Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Wikinotable clubs: Back and forth

Greetings, all. Checking out WP:NSPORTS, I read it is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these, the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG, yet in WP:ORG I read this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of sports teams. Am I missing something? -The Gnome (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: GNG is used for teams, which is covered at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams. I've removed the other mostly duplicate text that became out of sync.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, there should be a conservative criterion for presumed notability of teams based on their achievements. See the section above. This guideline does not state much about teams and clubs. Per W (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Bagumba, the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams begins with This guideline does not cover sports teams. Then, we're directed to WP:GNG. Besides my easily guessed objections against assessing sports clubs' notability via WP:GNG, isn't the path to the current guideline a very convoluted one? -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Gnome: Feel free to suggest improvements. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we should remove the sports team exemption from ORG, because in actual practice NPP and AFC reviewers do judge team articles by the ORG criteria. In at least professional sports teams are in fact CORPs, with some even listed on stock exchanges. It's axiomatic that on WP the rules follow and are established by practice, not the reverse. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, IMVHO, sports clubs are more prominent in a great number of people's lives than a bunch of other institutions, and the rest of the people are rarely unaffected by clubs and what they do. So, not having notability criteria specifically about sports teams strikes me as a little perverse. What we should be after, methinks, is a set of guidelines that cover the whole spectrum of clubs, as long as they register in some kind of competitive field, from the lowliest, amateur division to the top, professional elite clubs. Shaped on the basis of verifiable notability, of course. Would that be acceptable? Would that be viable? -The Gnome (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we need some general criterion for sport clubs. There is a difference between individual and collective sports (although some individual sports have collective variants, relays and such competitions). Sport clubs are inherently local, but if they compete enough well (which remains to be defined) at the national level, they are notable by the general criterion in WP:ORG. Per W (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

True, but WP:ATHLETE sets out fairly clear rules for various sports, and that issue applies here. Football clubs would not doubt run the way you suggest, and to a lesser degree rugby, cricket etc, but I think a more detailed set of guidelines that tackle the issue that even a fairly major club might not get coverage via their sport. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In WP:GOLF, no one is interested in the club as a competitive entity. The club simply provides its course to host a tournament. Notability of golf club/courses is largely based on the tournaments they host. Nigej (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

We need separate notability guidelines for clubs, broken down on a sport-by-sport basis (just like WP:NSPORTS does for athletes). GiantSnowman 10:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Are we distinguishing between clubs and teams? Manchester United are a football club but it's their first team that makes them notable, isn't it? Nigej (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the club as a whole, not just the senior team. GiantSnowman 11:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to spend time on established leagues like the Premier League or NFL, where it's clear any new teams would be notable. It's for fledgling leagues like the Lingerie Football League or development/minor leagues. What are criteria for determining when a team is notable in a notable league. For example, most teams in the new(er) American Basketball Association are not notable, even if the league is (see sample AfD).—Bagumba (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

1. We are still using team and club as if they are the same thing. Can we standardise or is that not possible? 2. Despite attempts above to come up with multi-sport criteria, I'm doubtful that the concept is useful. It seems to me that we can go for one of two approaches (a) Use GNG (b) Go for sport-by-sport specific criteria. Personally I'd be happy to go for (b) with I suspect there are plenty of GNGers out there who will object. Nigej (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather not see articles like Arsenal F.C. 1st team come around. I think we can reasonably assume that the main representative team of a club carry most of the notability but it is reasonable to have team and club united as the team represents the club. I would say it should be sport by sport basis. For example football and rugby both have different criteria. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

However not all sports are like this. An orienteering club (for instance) may choose a team to represent it in various notable events. Does the presence of a team in a notable event make the club itself notable. Probably not. Nigej (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

We should distinguish between three types of sports:

1. team sports: football (any variant), volleyball etc
2. individual sports, where there are teams sometimes in relays or similar: field and track, orienteering, swimming
3. individual sports

When you compete in teams, the club choose the members. So I would say that the club is notable by having a good team. At least in orienteering that is true. Another question is: What does the club do? If they provide good training facilities, then they are part of the success of their members. I would like to have a hierarchy like this, where one level is make more concrete in the following level :

1. GNG
2. General rules for sports, i.e., have competed in the Olympic Games or the World Championship. The x % best of athlets/teams in a country.
3. The clubs in the highest y division in the league system in sport z.

Now the middle step does not exist. Per W (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought that, at the moment, step 3 doesn't exist either. Nigej (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing most if not all of you know this already, but just in case some of the interested participants are not aware: in North America, the organization associated with a sports team in MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS and some others might use the word "club" in their name (the Montreal Canadiens hockey team, for example, are owned by "Le club de hockey canadien") or be called "club" informally in the press, but they aren't organized as an actual athletic club. They're just a company owning a team (and possibly other affiliate teams). As a result, it's hard to standardize on the usage of the word "club"—the North American media will use the terms "franchise", "club", and "team" synonymously, for variety. Any new guideline should take this into account. isaacl (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I can't see a guideline for teams/clubs working. Not only would we have to have a different guideline for each sport, we'd also have to then have different requirements for each country for each sport. As an example, there's clear consensus (based on numerous AfDs) that football clubs in England that play at a certain level or in the FA Cup are notable. However, the cut-off point will be different for each country depending on their league structure, and playing in the national cup will be appropriate for some but not others (thinking of France where over 5,000 clubs enter). Based on how infrequently this is an issue, I'm not sure a new guideline is something we're crying out for. Number 57 18:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:NGOLF (2)

Part 4 of WP:NGOLF reads "They have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level (example: U.S. Amateur, British Amateur)" In my view this is much too loose. The two events mentioned are not typical "amateur golf tournaments at the national or international level" but the top 2, which is confusing. I would propose limiting this section to the handful of the most important amateur tournaments in the world. Since the creation of the World Amateur Golf Ranking in 2007 there is such a list: World Amateur Golf Ranking#Elite events. Before 2007 it's more difficult to define such a list; the golfing world in 1900 was very different from 2018, however:

My proposal is to change part 4 to read: "They have won an elite amateur event. Since 2007 this means an elite event as defined by the World Amateur Golf Ranking (WAGR). Before 2007 it means the same events as later defined as elite events by the WAGR or events of a similar standard - one the leading handful of amateur events in the world." Nigej (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nigej: So only the 6 Men's events and the 5 women's events listed at World_Amateur_Golf_Ranking#Elite_events? Wouldn't this exclude events such as the Australian Amateur and the Australian Women's Amateur? Under the current wording I would think those would be acceptable, but under your proposal they wouldn't. Is there a good reason for excluding competitions such as this? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it would exclude winners of the Australian Amateur from being automatically notable. Personally I think that's correct. Who is H D Morrison, the 1912 winner? In reality there's plenty of stuff on https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper which means that there would be no difficulty getting through GNG for any male winner in the old days. Women's golf is always tricky since the media coverage is generally so much less. Nigej (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: See eg Matt Jager who won the Australian Amateur in 2010. Not really sufficient interest in him to get the article passed the stub phase. Also eg Peter Toogood who would be excluded from part 4. Even though he was a life-long amateur he would qualify under WP:NGOLF since he made the cut in the 1954 Open. And even if he hadn't there would be plenty out there to satisfy the GNG. Nigej (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Clubs etc (reduced variant)

Shouldn't there be some short criterion for clubs? At least there should be a mention. I propose under Basic Criteria:

A club (or any organization competing within a sport such as companies in some professional leagues) is presumed to be notable in the same way if it have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The reason can be:

1. having a team (both in team sports and in individual sports where sometimes you compete in teams such as relays) that have ended in the top positions in renowned national or international competitions,
2. arranging important national or international competitions, or
3. having trained several athletes that are notable.
   

Sport clubs are inherently local, but those that act nationally or internationally can be notable according to WP:NONPROFIT.

--Per W (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose To me this is so vague as to be useless, basically nothing more than GNG. I am quite keen on sports-specific criteria, but having something that covers all sports seems to me to be too difficult. What does "renowned" mean? "national or international competitions"? even the word "trained" is not relevant for all sports. Nigej (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nigej:, I have seen your proposals/improvements on golf and I liked them, although I do not know enough to comment. Now the page talks about athletes and nothing about clubs. I want to have clubs mentioned and then I added some reasons to presume their notability (organizing competitions and training athletes), which do not apply to athletes. Winning competitions is the same for individuals as for clubs. I want to exemplify what GNG means for clubs in order to provide more guidance than the abstract formulations in GNG, which can be difficult to understand/apply. I have stopped proposing percentage criteria as in the previous discussion. Per W (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be on a sports-by-sports basis. GiantSnowman 09:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I know GNG is vague in the extreme but individual cases can be discussed where necessary. I can see that the idea of a half-way-house between GNG and the sports-specific is appealing, I'm just doubtful that it's useful. I'm of the view that criteria here need to be very precise, otherwise I find the whole concept of no value. Nigej (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: ... rules are not the purpose of the community. It's not clear if this is a solution looking for a problem. Why is GNG not sufficient?—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The main point is that clubs should appears together with athletes as teams are competing in some sports. So I propose with the additions in bold:

This page in a nutshell: An athlete or a club is presumed to be notable if the person or a team from the club has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

I want also to delete as it does not make it clearer:
Teams
This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see the general notability guideline.

I feel that GNG can be perceived as too abstract, although I do not have a problem with that. I started looking at GNG when the relevance of Angelniemen Ankkuri and Kalevan Rasti was questioned. I realized that there was no criterion for clubs, nor for orienteering. I want to spend more time to improve articles than to try to dig up references to prove the relevance (which can be difficult since I do not have access to Finnish newspaper archives). I found that sv:Wikipedia:Att_skriva_om_sport (reasonable translated by Google) was more specific. Per W (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

NFOOTY

FYI

There is a discussion related to WP:NFOOTY at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#FOOTYN,_NFOOTY_and_sports_teams.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C. (from discussion in aformentioned link) has been relisted, and can use more participants to reach a consensus on football notability criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Orienteering

I propose the following new section (based on the section for athletics):

An athlete who competes in the field of orienteering is presumed notable if he/she meets any of the criteria below

1. Has competed in the World Orienteering Championships or the European Orienteering Championships.
2. Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition, e.g World Ranking Event (Swedish League etc), Jukola relay and Tiomila
3. Has won an individual gold medal at the Junior World Orienteering Championships.
4. Has won a senior national championship.

An orienteering club is presumed notable if it meets any of the criteria below

1. has had successes in major relays (according to the criteria below, which mean presently the (Jukola relay and Tiomila).
2. has been represented by many successful runners over a long period of time.

The notability of an event is determined by meeting any one of the following criteria

1. It has an international elite field.
2. It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors.
3. It has been held over a period of 25 years.

Presently that means O-Ringen (the three medallists in H21E and D21E are presumed to be notable), Tiomila (both the Tiomila relay and the women’s relay) and Jukola relay (both Jukola and Venla).

To non-athletes associated with the sport (or athletes whose main claim to notability is non-athletic activity) the following criteria of notability apply

1. Coaches that have coached many notable athletes, including at least one (non-relay) medalist in the World Orienteering Championships or the European Orienteering Championships during the time of the athletes' notable accomplishments.
2. Coaches that have been the official head coach of a team for a country with multiple medalists.
3. Coaches that introduced a notable technique or training method, and is widely credited as the originator.

What do you think? Per W (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NTEAM clearly says that this guideline does not cover teams. I would regard an orienteering club as a team in this context and so the club section ought to go. I also don't think this guideline covers events. Nigej (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As described in Q5 of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ, you should "[c]onsider what criteria that, if met, nearly 100% guarantees the sports figure will have significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources. Test your proposed criteria by trying to find persons who meet them but do not have appropriate secondary coverage." The criteria should be a highly-reliable predictor that the sports figure will meet the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nigej:, that's the strange thing: the guideline does not cover the competing unit (the team) in many sports, although the basic should be the same: an athlete or a team that has succeeded in national and international competitions. Per W (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Isaac1:, yes, the criterion should be conservative and needs to be checked. I was wondering about the formulations. The threshold could be determined later. --Per W (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I suspect there aren't many people watching this page who are familiar with orienteering coverage that meets the needs of the general notability guideline (I could be wrong). Accordingly, it would be helpful to do investigation up front. isaacl (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I'm not very keen on "has competed in" I would prefer something like "individual top-10 finisher" or whatever. Also "has won a senior national championship." There are many countries in the world. Winning might not be that notable. Nigej (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how well high placings in events, particularly (but not exclusively) events with a long history like the Jukola relay or Tiomila, translate back in time. Clubs that win those events today are notable, but I wouldn't be so sure that was necessarily the case from the beginning. Even on today's top teams, there are some weaker athletes who, yes, are still very good orienteers but who don't really get that much notice even locally and have borderline notability at best. I would expect that situation to look a lot worse if you looked back in time long enough.

Senior national championship works comfortably in the context of the big orienteering countries today, but is very iffy once you look far enough back in time or at countries where orienteering doesn't have much media visibility (which is most of them).

I doubt that enough people are notable solely for being orienteering coaches for them to need their own guideline.

Of course, this wouldn't be first sports notability guideline to look ugly when applied sufficiently far back in time. Don't get discouraged! Sideways713 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, only some national championships should be included. What do we put a reasonable threshold? By taking the countries whose orienteers have won/got a medal in an international/European championship?

Teams vs members

well since notability is not inhereted, a team can be notable when not all of its members are. Shouldn't that be stated in more generality somewhere else in the guidelines?

Events and coaches

they are mentioned in field and track. Maybe they deserve a general rule? sv:Peo Bengtsson is one example of a notable orienteer that has not won important competitions.

Few teams in the beginning of the history of an event. It is a reasonable objection. I can't figure out how to cope with that.

Yes, there might be few reading this now, but it is better to have a general discussion here than at the articles.

Per W (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

SNG–GNG related RfC

FYI

There is a related RfC at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#How_to_deal_with_articles_meeting_SNGs_but_not_GNG? that some might be interested in.—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Swimming

Is there a notability guideline for swimmers? I don't see one in the guideline on the project side of this page. A swimmer is ipso facto notable if they competed in a modern Olympic Games. Other than that, a swimmer is notable if they meet general notability guidelines based on general press coverage. That seldom happens for competitive swimmers except in the Olympics (in which case the swimmer is notable with or without the coverage). Do we need to develop a notability guideline for swimmers? I would suggest that a swimmer is notable if they ever held any of the world records in any recognized event, and if they won any event in a world championship competition. Is there a guideline that I have missed, or is this a sport that doesn't yet have a guideline and needs one? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone thinks that Christopher Pattinson should be considered notable, please let me know, and I will accept the draft. I still think that a guideline should be developed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The swimmer in question was on a team that won a United Kingdom championship. It doesn't appear that granting notability based on a national championship team would be consistent with other sport-specific guidelines, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I brought this up some time ago, but it didn't go anywhere. However, I'd say it's already covered (to some degree) by WP:SPORTBASIC, which states: "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". I would say the FINA World Aquatics Championships meet this. I would believe that holding a world or national record would also show some form of notability too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts - Yes as to the FINA World Championship and the Olympics, the Olympics already being covered by their own provision. I would not want to commit to a principle about a national record, because there are many nations, many not as large as the UK, and many events and therefore many records in swimming. (That's one of the things about swimming, and what Americans call track and field. There are many events and many records.) In the specific case, I don't think that he would qualify under a swimming=specific guideline if there were a swimming-specific guideline. He competed at the national level, not the international level. (And, to repeat, most nations are not as large as the UK, let alone the US.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Wording change about teams and the GNG

There is some confusion regarding wording in the 'Teams' section of this guideline.

It currently states "This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see the general notability guideline.", this clearly implies that teams must meet the General Notability Guideline, but it should be more obvious and explicit in my opinion.

The wording used to point to WP:NCORP, which used to cover teams. Following the changes at NCORP to re purpose it to bolster sourcing requirements for companies; non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams were excluded from that SNG (because they don't generally suffer from the same promotionalism by publicists that company articles suffer from). TonyBallioni Special:diff/831971927 changed the wording following the implementation of the new NCORP guideline. However, the "This guideline does not cover sports teams" has been used as justification to use WP:FOOTYN (a Wikiproject football essay masquerading as a psuedo-SNG) to judge the notability of teams instead.

The relevant wording(s) in the old NCORP guideline regarding teams were: "Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes... sports teams... No company or organization is considered inherently notable.

To address the current lack of clarity, I have changed the wording to "Sports teams are not presumed notable, they must meet the sourcing requirements of the general notability guideline." Note that this is not a change to established policy, as it reflects both the intent of the current wording, as well as the wording of the NCORP guideline that previously covered sports teams. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the change because I don't think the wording "sports teams are not presumed notable" is either correct or suitable. I think it's perfectly reasonable to presume that certain sports teams are going notable – for instance any team that has played in the Premier League, Six Nations, or the Cricket World Cup. Number 57 22:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It probably should say something like "This guideline (NSPORT) does not provide any criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams. Teams are expected to demonstrate notability by the GNG." --Masem (t) 22:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Fair enough, though I disagree with you because the wording I chose was specifically to mimic the original wording of the NCORP SNG that last covered sports teams. However, Masem's wording is closer to the intent of the original wording here, so I have implemented that instead. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

We can probably safely nuke what NTRACK says about club notability. It's an artifact from years back when no one was yet entirely sure what the purpose of NSPORT was (though it sometimes seems that even today no one's entirely sure what the purpose of NSPORT is...); and I can't recall when it's ever been actually applied someplace like AfD. Sideways713 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

FOOTYN

The Wikiproject Football notability essay, WP:WikiProject_Football/Notability (commonly linked as WP:FOOTYN), is still being used as an argument of notability/lack of notability in deletion discussions. I attempted to forestall this by adding a link and note at the club section pointing to WP:NTEAM (the actual SNG related to teams) and advising not to use the essay as an argument for inherent notability in deletion discussions. A discussion has opened to discuss this at the talk page of WP:WikiProject_Football/Notability.

I have opened a section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Hatnote_for_club_section_linking_to_the_actual_SNG_section_on_team_notability to discuss this addition, and posted a message to the VP policy page to draw wider community input, but I thought that editors here might also have some interest in this discussion. Please comment at the talk page of the relevant page rather than here. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I really don't get why people quoting an essay in discussions is such a big deal. The whole purpose of essays is that they are the opinion of a certain editor or WikiProject. If someone quotes an essay (which happens frequently), this can be pointed out in the discussion. This unnecessarily pointy addition just seems to be an attempt to shut down arguments you disagree with. Number 57 22:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to this same comment already, on the relevant talk page. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTBALL

Should we update this again, the current NFootball has no clarification for Champions League or Europa League, the level UEFA competitions. Govvy (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see why a clarification is required; it currently states that a player who plays in a competitive match between two clubs from fully-professional leagues is deemed notable – this is league, cup, Europe etc. There is nothing special about the European matches in terms of notability. Number 57 18:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on hockey notability criteria for women

If anyone is interested, there is a discussion at the policy village pump on expanding the criteria for women's teams, coaches, and players in hockey. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW. That's Ice Hockey for those, like myself, who assumed it was a different sport. Nigej (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

College athletes

Criteria for college athletes says "Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major NCAA Division I record." That template lists awards from lesser divisions, such as the Walter Payton Award. I think this may be in conflict, as many well known D1 players will not meet the standard, and significantly less notable D2 players would based on winning a national award. Thoughts? ghost 14:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Well winning a national award even for D2 is likely to garner some press that other D1 players may not have. I don't know enough on collegiate awards to say one way or the other but it does seem likely that is the case. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Failing this standard does not automatically mean that a player is not notable. The idea is that passing this standard means that a player has a high probability of passing GNG. A popular player may pass GNG without meeting this standard, and therefore would merit an article anyway, CThomas³ (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NGRIDIRON and NFL Europe

Does playing / coaching in NFL Europe count towards WP:NGRIDIRON? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs) 21:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I would think not considering how little attention that league got. Spanneraol (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think so. The league served as an attempt to up international interest in American football and as a chance to try out potential players. It was never on the same level as the NFL, although perhaps better than many of the other football minor leagues. Papaursa (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  I agree. I think it would have been considered a higher level than Arena league which passes NGRIDIRON, but I don't think we can lump it into NFL on its own. It pretty much was suppose to act as minor/farm league which we don't usually count towards automatic notability. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• The more important question I would ask is "Can I find enough reliable, independent source text to write a reasonable biography of this person." A job description is not why we write an encyclopedia article about someone. Having enough good source text to base our writing on is the only good reason to write an article. If they played for NFL Europe, AND you can find lots of good text about the person out there in reliable sources, and you can use that text to flesh out a reasonable biography of them (i.e. something about stub-level), then go for it. If you can't, then don't bother creating the article. Trying to decide if someone's job description is important enough to pass some arbitrary criteria won't make source text appear out of the ether. Your job as a researcher is to find that source text, not split hairs over what job someone held... See WP:42. --Jayron32 19:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the purpose of SNGs is to set a benchmark where it would be reasonable to assume sufficient coverage exists to meet WP:GNG. If WP:GNG is not met, the SNG is a guide that the sources have a good chance of existing--although finding them may not be easy. At any rate, just playing in NFL Europe doesn't seem to meet that benchmark. Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of SNGs is to let editors know when it is likely to be worth their while to look for sources; but the existence of an SNG doesn't create source material out of nothing. If the source material does not exist we shouldn't have an article. --Jayron32 18:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This was concerning Draft:Vershan Jackson where he played in the NFL preseason but was either injured or cut from the roster, then joined NFL Europe for their season, and then coached on a bunch of different football teams from colleges and schools to non-notable arena football. Right now the coverage is either routine or connected strongly to his alumni articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Australian rules football

Former discussion

Sorry, posted this on one of the archive pages originally.....

I think the second (and to a lesser extent the criterion for coaches) of three criteria for Australian rules football is linked to the wrong article. The criterion in question is Before 1990, appeared in a match of the Victorian Football League. Problem is, the Victorian Football League article is about the organisation known as the Victorian Football Association prior to 1990. The competition known as the Victorian Football League was renamed the Australian Football League in 1990 and the competition known as the Victorian Football Association was renamed the Victorian Football League in 1996.

Suggest the criteria be rewritten as:

1. Has appeared in a match of the Australian Football League.
2. Prior to 1990, appeared in a match of the competition known as the Victorian Football League (now known as the Australian Football League).
3. Is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league.

Coaches are presumed notable if they have been the head coach of an Australian Football League team or, before 1990, a team in the competition then known as the Victorian Football League.

Any thoughts/comments welcome. Thanks. MC Rocks (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks good. I did the original wording and I'm a rugby league fan, so I'm more than happy to defer to your expertise! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with either. The AFL/VFL change was in name only and should not be split over two points. Players and senior/head coaches should be treated the same. The last point is virtually the GNG, but I can see the point of stating it to ensure that lower level players without major individual achievements (really like that term!) aren't kept, or significant players who never went to Melb aren't dumped.

1. Has played or coached in a match of the Australian Football League (known as the Victorian Football League before 1990).
2. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state level football league - ie Current VFL/previous VFA, WAFL, SANFL, TFL, QAFL, NSW/ACTAFL, NTFL and their precursors. <these will be linked but I'm on a non-tabbed browser!>

I'll mention this at WT:AFL to ensure it has wider consensus.The-Pope (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No problems from my point of view, was just trying to differentiate between the VFL/AFL and VFA/VFL. MC Rocks (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments on this proposal:

1. There should be the word 'or' between the criteria, to make it clearer.
2. I would suggest having been listed by an AFL team would be enough for notability (there are players who have been drafted into a senior side but who have not yet played a senior match).
3. For criterion 3, in addition to state leagues, you should add Superules, Women's Footy, and overseas leagues.
4. The VFL wasn't the dominant league until perhaps the 1960s/70s. A coach or player of the WAFL from pre-World War 2 would be just as notable as a VFL coach or player from the same era. I think that before about 1970, the criteria should be VFL or WAFL or SANFL.

- Richard Cavell (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Current discussion

I propose an amendment to the notability criteria for Australian rules footballers and coaches.

As Australian rules football is largely a single country code and largely prior to the advent of the AFL in 1990 the top level of the code was largely a series of state leagues with the top players spread across the country in the various that the notability be broadened prior to 1990 when the VFL became the AFL to all the state leagues where the code was the dominant one in that jurisdiction. Thus all players who played in the VFL, SANFL, WAFL, TANFL prior to 1990 be notable. Although not perfect as the game was in transition during the 1980's I think that 1990 is the best cut off point with "AFL era" becoming a more common use of phrase to distinguish from the pre 1990 era of the game.

Current notability is listed as:

Athletes who compete in Australian rules football are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Have appeared in a match of the Australian Football League or AFL Women's.
2. Before 1990, appeared in a match of the Victorian Football League.
3. Is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league.

Coaches are presumed notable if they have been the head coach of an Australian Football League or AFL Women's team or, before 1990, a Victorian Football League team.

Proposed notability for Australian rules football:

Athletes who compete in Australian rules football are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

1. Have appeared in a match of the AFL or AFL Women's.
2. Before 1990, made at lease one appearance for a state league club in the VFL, SANFL, WAFL, TANFL.
3. Is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league since 1990. Examples of major individual achievements would be a state league best and fairest or induction to a state league hall of fame.

Coaches are presumed notable if they have been the head coach of an Australian Football League or AFL Women's team or, before 1990, a state league club in the VFL, SANFL, WAFL, TANFL.

---

Someone who played 1 VFL game prior to 1990 is arguably no more notable than someone who played 1 SANFL, WAFL or TANFL game prior to 1990. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the Youth Olympics part of the Olympics as intended in WP:SPORTBASIC?

There is disagreement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Duncan (which I started) about the NSPORTS rule in WP:SPORTSBASIC: "[...] sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." about whether this "(such as the Olympics)" includes the Youth Olympics. All input and opinions are welcome (here or at the AfD) to help make this clearer. Fram (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say definitely not. A huge difference in standard. It's like saying the boys singles winner at Wimbledon is a Wimbledon champion or playing in the Junior Ryder Cup is like playing in the Ryder Cup itself. Nigej (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say no, too. Exceptions, IMO, would be for people winning individual golds, which they would probably pass WP:GNG with coverage of that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I would also say a huge no. But, using Nigej's example, participating in professional Wimbledon is notable, while participating in boys Wimbledon is definitely not. However, winning the boys or girls Wimbledon championship is notable. But you have to win it to be notable, participation only does not remotely make the cut in jr tennis. Perhaps it's the same in youth Olympics, but to be honest, though I watch 100s of different sports I'm not sure I've even heard of the youth Olympics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No. As I pointed out in the aforementioned AfD discussion, even Youth Olympic medal winners have had their pages deleted because of a lack of significant coverage and an inability to duplicate their success as juniors in adult competitions. WP:NSPORT refers to competing at the highest level of competition, with no qualifying modifiers (such as in their age group), and clearly the Youth Olympics is not the highest level of competition in any sport. There's a reason junior events are discounted, or even ignored, in the notability criteria for all sports. Papaursa (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the key words are at the highest level, youth in most instances are allowed to compete at the regular Olympics as well which means that is the highest level. -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Concur with the reasoning above. The Youth Olympics, while organized by the IOC, are not the Olympic Games and have completely different eligibility criteria, not to mention monumental differences in media coverage. The reason that (real) Olympic competitors are given special consideration at NSPORT is in large part because their participation in those events almost guarantees that at least some reliable sources have taken significant notice of their participation, and therefore they have a strong possibility of passing our general notability guidelines. Competitors at lesser senior events must have placed highly or won their event to qualify. IMO the Youth Olympics ranks alongside the IAAF World Junior Championships and Youth World Championships, which require the competitor to have won an individual gold medal to qualify under NSPORT (point #4 for track & field athletes). CThomas³ (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Even winning a Youth Olympics gold medal may not be enough to show notability in every sport. Several gold medal winners had their articles deleted because they failed to generate coverage outside of (or even including) that accomplishment and did nothing as adult competitors in their sport. I'd say this sidebar boils down to whether or not a youth/junior world championship normally shows notability in that sport. It seems reasonable to equate the two. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I was merely stating that NSPORT already recognizes two major youth events and establishes gold medal winners as the relevant hurdle (no pun intended) to pass; I personally would consider the Youth Olympics to be no less prestigious, and thus require the same threshold. However, if we wish to revisit notability across youth sporting events in general, I am definitely open to that. CThomas³ (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure which two you are referring to. Nigej (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NTRACK, point 4: Have won an individual gold medal at the IAAF World Junior Championships, or Youth World Championships. CThomas³ (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Orienteering (again)

Now I have considered the suggestions in Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_30#Orienteering and propose the following. I structure it in subsections so the discussion can take place there. Per W (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Athletes

An athlete who competes in the field of orienteering is presumed notable if he/she meets any of the criteria below

1. Has finished top 3 in the World Orienteering Championships or the European Orienteering Championships.
2. Finished top 3 in any other major senior level individual international competition according to the criterion below. Presently that means the three medalists in H21E and D21E in O-Ringen, except for the competition until 1968, when there was not so many runners.
3. Has won an individual gold medal at the Junior World Orienteering Championships, in a World Ranking Event (Swedish League etc)
4. Has won a senior national championship in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships, presently Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, the Soviet Union, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine.

Any thoughts? Per W (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I would scrap the list of countries. The definition is enough, since there is a list at World Orienteering Championships#Medal table. Nigej (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! You are right. Per W (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose #4, which is too broad and does not indicate likelihood of passing GNG. There are not even articles about those events themselves so one cannot inherit notability from that. Oppose #3: see the above discussion Youth Olympics; this does not create a presumption of notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Clubs

An orienteering club is presumed notable if it meets any of the criteria below

1. has got a medal in a major relay (according to the criteria below, which mean presently Tiomila (both the Tiomila relay and the women’s relay, since 1970 when the number of team became so large that it could not anymore be organized from point A to point B) and the Jukola relay (both Jukola, from 1972, and Venla).
2. has been represented by ten runners who fulfill the criteria above.

Any thoughts? Per W (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really think these work. I would leave clubs to GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Events

The notability of an event is determined by meeting all the following criteria

1. It has an international elite field.
2. It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors.
3. It has been held over a period of 25 years.

Presently that means O-Ringen, Tiomila and the Jukola relay .

Any thoughts? Per W (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as above, this sort of thing is better left to GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Track and field: "Senior"

WP:NTRACK repeatedly talks of "senior level" competitions or "senior national championship". What is meant by that? "Senior" as in "not junior", ie competitions for regular adults? Or as in "senior citizens",e.g. a competition for those aged 60 and older? Or as in "the oldest/most prestigious/whatever national championship"? A Google search seems to indicate that "for senior citizens" is the most commonly used meaning, but that doesn't make much sense in our context. Huon (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

In sports Senior is used to indicate non-Junior players or as you indicate regular open competition where there is no age restriction. Where the cut off line is can vary depending on sports but is usually around 20 in most competitions. However, in senior competitions, those of junior age can usually still compete if they are of high enough skill whereas those over a given age can't drop down into junior competition. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Track and field use the terms Senior and then Masters (or Veteran in the UK) for those over a certain age (typically 35 or 40) . However Category:Senior sport has a sub-cat Category:Masters athletics (track and field), so the term Senior is somewhat confusing. Nigej (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

So then senior should be defined in an own article. In orienteering it is 21-34 years old. Per W (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

NOLY

Currently, the guideline says:

Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924

That is in direct conflict with Wikipedia is not a directory, a policy that dates back over 14 years] and is itself a clarification of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".

See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Soto the arguments are about what the subject has done, not about what sources exist. That is a violation of WP:V (as supported by WP:RS).

This is a perfect illustration of how local consensus of fans of a specific subject can lead to a guideline that not only encourages articles that are not compliant with policy, but also leads people to make arguments for retention which argue to the guideline not to the policy. Guidelines are supposed to illuminate, not supplant policy. At the top of this guideline it says an article must meet GNG or the sport specific criteria. That is wrong. if it doesn't meet GNG, especially since it is very likely to be a WP:BLP, then we cannot have an article, because we cannot verify neutrality.

I propose we add the following at the top of this guideline article instead:

Subject-specific guidelines are indications of the type of person who is likely to have sufficient sources to qualify for an article (the general notability guideline), and for whom notability is likely to be assumed provided non-trivial sources exist. This article is a guideline, not a policy. Wikipedia is not a directory

all Wikipedia articles require non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources so that content can be properly verified.

Anything else appears to be an assertion that local agreement of sports fans supplants policy. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Long-standing consensus on this page is that it does not override the general notability guideline. This is noted in the FAQ and in the third paragraph: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. I've previously opened discussion on the second sentence, and failed to gain consensus to change it. The consensus view is that the sentence is needed to specify that the article must cite sources to back up whatever presumption of notability is being asserted, and it does not mean that the sports-specific notability guidelines take precedence. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the guideline says The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Then, lower, we have "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924". That frames competing in the Olympics as a bright line inclusion criterion regardless of sourcing. That is unacceptable per policy. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I discussed this sentence, and you can see my views in the linked discussion, and the one that one in turn links to. Regarding framing, closers of deletion discussions really must read the entire guideline and understand its context. Otherwise, they are misapplying it and substituting their own opinions for the consensus agreement that this guideline does not supersede the general notability guideline and only serves to provide some buffer time to find appropriate sources. isaacl (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: The text of the part of WP:NOLY that you are contesting is missing in your post.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• It should definitely be changed to clarify that it is only the Summer and Winter games. There have been attempts to justify biographies on the basis of playing the youth olympics. "including" is a strange word to use, implying incompleteness. We can just remove the word. (And the dates too, which are pointless) Nigej (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• The sentence you are saying is wrong, is actually being interpreted by you wrong. That sentence is meant to show that if you are saying it meets the GNG or that it meets the SNG that you need to have sources to proove either. You aren't the first to come along and complain about that sentence. It has been the subject of many RfCs both here and at wider viewed community forums. While most don't believe this SNG overrides the GNG (as we make clear in the FAQ) there have been RfCs on WP:N where it does actually say the SNGs are on equal footing with GNG. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This does look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING, with the AfD not going the way the OP wanted. And the individual at the AfD has done other things outside the Olympics, including captaining the national team. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It is also a misaplication of WP:NOTDIR, Third party works would and do include such persons. Agathoclea (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There are third-party directories, like sports almanacs. We (WP) is not trying to replicate that. The issue about NOTDIR more specifically about not being a "who's who" is spot on. --Masem (t) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I commented at the AFD in question, but JzG's point is right on, given how many of the !votes there are saying, effectively "notable because meets NOLY". Regurgitating an SNG at an AFD is specifically an argument to avoid. JzG has presented a sourcing challenge against the presumed notability that NOLY gives (the allowance to create a standalone article), so now it the onus is on those wanting to keep to show appropriate independent secondary sourcing with in-depth coverage exists. --Masem (t) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• This all seems rather WP:POINT-y and blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The guideline is fine, we've got longstanding consensus, and this is a giant waste of our time. And there's going to be sources to back up just about anyone's participation in the Olympics, given how well-documented they are. In the highly unlikely event there isn't, which was clearly not the case at that AfD, sure, you can delete it, but that's not going to happen. Smartyllama (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the guideline is not fine. The guideline repudiates WP:V/WP:RS/WP:NOTDIR. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• • While I certainly do not question the ability to find a source to confirm someone participated in the Olympics, that's not the same as a independent secondary source that has in-depth coverage of the person. A reader should be asking "Why should I care about this person?" which is going to be answered by that type of coverage. Having an article where largest extent we can do is document that someone played at the Olympics is not an appropriate WP article. JzG is definitely asking pertitent questions based on how that specific AFD is going in how NOLY (and other NSPORTS) are being missed as AFD arguments. --Masem (t) 15:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Have you actually read the WP:ATA article you claim proves you right? There's absolutely nothing wrong with citing an SNG at an AfD as long as you actually explain why it applies. In this case, it's fairly obvious - WP:OLY applies because the subject has competed at the Olympics. Likewise, claiming it should be deleted "per WP:GNG" or "per WP:V" without elaborating further is also an argument to avoid per that page. Smartyllama (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Just saying that an SNG applies is not a useful !vote, unless it is specifically challenging the nom's opposition that the SNG doesn't apply. But in the specific case, it's pretty clear JzG knows NOLY applies, the challenge is beyond that. And in terms of JzG's nominate, they spelled out why they think there's problems with lack of soruces, and didn't just repeat alphabet soup. It's a valid AFD challenge. --Masem (t) 15:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Genuine question. Is it true that the onus is on those wanting to keep? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talk • contribs)
  • Those wanting to keep this either needs to 1) explain how they feel that JzG's source evaluation is flawed against the types of expectations given in WP:BEFORE, or, failing that 2) demonstrate that quality sources exist that can be used to expand the article. Editors wanting to include Olmypians get the benefit of doubt to start with the presumed notability NOLY allows, so when it comes to deletion, the onus falls on them if there's a valid challenge to that presumption. --Masem (t) 15:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I thought the whole point of the discussion was to determine whether the challenge was "valid", not to assume it before-hand. Nigej (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the onus is always on those who introduce content changes to provide adequate citations for those changes, including citations to illustrate that a subject meets English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. However as noted in the FAQ, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. isaacl (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Which does raise the issue related to source-finding due to the time period this person was active. A person in the 2000 Olympics, just at the cusp of wide-spread internet use, should be easy to find online but one might argue there needs to be offline searching so the DEADLINE consideration is valid (and whether JzG attmtped this before nom) In contrast, if this was a 1960s Olmypian, I would expect a nom to document their off-line efforts to find sources (extending that DEADLINE), while a 2016 Olmypian better clearly have articles about them online, shortening that DEADLINE. --Masem (t) 16:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree that anyone making the case that they've made a thorough search to refute the reasonable expectation that appropriate sources can be found should be including their efforts to examine harder-to-locate sources. Note, though, that major periodicals and newspapers are available in online archives through libraries and a certain search engine dating back for a long time now. isaacl (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I spent many hours trying to source an article on a former swimming teacher who was a multiple medal-winning paralympian in swimming and wheelchair basketball, with an MBE. Not even the local paper's microfiche had anything. My issue is that the guideline makes a leap from we are likely to be able to get sources for this kind of person, to this kind of person is inherently sourceable even if there's no evidence the supposed sources actually exist and nobody can find them. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • But notability is nothing to do with content: WP:NEXIST. "Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." Nigej (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It's not necessary to review the notability of an article solely on the basis of the sources included within it at a given snapshot in time. Also, as I said, if a reasonable expectation of the availability of suitable sources can be established, editors are typically liberal in allowing for time to find them. But nonetheless the onus is on those who wish to have an article to make the case for its meeting the appropriate standards for inclusion. isaacl (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Can you tell me where it says that? Nigej (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Your link is right in the middle of the relevant section: "Notability requires verifiable evidence". (In the very subsection to which you linked, it says If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.) However more to the point, Wikipedia guidelines and policies aren't a set of codified laws where discussions can only apply specific lines of reasoning that have been described in those pages. With few exceptions, the English Wikipedia community has agreed that subjects don't inherently meet its standards for having an article. On this basis, editors who want to introduce an article, upon being challenged on its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia, have to provide the necessary sources or a reasonable expectation that the necessary verifiable evidence can be found eventually. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I know all that. But suppose the person who created the article (many years ago, without adequate sources) is now dead. He may have had sources, he may not. Someone challenges the notability. It says that the proposer is "strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search", implying that the first stage is for the proposer to make genuine attempts to look for sources and "and consider the possibility of existent sources". If the proposer doesn't do that, it seems to me that it is a fair point to say "you proposed it, you look for sources". Nigej (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
            • As has been discussed, if there's a reasonable expectation that appropriate sources can be found, then editors wishing to convince others that an article should be deleted is well-advised to demonstrate what they have done to look for sources. But as described in the passage I quoted, if an article is being challenged repeatedly, and over time no sources have been found, then it will likely be easier to convince editors that suitable sources do not exist. The first time an article is nominated for deletion, "You look for them" might suffice to convince others; the third time, it might not be enough. isaacl (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
              • And 100 years from now, we'll all be dead, but the 1 million+ stubs will (probably) still be here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure what commentary you are making; are you suggesting that articles for deletion discussions are too lenient in allowing for time to find adequate sources to demonstrate that the standards for having an article are met? Or that editors are not being sufficiently diligent in expanding articles beyond stub status? Or that we really should be working on that immortality elixir in order to complete Wikipedia? isaacl (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
                  • There is a valid concern that a loose guideline like NOLY or NFOOTY allow the creation of so many stubs continually over time but there are few too editors working to bring those stubs to quality articles. --Masem (t) 21:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
                    • Sure, but I was wondering what Lugnuts was thinking about with his comment. isaacl (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
            • @Isaac: There is also an obligation on the person creating the article to establish that it can be sourced, especially for a WP:BLP. In this case I waded through pages of Google hits and found results tables and other people with the same name. It's not reasonable to expect that someone can create a directory entry and then insist that others use advanced Google searches and specific knowledge of the person's name and history in order to try to do their job for them. Source it or lose it is a requirement for a BLP - and in fact for any Wikipedia article. But the cause of the problem here is a guideline which explicitly states that any directory entry showing that X competed in an Olympics inherently meets the requirements for inclusion. That guidance is incorrect per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTDIR and WP:BLP, all of which have much wider consensus than this SNG. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
              • Yes, I've already said the onus is on the article creator, so we agree. As I alluded to above, you can't cherry pick one line out of this guideline and say the entire guidance is wrong. The guidance clearly states that meeting one of the sports-specific notability guidelines does not mean an article must be kept, and that meeting one of them means that it is likely the general notability guideline is met. The first section, "Applicable policies and guidelines", says ...standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. The FAQ says The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them.. Naturally as with any guideline, there could be improvements in the wording. But the consensus view since the inception of this guideline has been affirmed many times since, and it completely agrees with you that the sports-specific notability criteria do not define inherent notability and that the general notability guideline must be met. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Going back to the AfD in question, I managed to find five indepth sources in Spanish pretty quickly, with little or no ability to speak da' lingo myself. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The AfD proposer should have attempted "to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search" but said that "I cannot find any biographical sources about this subject." Nigej (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe from someone who has been an editor on here for more than 14 years, and an admin for 13 of those years. But maybe that's just me. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This is why it is fair at an AFD to critique the nominator's BEFORE tests. Even just peaking at the first two sources with google translate, but not checking the RS nature of those sites, there's clearly something, but it did require searching non-English sources. The fact they have been shown (and that there is agreement they are the GNG-type of sources) means the AFD nom was flawed. That's fine, and nominators may make such mistakes. --Masem (t) 19:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Right. Whereas if you're four pages in and have still only found results tables and other people, that's a good indication that the article fails. Which is what happened with the most recent one I nominated. In the end, the person creating an article bears the primary responsibility for demonstrating notability. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually this Afd pretty much proved why this SNG needs to exist. It exists to show when articles probably have sources but that they may be harder to find than just a simple couple page google search. In essence you showed exactly why we need this SNG to prevent over zealous deletion from people who didn't look harder than a couple pages of google results. In the case of some older athletes that might even require looking in hard copy archives. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The key thing here about this particular AFD is that while NOLY can exist and can be used as the basis of an article, it cannot be used to defend an article at AFD, it becomes a circular argument. You can challenge what the nominator said by questioning what they searched or showing that some other sources exist, but you cannot sit there at afd and say "notable because NOLY", SNGs allow the article to be created but they are not arguments against deletion. --Masem (t) 13:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's true. However they can "consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search", even without finding sources themselves, and argue for its retention on that basis. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That is going to be dependent on how well the nominator has demonstrated what they searched. If the nom had done a rather thorough search, arguing that sources might exist without showing any is not going to fly. On the other hand, a non-thorough search by the nominator can be argued this way, but you still make a better case if you can actually show a source or two. --Masem (t) 16:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That's true too. If someone came along saying he spoke Korean and had access to Korean newspapers and could find nothing on some Korean golfer from the 1960s say, then I'd be inclined to believe him. However, if someone simply looked for on-line English language sources (as I would myself) I'd be very unconvinced, given the lack of coverage of Korean events in English language sources at that time or, perhaps, in contemporary on-line Korean language sources. Nigej (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The "four pages in and nothing but tables" argument doesn't make sense me. A lot of the time, especially with people whose notability will primarily come in a foreign language, English-language directory sites will be prioritised by the search engines over non-English feature articles. SportingFlyer T·C 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to source the article properly and not create directory entrioes, and to ensure that the guideline says not to create directory entries. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: If SNG's were not to be used in AfDs, then they are no better than an essay. That is not the common practice, and I'd be suprised if it was the intent of creating all these guidelines. I'd understand your stance more in a hypothetical case where no sources were identified, the article was kept per an SNG, but then was renominated some time later after the nominator failed to find offline sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

SNGs can be used if the nomination begs something "This person doesn't appear notable per the GNG.", in which case stating that the SNG is met is sufficient. But when the nom is "While this person meets the SNG, I was unable to find additional sources to expand beyond that.", then rehashing the SNG doesn't make any sense. The SNG is more an article creation allowance to avoid rapid deletion like CSD or AFD before anyone has had a chance to really look for sources. --Masem (t) 15:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Your two nomination examples semantically read the same to me. Both of them say "I looked for sources, and failed." The SNG camps reaction would be "You didn't look hard enough or in the right places." I have yet to see a nomination state explicitly that they knew the topic should generally be considered notable because of an SNG, did a through search of online archives (paid would be even more convincing) and offline sources with the mentality that they were out there somewhere, but still found nothing significant. I'll concede that there might be a few AfDs like that, but they would be rare. And then you have this recent one where sources were found after the nomination. Unless we get domain-experts that are willing to clean up SNGs that are suspect, or engage enough non-experts to agree that it doesn't make sense and is only a local consensus, things will never change.—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Its the difference of looking for a primary source like a sports database to prove the SNG was met, verses finding multiple independent secondary sources that discuss the athlete in depth. The first is a trivial search though that primary source must be in the article to meet WP:V's minimum. The latter is the difficult part but that's when its the case that notability beyond what the SNG presumes must be demonstrated, or that the nomination hasn't demonstrated a thorough search. The former should be simple to conclude, the latter requires more thought, so they are not equivalent in that manner. --Masem (t) 15:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

... notability beyond what the SNG presumes must be demonstrated ...: Your must is arguably ideal, but requires more non-domain participants who are less likely to parrot out "meets SNG".—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That's basically why "meets SNG" is an argument to discourage at AFD, to be enforced/taken in account by closers, unless the issue raised in nomination is whether a specific SNG is met or not (in addition to the GNG not being met). --Masem (t) 17:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4#RfC: Promote Notability .28sports.29 to a guideline for the discussion that resulted in these guidelines being enacted. All supporters acknowledged that they do not replace the general notability guideline. There was also consensus agreement that they did not set a higher bar than the general notability guideline for having an article. Meeting a sports-specific notability guideline establishes a reasonable expectation by default that suitable sources can be found, and so one can be referenced for this purpose. But if editors perform an extensive search for significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources and fail to find it, then the reasonable expectation no longer exists for the specific subject in question. It is of course not easy to make a sufficiently extensive search, and a consensus of editors at an article for deletion discussion will have to agree on its sufficiency. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I suspect there's distrust because of the number of bad nominations of SNG-meeting subjects that end up having coverage found. So when a legit nomination comes, it's dismissed as another case of a poor WP:BEFORE. There's the steps recommended in the WP:FAILN guideline, but I rarely see those followed; that should either be enforced or removed from guideline status.—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)