competitions, as opposed to "A" competitions, which are the Grand Prixs and ISU championships. See figure skating competitions for more information and List of figure skating competitions for a list of events. Notable examples of senior Bs are the Nebelhorn Trophy, the Karl Schäfer Memorial and the Golden Spin of Zagreb.)

The term "Grand Prix" is French, and translates as "Big Prize". The noun "Prix" is one of those words where the plural is spelt the same as the singular. But the adjective "Grand" has to be converted to the plural to match the noun "Prix". And it's plural form is "Grands".

Therefore the plural of "Grand Prix" is "Grands Prix", not "Grand Prixs".

86.169.22.56 (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup, done. Harrias ^talk 06:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability for individual college soccer tournaments

Per an Afd for the 2017 America East Men's Soccer Tournament page, the closing administrator @Ansh666: closed the debate with a redirect to the main tournament page, after debating between choosing no consensus or to redirect. In the debate there were suggestions from myself and other editors suggesting that individual season articles for college soccer tournaments are in a grey space for notability. The arguments for it meeting notability is that these college soccer tournaments guarantee a direct berth into the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship, the premier college soccer tournament in the United States. As many may be aware, there is generally no issue and a consensus that for college basketball, college hockey, college baseball, and college American football that conference tournaments, or championship games easily meet GNG and SIGCOV. Some editors believed that college soccer is not popular enough, at least in some conference tournaments (there seems to be a consensus that college soccer tournaments for major conferences meet GNG), for it to meet GNG, because it is too niche, and most coverage is summaries and recaps from third party sources, with primary recaps from athletics websites. Other editors believe it meets notability because the coverage the smaller college soccer tournaments is enough to meet SIGCOV. Further, some believed that the berth into the NCAA Tournament alone is enough for college soccer conference tournaments to warrant their own season and tournament articles. Opponets say the coverage is general week, and proponets also argue that the nominaitons to delete the articles are more IDONTLIKEIT than anything.

I for one believe the articles meet GNG and SIGCOV because there is, as some editors mentioned, an audience for college soccer and an audience to share the information on the tournaments to this audience, which is what this encyclopedia is about. Another editor mentioned how many of the college soccer conference tournament finals are aired on the ESPN family of networks, which is one of the premier sports networks in the U.S. I think the amount of coverage alone in terms of broadcasting, and the summaries provided, as well as third party websites that exist (i.e. Top Drawer Soccer, College Soccer News, Soccer America, SBI) show there is an audience for GNG and reliable third party sources.

I will ping editors that contributed beyond JNN or ILIKEIT comments from the America East AfD to see what their opinions are, and if some common ground can be met, as it was encouraged by the closing admin, ansh: @Ravenswing:, @Cobyan02069:, @Timtempleton:, @Jay eyem:, @Hobit:, @Vanamonde93:, @GWFrog:, @Sir sputnik:, @Fenix down:, @Smartyllama:. Feel free to ping anyone I may have missed. Thanks. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm one of the keep votes. Quidster4040 did a good job summing up the debate. I revisited this by putting myself in the shoes of someone looking for information about the 2017 tournament, beyond just the details of the final match. The external link on the bottom links to a PDF that hasn't been updated yet with the 2017 tournament info. I clicked the link in the infobox, and it was broken, so I added a different one. The new link I added now takes you to a page where you can click on a tournament link on the top menu to see the full 2017 tournament results. So the info is more accessible now to Wikipedia readers, although not as much as it was being housed in the redirected article. For example, readers of the main tournament page article wouldn't know that the eventual champion, Albany, had to survive a double overtime penalty kick shootout 4-2 in the opening quarterfinal match. This is a fact of interest to many soccer fans, not just followers of this tournament. Another area of general interest would be if the regular season winner lost in the tournament, and was denied an at-large bid for the NCAA tournament, usually because the conference isn't a power conference in that sport. These are just two examples. Rather than reopen the debate for this particular article for this particular tournament, it makes sense as Quidster4040 says to approach this as an opportunity to create a general guideline that is approved by a majority of other editors. My opinion is that tournaments that send a winner to the NCAA tournament in a handful of sports are notable. Those sports are hockey, soccer, basketball and baseball. A conference's strength and national perception can change - witness how Gonzaga basketball changed the national awareness of the West Coast Conference. You could argue that the arrival of Patrick Ewing at Georgetown in 1981 changed the perception of the two year old Big East Basketball league in a similar way. Having a set guideline will make it easier to create and maintain articles going forward, independent of how a conference's national recognition changes over time. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is something particularly notable that happened one year, you could add that to the tournament page. It doesn't need to be merely a simple table of each year's results. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That might work for specific highlights like those I mentioned above, but if you look at the old article [[1]] you see things like the competition brackets, standings table and results chart that might get unwieldy if we try to put them all in a tournament history section. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm kind of busy at the moment and don't have a ton of time to contribute properly to this discussion, but I will say that I tried to take Fenix down's advice "For example, are there any articles from third parties previewing the tournament as a whole or summarizing the tournament post completion?" I thought this was a reasonable criteria, and I struggled to find any such article. Even from sources like Top Drawer Soccer, Soccer America, SBI, AND College Soccer News. Jay eyem (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a challenge to keep tournaments where fully professional athletes are competing for their countries and creating heated controversy, so I don't have too much hope of keeping an article on a college tournament. I imagine it's very disappointing because that was a well-designed article that involved a lot of work. The good news is that it's still there, not deleted. Maybe it can be copied to a soccer wiki. This, for example. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why there is a grey space. Can you find sufficient, in-depth, reliable source text which you can read, digest, and use to write a sufficiently detailed Wikipedia article or not? That's a pretty easy decision to make, usually. --Jayron32 16:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Application of NSEASONS to college football

Hello,

Since discovering a project to create thousands of season articles for college football teams, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign, I've been arguing with the project about the questionable notability of a large percentage of these articles. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Notability of college football seasons. The reply I've gotten is that WP:NSEASONS as written doesn't apply to major college football, because it's major college football. Of course there is disagreement about applying notability to these articles, but in practice, it seems that the project believes most Division I schools (both FBS and FCS) are presumed to pass GNG because of the prevelance of coverage of these very popular games. I agree in principal to the suitability of season articles for every season of the top national teams, say the 64 Power Five conference teams, and to articles about recent seasons of other FBS programs. Beyond that, no presumption of notability should be granted and thus mass creation of articles for seasons outside of this scope teams is probematic.

For examples of current season articles with the least notability, see 1913 Southwest Texas State Bobcats football team, 1924 San Jose State Spartans football team, 1952 Kent State Golden Flashes football team, 1969 East Carolina Pirates football team, 1983 Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens football team, and the 2015 Drake Bulldogs football team. These are all Division I teams. There are many DII seasons articles as well.

The basic problem is everyone at Wikiproject College Football ignores NSEASONS because it is too restrictive. I agree with this sentiment, but instead of ignoring the specific article notability guideline, I'd like to suggest updating NSEASONS. And with input from the project so that they respect it and will use it to help determine what seasons are presumed notable and what seasons are not. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles can theoretically be notable for meeting GNG, even if NSEASONS is too restrictive. Remember, failing to meet an SNG is generally not a reason to delete unless the topic also fails to meet GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is that college football articles are presumed by the project, en masse, to meet GNG. Don't you think a more specific and descriptive guideline in NSEASONS for college football is a good idea? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm hearing that you think there are existing season articles that uou think should be deleted. However, as I stated earlier, not meeting SNGs should never be the sole reason to delete an article, as GNG could still be met. Therefore, more SNGs are not going to help your desire to delete.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're hearing wrong. How could I be clearer that I posted this thread to get a more descriptive and applicable standard for college football seasons under NSEASONS? Why would anyone be relucant to do this? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but can you explain how you envision more descriptive SNGs improving the quality of Wikipedia? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine, but then you can tell me what is the reason to resist more descriptive and useful guidelines? They are supposed to guide. The main issue is the creation of hundreds of season articles of very questionable notability with only a media guide reference. I'm hoping to encourage resistance to creating these articles. The idea is this: expand the SNG guideline so that is more accurate of college football's stature and the project's viewpoint. Say instead of the current only elite schools can presume all their seasons notable, it is all Power 5 conference seasons, all current FBS teams' seasons since WWII, and all seasons of historically important, but now defunct or small school teams are presumed notable inherently. Then, if the project takes this seriously, all other seasons are not inherently presumed notable. There has to be some effort to establish notability of other season articles before they are created. So it would not be okay to create 50 season articles for a program without any independent, reliable sources for any of the articles. That seems like a very reasonable bar to set for article creation. Instead, currently the project encourages and celebrates creating season articles for every season of a great many programs, all the way down to Division II teams. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Per the guideline WP:NEXIST: "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." The guideline change you seemingly desire would have a wider scope than just WP:NSEASONS. What I would suggest is perhaps contributing to the essay at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. You'll have more leeway in providing pointers there than in a more formal guideline. Also if you look at WP:CFBSEASON, it seems consistent with your concern: "This project agrees that if no prose can be created in a season page, then that page should be combined elsewhere." Of course, there might be disagreement over "can be created" for some articles, which is why WP:AFD exists.—Bagumba (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm specifically talking about updating just the fourth bullet point of NSEASONS. Many members of the project ignore the quote about requiring prose before creating a stand alone article. There are hundreds of season articles with prose that only puts record, coach, scoring, and other stats into sentence form. As for AfD, I've said I'm not going to start hundreds of AfD's. Maybe laying down a marker or two through AfD would help, but I am very aware that the project members will undoubtedly vote to keep any Division I article proposed for deletion. The list here shows only Division III articles were deleted. Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Single season notability discussion library. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Look at it this way, Mnnlaxer: NSEASONS is a nice way to know, before you start creating articles, what sorts of topics are likely to generate enough source material to make it worth your while. WP:42, aka, WP:GNG, aka, the real main guideline here, makes it clear that topics with lots of in-depth, reliable source material are perfectly appropriate. Individual college football seasons each generate TONS of reliable source material. There's no reason to remove them from Wikipedia for that reason. --Jayron32 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but by that standard, reading NSEASONS, any program outside of the perennenial top 25 teams should make article creators pause before starting a season article on those teams. Yet that is obviously not happening, as instead they are creating 50 season articles with a table and a media guide reference. Having tons of reliable source material does not equal notability. That's the core issue here. Every football team, including HS teams, generates a lot of reliable source material. But you would never say a HS team season is presumed notable. So there is something more than the amount of material. In-depth is very hard to guage and even harder to agree on. But short game reports certainly are not in-depth. Can we agree on that? Again, why not be more explicit in what makes a season notable? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG is the governing standard. When articles have been created for seasons that cannot meet this standard, members of the College Football Project have supported deletion. See, e.g., AfD for 1882 Hamline, AfD 1883 Carleton. The current system is not broken. Cbl62 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not be more explicit with what the specific guideline should be? Why not rewrite the policy? It is obviously meaningless for college football season articles. Why not change that? The system could always run better. Please point to a Division I season article that you've supported for deletion. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 22:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Because these guidelines are meant to be as close to 100% correct as possible without being overly inclusive. So we err on the side of being really restrictive instead of being really loose because we know the articles that deserve to be here can fall back on GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The current guideline does not make any sense for college football. There is room to significantly expand the definition without coming close to being overly inclusive. Again, the current guideline says only a handful of teams deserve articles for every season, yet there are 89 programs that currently have an article for every season, including such powerhouses as San Francisco State Gators football. Tell me why the guideline shouldn't be expanded to more accurately reflect the notability of college football? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

How about this?

How about simply answering this question on the talk page of every season article that is created: "What makes this season notable?" If the answer is that the team went 4-5 or that it was the second year of head coach X, then maybe that article shouldn't be created. This isn't anything formal and doesn't do anything by itself to argue for meeting GNG, but it would certainly make people think about why they are creating the article. The answer could be the team won a conference championship, it was the first or last season of an important coach's tenure, the team went to bowl game or made the NCAA playoffs, set some NCAA record, etc. Whatever. But at least there is some reason the author thinks the season is notable. I asked this for the 1910 Central Michigan Normalites football team. I can't think of a single thing specific to this season that makes it notable. Only if you presume all current FBS team seasons are inherently notable could its creation be justified. Which is why I am attempting to get the project to decide what is inherently notable beyond the current guideline.

(Note for this whole deal: I am arguing for a more expansive inherently notable guideline for college football. Why anyone would question or be reluctant to do that is incomprehensible to me. And I've only nominated two articles for deletion, those mentioned by Cbl62 above. Those are so obviously not notable. I haven't tested a single other article at AfD, but rather tried to engage the CFB project extensively.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnnlaxer (talk • contribs)

You answer your own question. Generally on this page we try to be less expansive. Most people that come to this page complain that we are already way too expansive. So we take a much more conservative approach to the guidelines. Remember notability doesn't depend on something "notable" or well known happening, all notability on wikipedia means is that it was covered in multiple reliable sources in depth. No one considered the seasons inherently notable, its just very rare that a college football season wouldn't be covered in multiple newspapers spread around the country. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Other issues that other people complain about is immaterial to this discussion. This guideline takes a very conservative approach in general, great. But the CFB project takes a much more expansive view and uses it as a guideline. It would be better to be honest about what the guideline is in practice and state it clearly here. No one has shown any cost to being more specific about CFB. The closest thing I've heard to an argument is slippery slope. Another facet of this issue is the "covered in multiple reliable sources in depth." Well, WP:ROUTINE says sports, sports scores, and sports matches are routine. In my example above, this is the most in depth article provided: [2]. Does that cut it? @Cbl62: says of course there is more coverage in local papers, but that argument applies to every HS football team today. There is certainly lots of coverage, and some of it very in depth, of HS football. Are these HS football seasons all notable? As for inherently notable, Cbl62 said "For Division I FBS programs at a minimum, there is substantial historical benefit in the established efforts of WikiProject College Football to create a comprehensive network of season articles that can be seemlessly cross-linked and integrated." That seems like he is assuming every season of all current FBS programs are inherently notable. All I'm suggesting is to admit that this is the current consensus of the project and for it to be recognized here. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 18:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is you don't appear to understand what an SNG does. All it does is give a rule of thumb for when GNG is likely to be met. This SNG doesn't do anything special. And yes those issues other people have with guideline are material, because it is the whole philosophy of how this SNG works. This SNG does not say what is or isn't notable like people seem to think and what you are implying with your comments. All it does is 99.9999% predict an article will meet the GNG. That is it. It is purposefully build so that some articles that will meet the GNG do not meet the SNG so that we don't let things that don't meet the GNG slip through allowing those that do meet GNG to be kept even if they don't meet the SNG. And yes there certainly is some very indepth coverage of highschool football, and for those that get covered outside their region then they meet GNG. But you can't say that is the case for all highschools so we don't include it here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

While it directly addresses only high school athletes, the principle behind WP:NHSPHSATH would also apply to any attempt to create season articles for high school sports teams. In general, we put high school sports to a much higher standard of proof. Cbl62 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Cbl62, I note that the policy you propose changing below leaves intact a very good statement: "The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications." As an explanation of ROUTINE, it seems relevant to the CFB articles we have been discussing. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

DJsasso, I understand what SNG does. As a rule of thumb and as the practice of CFB project, all seasons of all current Power 5 conferences in FBS are going to meet GNG 99.999999999999% of the time. So, why not change the current guideline to list these programs instead of a handful of teams? For one thing, it would signal to people like me who are astounded that the project has created over 6,000 articles in the last three years that it wasn't crazy. I have heard the arguments for maintaining the status quo through inertia. What I haven't heard is why this change should not be done, what is the harm? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Even if we want to tighten the notability guidelines around CFB seasons, using current Power 5 teams is ignoring the history of the sport, which is especially important when we're talking about historical seasons. There are many teams that used to be on the Power 5 level that aren't now (even FCS Montana was once in an ancestor of the Pac-12), teams that haven't been considered Power 5 until relatively recently (e.g. Louisville and Utah), regionally important teams that never had the financial resources to compete on the P5 level, independents like BYU that are generally but not universally considered non-P5... point being, there are lots of edge cases here. I admittedly don't think we have a problem with too many season articles in the first place, because CFB generates a ton of media coverage, but it's going to be difficult to pin down a particular set of "notable" teams and it's not as simple as looking at the best teams currently. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:NSEASONS covers a lot more than just football, so we need to be cautions in amending it. Moreover, the AfD process is working pretty consistently with respect to college football seasons. See Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability#Single season notability discussion library. In general, season articles on Division I teams are kept, while season articles on Division II, Division III, NAIA, and high school teams are deleted. That said, I have doubts about deeming all Division I FCS seasons either notable or not notable. And, as TheCatalyst31 notes, there are many programs that were highly notable a century ago (e.g., Chicago) that have been disbanded or elected to play at a lower level. Cbl62 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to clarify/expand WP:NHSPHSATH

I propose an explicit clarification/expansion of WP:NHSPHSATH to cover not only high school athletes but also high school sports teams. The rationale underlying WP:NHSPHSATH applies with equal force to both aspects of high school sports. This proposal would change the heading to "High school and pre-high school sports athletes" and would modify the opening sentence as follows: "High school and pre-high school athletes and sports teams are notable only if . . ." Cbl62 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Cbl62 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's completely unnecessary. The whole paragraph is unnecessary. Essentially, it says WP:ROUTINE applies, which is true of everyone and everything. Why is this an issue? Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, NHSPHSATH is intended to establish a higher burden of proof by (i) requiring "prolonged" coverage, (ii) requiring coverage that "clearly" goes beyond routine, and (iii) expressly excluding consideration of most local coverage. This guideline has been a bulwark in avoiding mass article creation on high school sports. The point of this proposal is simply to clarify that it applies to high school teams in addition to athletes. Cbl62 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Sports teams are mentioned a couple of lines down, stating they are covered under WP:ORG. Read WP:ORGDEPTH for a start. As I said, this is unnecessary. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it is an issue for the CFB project so that they can distinguish the ROUTINE coverage that small school and historical football programs receive from the same (or greater) coverage current high school football programs receive. They are heavily invested in the position that ROUTINE reporting of college football games means season articles are notable. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Any debate over college football season articles can be had and resolved in good faith under established principles and precedents. This proposal is simply intended to ensure that, at a minimum, mass creation of season articles doesn't extend to high school sports. Cbl62 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

British East Surrey League

Due to the increasing importance of the British East Surrey League over recent years, I am proposing that athletes who finish in the top three of an East Surrey League race have achieved the level of notability for an article. Feel free to discuss this so that consensus can be reached. Oscar248 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Oscar248: You are going to prove that 99% of all winners meet GNG before we add it to a SNG usually. It has nothing to do with "importance" of an event. Yosemiter (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention, you seem to wish to include it so that you can have an article about yourself. Yosemiter (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes that is right, I am going create the pages of every winner of the event through the notable sources. One already exists - Alex Gurteen (one of the best runners of his generation). I think even more pages will be created after the Wikipedia Editors are made aware of the great prestige if the East Surrey League. Oscar248 (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This edit in entirely inappropriate until this discussion is concluded. You cannot just change the SNG to make your failing AfD to pass. The article is still subject to the GNG, regardless of the SNG statement or your not very humble opinion of yourself. Yosemiter (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not about Alex, this is about the East Surrey League, a prestigious championship dating back nearly 50 years. Alex must be honoured to achieve such an incredible title so early in his running career. Oscar248 (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

As consensus that the notability of the British East Surrey League has been reached, I will add it to the eligible criteria. Any comments regarding the change should be entered in a new discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar248 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe you know what "consensus" means then. It has not been reached (that takes up to a week), your page is headed towards deletion, and adding the criteria here will NOT save it if the page does not meet GNG. If you continue on your present course, you will likely be banned. Do not add it until others have commented. Yosemiter (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Top Google hit for "East Surrey League". Even on the first page of results, there's NOTHING about athletics. Doesn't sound very prestigious to me. I was just about to note they've been edit-warring on this page and remind them not to. But they're already blocked for that. Ho ho ho. And Merry Christmas too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI See here for a likely conflict of interest by the OP in proposing this change.—Bagumba (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

An issue with one sentence

A discussion at WT:N relating to two AFDs around cricket players leads me to see that this line is near the top of this guideline In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. This is flat out wrong and is contradictory to both WP:N.

The goal of a standalone article is to have sources that demonstrate the topic meets the core content policies (V, NOR, NPOV, NOT, and BLP) - we want to describe why the work is important and be more than a few sentences long, ultimately (but there's no deadline to get there) The GNG is a presumption that the topic meets that by having a minimum amount of coverage from certain sources. But importantly, we recognize that some topics getting those sources takes time and effort, but there's enough indication that from merits of that topic, those sources likely exists. That's where the SNGs come into place, to provide the presumption of notability that can be used of in place of the GNG. That presumption, either from the GNG or the SNG, sets in place that to challenge that presumtpion one has to do enough work to show sourcing very much unlikely does not exist (per WP:BEFORE) , so that we are giving time for editors to develop articles that are likely to be full-fledged articles in the futures.

The GNG is not required to be met if a SNG like NSPORT is met, but a goal should be to try to at least get to the GNG if not further. The more you can source an article, the less likely that it would be challenged by someone that seeks deletion. But keep in mind that just meeting the GNG is not a guarantee the article won't be deleted - it is still a prseumption. The more third-party, independent, secondary sources covering the topic in depth, the less likely someone will want to delete it.

I would recommend changing this paragraph to

All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the core content policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles.

The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the core content policies and thus presumed notable to allow for a standalone article. Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be presumed notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline. It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG.

This gets this paragraph in line with the lede of NSPORTS and with how we generally treat the SNGs. --Masem (t) 21:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support the proposal as it removes ambiguity and creates consistency. As Masem says, the current sentence there is is "flat out wrong and is contradictory to both WP:N". Regards, Waj (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

? What does bright-line guidance mean? Also, what is the definition of a standalone article? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC).

Xxanthippe. I've come across this "bright-line" term at work when dealing with American clients. I believe it is what we in England would call a standard. So, consider it a hard-and-fast rule with a specific application. Any deviation from it would be non-standard or "out of process". In that sense, then, it would be a defined process.

A standalone article is one that is not part of a series. Difficult ot think of article examples but I'll use books. I suppose Wuthering Heights would be a standalone book, for example, because it was the only one written by Emily Bronte, but Jane Eyre might not be standalone because Charlotte Bronte wrote a few books. None of the James Bond books are standalone because they form a series of novels about that character. I think. Hope this helps you. Regards, Waj (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this explanation. "bright-line" is a term that might be better not used as it seems close to slang. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC).

I'd say rather the opposite; it's the kind of term that I only come across in professional settings. Number 57 21:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this too. Whatever the case the meaning seems ambiguous so Oppose until clarified. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC).

A bright-line rule is essentially an unambiguous rule that does not require any subjective judgment to apply. isaacl (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• No rule or guideline that allows for the unrestrained creation of very many boilerplate, minimally sourced, articles on living people is acceptable. At the very least it needs to be made absolutely clear that such articles can still be deleted at AfD and that appeals to "meets WP:MYPETSNG" are no defence of them. Reyk_YO! 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As long as the SNG states it creates a presumption of notability, which can be challenged with ADD after a proper BEFORE sesrch, then it's fine. --Masem (t) 03:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support changing of the current text - no article is required to meet a quideline.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support NSPORTS is probably a more useful (and restrictive) guideline for footballers than GNG. Number 57 21:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• At the time of creation, these set of guidelines were explicitly not intended to supplant the general notability guideline. Before adding any text that changes the need to eventually have sources meeting the general notability guideline, these guidelines should be reviewed to ensure they are in line with community consensus for the standards of having an article. isaacl (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Several of the subject specific guidelines actually pre-date the GNG. There has always some tensions between them, and even rough consensus is tough to find.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure; I was referring specifically to the creation of the sports-specific notability guidelines, which were created to replace a more general sportsperson notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Reyk. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC).
• Oppose - the premise that stating in an SNG that GNG must also be met contradicts WP:N isn't true. Each SNG is independent of the others and the main notability guideline, and if it's decided that the SNG for a subject includes needing to meet GNG, there isn't any contradiction there. Many of the SNGs - including WP:BIO, which much of WP:NSPORTS also falls under - still state that GNG must be met. ansh666 01:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No, BIO has it properly that either the GNG is met, or that SNG can be used. The goal is to get up to the GNG eventually, but not required.--Masem (t) 03:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you quote where it says that? I can only see the other way around - People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below., A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability., and People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. (emphasis mine) - not presumed. ansh666 07:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
      • "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." Under Additional Criteria. That is after defaulting to the GNG as the first test. --Masem (t) 07:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
        • More precisely, the point of any SNG is to set criteria that gives one an objective means to allow for editors to start a standalone article without having it be "complete" from the start, allowing the open wiki nature to let it grow, while recognizing there is no deadline to get it done. That is why we "presume" topic notability via the SNG or the GNG . It is a rebuttable presumption, one that can be challenged at AFD by showing that there are likely no sources to let the article grow per BEFORE.
        • Take the basic NSPORT criteria, a person playing one professional league game. We have tend of thousands of articles based on this. They exist by consensus because the meet the SNG only at this time but not the GNG. Most, when challenged, have been shown to have some type of secondary sourcing out there to eventually get to the GNG, with limited exceptions..the only difficulty to show that is getting the print sources. We allow that time, hence why BEFORE is written to put the onus on those seeking deletion to prove the sources don't exist (As best as you can prove a negative). But counter to that, you can have an athlete that doesnt meet any NSPORT criteria, but meets the GNG, and we still presume notability that way.
        • The end goal is to get articles with sourcing well beyond the GNG. But as we don't have a dealine, standalone articles can exist by either showing the meet the minimum of the GNG, or a criteria of an SNG. --Masem (t) 08:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no "deadline" but there is a such thing as a reasonable amount of time. If a sports article sits around under-referenced for a year or more and no reliable sources are available then its time to say bye bye. That is the purpose of anchoring this SNG and other SNGs to GNG. That is also the reason for "Basic criteria" sections and so on. And there is no such thing as trying to prove sources don't exist. See WP:BURDEN - it says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. - and half that sentence is bolded.

This is on the WP:V page and therefore carries weight. Yes, editors are supposed to WP:BEFORE prior to posting to AfD, but there is no requirement to do another editor's work for them. I refer to the editor who has created or is defending an article or content.the material. We can give any editor more than enough time to provide sources, print or otherwise. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

So, in other words WP:BEFORE says: If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.).

And, Step D says:

1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating... ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Most relevant point is Most, when challenged, have been shown to have some type of secondary sourcing out there to eventually get to the GNG, with limited exceptions..the only difficulty to show that is getting the print sources. If this is not true for some of the NSPORT guidelines, then they can be tightened. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Question, this is actually a fairly significant change, does anyone have any objections if I list this at WP:CD? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC).

• @Lankiveil: I think listing this at WP:CD is a good idea. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support I think this helps clarify the issue and should discount the overly broad criteria of WP:CRIN and the misuse of sports criteria and WP:NCRIC. And, I think this clarification is much better, by far, than that sentence. However, I have to disagree with User:Masem on one point. I think the opening line (so to speak) standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline is not flat out wrong other than as an opinion.

Requiring that these articles should be in agreement with GNG (after a certain amount of time has passed) is correct. It simply means that GNG has evolved over time to be our (Wikipedia's) core guideline. That statement is there because consensus put it there. It also implies that SNGs do not get a free pass. At some point they should meet the GNG criteria of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and each other.

This should work, but in certain situations, such as with Cricket player AfDs, specious arguments alluding to overbroad criteria hamstring the AfDs. If, in the sense of fair play, everybody worked with the same criteria, i.e , standalone articles are required to meet GNG then we wouldn't need Masem's clarification. Also, I think we should simply remove "bright-line" from the language on this page. It is not needed. The word "guidance" without "bright-line"seems good enough. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There's a discussion I've started at WP:N in that we have come to a point where too many editors confusion the GNG as equal to notability. The GNG itself is still a presumption of notability (just like the SNGs); if you can only produce 2 or 3 sources and no more that cover a topic, and the article is thus doomed to remain stubby, then while the GNG is met, WP:N itself is not met, and deletion is still possible. We do want editors to bring articles that meet the SNG towards also meeting the GNG but also go well beyond the GNG to keep adding more as to build out comprehensive articles. However, you're under no time crunch to get there, it's a goal. It could be better said that "articles that meet a SNG are expected in time to also meet the GNG", but we don't require them to meet the GNG off the bat. --Masem (t) 14:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: Quite aside from the cogent opposition already stated, I find the whole premise here flawed. Of course just about any article on an athlete, however obscure (short of a hoax), will meet WP:V -- there the name is in a league stat line. NOR and NPOV? Content issues that have nothing to do with NSPORTS guidelines, nor on whether an article on an athlete should exist at all. Finally, linking NSPORTS to the GNG prevents a critical mistake. While devolving the creation of the NSPORTS criteria to the individual sports Wikiprojects was a move I applauded -- one-size-fits-all proving very ill-suited to sports -- it's now the case that these criteria were created by, and are maintained by, a small group of editors ... indeed, in some cases, a mere handful. Too many of the NSPORTS criteria are too loose already, and reflect far less any notion of meeting any outside notability standard as WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Once we set up a regime where the only check on what's notable or not are the opinions and agendas of a few editors ... well, I've already heard muttering around Wikipedia as to how loose the guidelines on athletes are. We are well served not to add more fuel to the fire. Ravenswing 17:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The SNG is not a guaranty for the article to be included in WP; it is part of the rebuttable presumption that the GNG/SNGs are presenting. The SNG is properly designed to establish merit-based metrics that allow editors to create a standalone article and have no deadline to get it to what we'd expected a fully fleshed out article to be without fear of deletion immediately after creation. While a small group of editors may define what they see as merit-based criteria, the wider community still has the final bounds that if they can reasonably prove an article cannot be improved to a fully fleshed out article due to a lack of secondary sourcing, then we can delete it. In other words the SNG is not saying these topics are notable, but that they are likely to be notable, which is a clear delineation from your concern. (This applies to all SNGs) If you feel that NSPORTS has too loose of a criteria, that would need an community RFC to make that change, but I do recall that the current NSPORT had been approved by a community RFC already (including the "loose" criteria of having played in one professional game). --Masem (t) 19:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Come now. It's not as if you're an AfD neophyte: you can't be unaware that satisfying any criterion of any SNG is a guarantee of a Keep close in ninety-nine AfD discussions out of a hundred. You're also not inexperienced enough to be unaware of how very seldom the community charges in to override Wikiproject-driven SNGs, which discussions tend to be dominated by -- big surprise -- the members of said projects. (How many years did it take to toughen up PORNBIO, for instance, even given the innate American hostility towards matters sexual?)

      Beyond that, I have yet to see a single argument stating the benefit to ditching the GNG, since like some others I disagree with your assertion that the current standard contradicts WP:N. Ravenswing 20:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

      • If you start an AFD with a topic that meets an SNG but does not meet the expected notability standard, but do not show any attempt of source searching, then the AFD is going to close as a keep because that is precisely how a rebuttable presumption works. That's what happens in most AFDs is that the nominator did not attempt to prove that no sources likely exist. And I did point out that the problem right now is this guideline is self-contradicting, as the lede states "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.". You're basically arguing that the GNG is overriding, which makes this SNG useless, which is no way is how it was developed or used in practice. --Masem (t) 20:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
        • It seems plain that you're not merely seeking to rebut every Oppose advocate, but to have the last word in each and every case. As may be, but you're just going to have to accept that I disagree with you, will continue to disagree with you, and hold to my stance on this proposal. Ravenswing 09:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
        • The problem is the way that sentence is being read. It wasn't intended when written to mean that that if either are met then the article is notable, it was written to say you need sourcing proving they meet GNG to be notable and you need sources to prove they meet any of the achievements listed below if you are going to claim they meet the SNG. We make it explicitly clear at the beginning of the page that the GNG does generally overrule the SNG. And that was intended from the very beginning in its writing. It is how we have explained it to thousands of people and why we have an FAQ explaining exactly that. This page is only a rule of thumb on whether its likely GNG is met. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ravenswing. The entire point of Notability is "does the topic merit its own article" which is distinct from "does the topic merit coverage at Wikipedia". Every one of those OTHER policies is fine, but they all deal with the inclusion of material at Wikipedia in a general sense, ONLY WP:GNG deals in a satisfactory way with how to organize that information in a useful manner. Insofar as a topic does not have any potential to have sufficient text to merit a stand-alone article, it shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Any attempt to bypass that core principle is a Bad Idea. I'm not saying we need to wash Wikipedia of the topic, but we should find other ways to organize the information if it doesn't meet the GNG. --Jayron32 18:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As I've pointed out at WP:N, the GNG is not equivalent to notability, it is a process by which we allow editors to have the space and time to develop an article to eventually get to what we expect from a notable topic without fear of deletion by either proving some sources exist (GNG) or that there's some merit the topic had gotten that will lead to more sourcing (SNGs). We cannot limit article creation (only encourage editors to use existing articles, or draft space, but absolutely cannot stop article creation). Unless we change how we deal with new articles (such as by forcing editors to use Draft space first), the GNG and SNG are needed to operate the wiki in a fair and open manner but with the means to get rid of articles in the future if they just can't pan out. Any other change of this approach requires a sea change elsewhere. --Masem (t) 19:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, of course we can't stop users from doing the wrong thing. What we can do, however, is direct them to sensible guidelines that shows them what the right thing is. Noobs do the wrong thing all the time, not just about creating hopeless articles, but all sorts of bad ideas. It doesn't mean we stop them, it means we correct their mistakes and direct them to guidance on how to do it right, i.e. GNG. --Jayron32 20:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
      • But that still requires a sea change to several guidelines by this approach. Guidelines are meant to reflect, not prescribe, practice, and you're arguing that we need to change practice. That can be done, but its not through a guideline like this. --Masem (t) 20:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. A very sensible proposal. Notability should be about real-world significance (which the SNGs deal with), not whether or not we can find enough coverage to write a detailed article. Perhaps there should be text added to the effect that subjects for whom little can be written based on available sources may be better covered in list articles (e.g. cricketers who played a single first class match). --Michig (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  That's not what Wikipedia notability means though. At Wikipedia, the word "notability" is a term d'art that refers solely to the suitability of a subject to support a stand-alone article. If a subject can't support a stand alone article (for having too little reliable source material to support a stand-alone article) then it shouldn't BE a stand-alone article. That's what "notability" MEANS here. We're not saying that we have to scrub all mention of the subject from Wikipedia, just that the information should be covered as part of another article, not as a stand-alone. --Jayron32 16:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:N (currently) states quite clearly that notability is concerned with whether or not a subject *merits* an article, based on meeting or or other of the notability guidelines. We need third party sources for verification, but whether or not we have a separate article is a separate consideration to notability (This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page). --Michig (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Although admittedly the guideline contradicts itself in a manner typical of the mess we've got into in this area. --Michig (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, it just makes it clear that the process is not automatic and rote: That a subject merits an article does not mean that we are forced to create one or prevented from handling the information under a different organizational structure. The phrase in common usage is "necessary but not sufficient", that is notability is a necessary condition (non-notable topics CANNOT have articles), but not a sufficient (notable topics sometimes don't have stand-alone topics because of other considerations). --Jayron32 16:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is what I'm trying to stress at discussion at WT:N. Notability is not defined by meeting the GNG. We can't tell if a topic is notable until someone has exhausted all the possible sources that discuss the topic and identified them (and ideally included them in the article) or the lack of such sources. That's a long-term goal. We're an open wiki, we can't expect that of editors at creation, since we want editors to collaborate to expand articles. Thus the GNG or the SNGs are used to determine if there's enough sourcing (GNG) or merit (SNG) to allow for a standalone article to be made to give the editors the time and space to expand the article out to eventually get it to a notable state (given that there is no deadline to get there). Yes, notability is a necessary condition to have a standalone, but completely a full evaluation of notability takes a lot of time, so we do allow the GNG or SNGs as presumptions for notability until it can be proven otherwise. --Masem (t) 16:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• That's a complete reversal of the long-standing tradition of WP:BURDEN: Please clarify, but it sounds like what you are arguing is that so long as someone can find a clause in an SNG, the article must be allowed to stand as a stand alone article indefinitely. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that the burden rests not with people who state that a stand-alone article is not merited, but with those who claim one is: it is the burden of the person who is trying to create the article to put enough evidence in the article to make it clear that it is merited. Merit is not presumed; it must be evident from the evidence. --Jayron32 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nope, BURDEN is not involved, outside that if you are claiming to presume a topic notable by a merit-based SNG, you have to be the one to show a source that verifies the merit criteria is met; if you can't verify the merit-based claim, then that's deletion for failing WP:V. BURDEN has nothing to do with how we as editors decide if we should have a standalone topic. The appropriate onus for challenging notability (assuming the necessary sourcing for the GNG or SNG are met) is described at WP:BEFORE, where those seeking nomination for AFD have to prove out that no further sourcing exists or likely to exist. --Masem (t) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Question @Masem: Can you provide links to the two cricket player AfDs you referred to that spurred your proposal? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • From WT:N , they were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CE Holkar‎. --Masem (t) 14:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. SNGs only create a presumption of notability, but if that is challenged, sourcing that passes WP:N is still required. This is a core requirement of WP:V, because without reliable sources there is nothing to base a verifiable article on. Sandstein 07:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That is not how the practice of presumption of notability works. SNG's presumption is give as long as at minimum you have the necessary WP:V sources that prove the SNG criteria (if an athlete played one professional game, you need some source that validates they actually stepped out onto the field, for example). At that point, you do expect in time for editors to expand the article with more secondary coverage and independent sources to avoid a stubby article, above and beyond what the GNG minimally requires (since that also sets a presumption). One is give no deadline to reach that, but anyone else can challenge that presumption by demonstrating no further sourcing is possible, via WP:BEFORE. If one does not present a sound argument why no more sourcing can occur, then that's a poor AFD nom and the SNG's presumption remains. That's why its a rebuttable presumption, its up to those challenging the presumption to do the work. Now if one came in with a very sound reason why no further sources exists, then it becomes up to those wanting to keep to prove otherwise. --Masem (t) 18:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    • A "very sound reason" is "I attempted a good faith search for sources and couldn't find any". Which will get us through AFD. We could avoid some bureaucracy here if we encouraged the search for sources before the article is ever created and if sources aren't found, discourage creating the article in the first place. Yes, WP:BEFORE is valid; we should encourage users to make reasonable searched for possible sources before starting the AFD process, but we should ALSO encourage users to make a reasonable search for source before creating the article in the first place. This is NOT an either or proposition; the search for sources should be the first step at every juncture of an article's life. To act like we should not encouarage good research and writing before the article is created is beyond me. We should encourage it; yes, if stuff slips through AFD exists for a reason, but that doesn't mean we don't guide editors to use best practices to create articles so we can avoid the headache of the AFD in the end. --Jayron32 18:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
      • As long as you can justify that you did a good faith search of sources, then you are following the process, but the biggest issue is that searching Google News is not sufficient for most athletes before 2000, and even afterwards, from non-NA/European areas. If you nominate a 1950s footballer for delete because google news didn't bring up anything, I expect that to be called out. And while we should encourage better sourcing at article creation, WP's overall open nature is aimed to allowing anyone to create any article they want and editors then dealing with cleanup and deletion should be it a problem; notability practice has to follow that approach too. --Masem (t) 19:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding Philippine Basketball Association to WP:NBASKETBALL?

Considering the PBA is one of the oldest basketball leagues in the world, the oldest surviving league in Asia, is fully-professional, has a large fanbase, and receives much coverage in local media and even some coverage in foreign media, would it be fine to add the PBA to the list of leagues at WP:NBASKETBALL? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• The age of the league doesn't matter. In order to support a presumption of notability for its players, we would need to have some showing or evidence that > 90% of the players in this league pass WP:GNG by receiving significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

So does the PBA meet that standard, or not? Looking around, it seems that most (if not all) PBA games receive coverage, and most of the major players receive coverage as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You could utilize List of Philippine Basketball Association players or List of current PBA team rosters. You could start working through a section of one of these lists, and see if you are getting 90% passing WP:GNG. Some players already have articles, so that gives you a start. I glanced through List of current PBA team rosters and about 70% or 80% have articles already. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jericho de Guzman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaypee Belencion seem to be two PBA players that were deleted recently.—Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There was a disappointing lack of discussion in both those AfDs. Jack N. Stock (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not clear that anyone really looked for sources. Just on the first page of Google hits for each player, I found this and this, and I'm sure there's more if you dig for it. Video sources, while maybe not ideal, also help confirm the existence of media coverage and fan interest. (See [3], for example.) Plus, I suspect that there are all kinds of print sources, too (magazines, newspapers, etc.), although those may be difficult for most editors to acquire. Zagalejo^^^ 17:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no doubt about WP:ITEXISTS with the PBA. The question is whether WP:WHYN is satisfied, namely that fair and neutral, whole articles can be written for its players.—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually more confident we could do that for PBA players than many European players. I get the impression that some European players would get a free pass at AFD just because their league is listed here. But has anyone really demonstrated that every player for, say, BC Tsmoki-Minsk could pass the GNG? Zagalejo^^^ 04:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If we have erroneously granted an SNG presumption to an unworthy European league, the solution is not to do the same for similarly unworthy leagues from other parts of the globe. Cbl62 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if some league don't belong there. It seems like back in the day, some people might have wanted the top league in a country to be notable because because they thought there was bias towards the US. However, Wikipedia notability is based on coverage, not it's being the top basketball league in a country.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite. "Top league in a country" = "automatic notability" inevitably leads to articles for beer leaguers in San Marino. But as far as people doing the legwork to prove notability ... well, that's a requirement. If those advocating presumptive notability for all PBA players aren't willing to do that legwork, then the PBA doesn't enjoy presumptive notability until they do. Ravenswing 16:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, there really isn't much hard evidence to support presumptive notability for players in any of the leagues mentioned in that section, except perhaps the NBA. As far as I can tell, a group of editors a few years ago merely asserted that certain leagues were notable. It's not clear to me why the Greek or Russian leagues are obviously better documented than the PBA.

I'm not really presenting this as an argument to add the PBA to the list. I just don't think it's fair that certain leagues are grandfathered in, especially since this particular guideline carries so much weight at AFD (to the point where people don't even try to do any research if they can just cite NHOOPS). Zagalejo^^^ 02:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I haven't invested the time to research the history of how those leagues were included, so I presume it's correct and that people did the due diligence before to identify the sources (presumably non-English and/or offline). If someone was willing to take the lead and challenge one or more of the existing leagues, I'm open to reconsidering.—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

At least some of the decision making took place here. I wasn't involved with those discussions, so I may be missing some things, but I don't think anyone really proved that coverage exists for every scrub in those European leagues. Zagalejo^^^ 14:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for jogging my memory. I didnt think there was consensus to add those new leagues, but my edit was reverted, and nobody else seemed to care at the time.—Bagumba (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is possible that all PBA players meet GNG - that league probably enjoys the highest profile in its country of any league shirt of the NBA - but I would like to see someone look at 8-10 11th-12th men to test that hypothesis. The issue I have with many of these PBA players is that the articles are created without sources or only using non-independent sources. Adding the league to NBASKETBALL would only exacerbate this IMO. I think part of what is behind the recent number of PBA articles up for AfD is someone trying to prove a point with a bunch of unsourced articles. As for other leagues currently in the guideline, if anyone wants to dispute some, then go ahead and do it directly. The only ones I have any real question about are the VTB League and the Adriatic League (ABA League), though these are continental leagues that draw the best teams from several countries, so I think it’s more likely that these players are notable than if you included, say, the Macedonian League (of which only one team, the champion, qualified for the ABA League). The fact is, the basketball guideline contains relatively few leagues. I am not in favor of chipping away at the ones already there. We have six country leagues (NBA and its ancestors, NBL Australia, Liga ACB, Lega Serie A, Greek Basket League and the Israeli Basket Super League) and three continental leagues made of top teams from national leagues (EuroLeague, ABA League and VTB League). Rikster2 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

One issue with VTB League is that sources are in Russian, using Cyrillic alphabet. Very likely reliable sources are available, although not in English. It's relatively easy to find English-language sources from the Philippines, but that doesn't accurately indicate relative notability. The difficulty in researching Russian-language sources may be a good reason to include the VTB League in WP:NBASKETBALL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is very true. It is difficult to find sources for articles in languages that don’t use the Roman alphabet. I can pretty effectively source articles in French, Spanish, German, etc. much harder in Russian, Japanese, Hebrew, etc. Rikster2 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I worked on compiling the basketball league list. One of the reasons not already mentioned on why the VTB League and the Adriatic League (ABA League) are listed are their historical links to the Soviet and Yugoslav leagues, respectively. I think it was pretty clear that during the Cold War these leagues received a tremendous amount of coverage and that coverage continues to today (even if a bit lower for various reasons). While not as extensive as the Cyrillic Russian-based language concerns, it is also harder to find sources from the South Slavic languages (that can also use the Cyrillic alphabet) than the Romance (or Latin) languages which many more English speakers are familiar with and are easier to translate for for computer searches. This, along with what was said above, are some of the reasons those two were included. RonSigPi (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of granting any league automatic notability. But since it appears that many do, one should consider the availability of sources. Quick searches of some of the top English-language papers (for instance Philippine Star and Mainila Standard) in the Philippines have provided easy sourcing for articles. Since the number of Tagalog and other language papers easily outweights the English ones, it appears that WP:BIAS is censoring out articles that are overwhelmingly notable. For that reason, I'd be in favor of granting the PBA automatic notability, as it would reduce our load at AfD defending even the most pre-eminently notable players. Folks, there are AfD nominations out there right now for players who are all-time greats, so important they were one of 5 special league rules were made for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. We shouldn't have to waste time defending players like this, who have thousands of reliable sources at just one newspaper! For that reason, I'm in favor of giving the PBA automatic notability.Jacona (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Some PBA player and coach deletion nominations of which I'm aware, and to which the above comments apply include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Enciso, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyram Bagatsing,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Pessumal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Trollano, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teddy Alfarero,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric-Ric Marata,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Victorino. There may be others, particularly some others have been recently deleted, some of which may have met WP:GNG. Note that English language sources easily satisfy GNG and that there should be even more Tagalog sources to be found. Jacona (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting American football AfD

You are invited to help reach consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Walker III. It involves an American football player who does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON after being cut in NFL training camp in 2017. He played college football in a major Power Five conference in a large metropolitan city with multiple local newspapers. He had an average college career at best, and is not otherwise notable for anything outside of football. This could help establish a precedent on how to handle players of this sort. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No such thing as precedent on wikipedia, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is the fun of Afd, every discussion is started anew. heh. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

LOL. You never know what can inspire a new SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems like it would be more of an anti-SNG of NGRIDIRON: Signing a Try-out Contract with previously mentioned leagues does NOT imply notability. NGRIDIRON already implies this with "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game" in #1. However, there does seem to be less agreement in WP:NCOLLATH as local Power Five players, even average ones, tend to get some significant depth coverage from reliable sources, albeit, in only local-based sources. Some feel this still meets the intent of "are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage". This particular player seems to fall within this realm of grayness in the SNGs.

(While there is no guideline in such things for Bios like WP:GEOSCOPE is for events, I still believe local sports coverage should be taken with a grain salt in the independent source category as a paper's purpose to to sell to locals, hence will be biased towards writing coverage on players during slow periods in order to have something at all. Similar to the intent of WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL, they tend to come off as "Local person does stuff..." everyday type articles. But that is strictly an interpretive opinion.) Yosemiter (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Should BBL be included in NBASKETBALL?

I recently restored Gage Daye which had been deleted via WP:PROD, with a note to the nominator to consider WP:AFD instead.

Looking at the article, I see he has played in the British Basketball League (BBL), which is described in Wikipedia as "the premier men's professional basketball league in Great Britain."

The BBL isn't listed in WP:NBASKETBALL. Should it be? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I would be very, very surprised if the British Basketball League got the level of coverage through independent, reliable sources to say that every player who appears in a game meets WP:GNG. Basketball is just not a popular spectator sport in the UK. There are a lot of leagues higher profile that aren't in WP:NBASKETBALL, such as France and Germany. My recommendation is just to have these cases go through GNG individually. Rikster2 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there enough independent, reliable source material about the life and work of Gage Daye to write a reasonable encyclopedia about him? If so, do so. If there isn't enough source material, then don't try to write an article. Everything else is distraction. --Jayron32 18:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am down with any league being added to any NSPORTS criteria if it can be demonstrated that 90%+ of its players -- from fifteen-season starters to people who've played a single match -- can meet the GNG. Simply being the "premier league" in a nation-state doesn't remotely cut it; on that ground, there must be a beer league in Bhutan or Lesotho that could make the same claim. Ravenswing 19:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Here are a few articles from top sources suggesting the BBL not be added: [4] and [5]. Best is quote from NY Times "[T]he British Basketball League has struggled to establish itself, with many crowds for games registering in the triple digits and virtually no coverage in the sports pages." RonSigPi (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Massive change to CORP affects notability for teams

A last-second change to Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#RfC: Adoption of the re-written NCORP guideline would result in that guideline not covering sports teams or non-sports teams (e.g., teams for robotics competitions), and thus invalidate WP:NSPORTS#Teams.

I don't think this was an intended outcome, but, since it's come up, if you have an opinion about where notability advice for sports organizations should be documented (or any other aspect of this large and complicated proposal, of course), then please join the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

NSQUASH?

I've noticed that user @DrVogel: (DrVogel (talk · contribs)) has recently created a lot of stub biographies about squash players. Ho Tze-Lok is a representative example; the only claim of notability is being ranked #48 in the world, and the only references are to statistical sources.

Is there interest in establishing an SNG for squash players? If so, what should it be? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say to WP:PROD anything you don't believe meets WP:GNG. We shouldn't create an SNG just to address one editor.—Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Handball

Handball players and head coaches are presumed notable if they

1. Have appeared in at least one game at the Olympics or at the World Championship
2. Have appeared in at least one game at a National Continental tournament.
3. Have appeared in at least one game at the Champions League or similar Continental Legues.
4. Have appeared in at least one game at a professional league such as the Bundesliga.

This is my opinion how a Handball guideline should look like. Inputs are welcomed. --Malo95 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)