Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Curling

Yesterday, World Wheelchair Curling Championships was added to the curling guideline. Was this discussed somewhere? Has evidence presented that participants are overwhelmingly likely to pass WP:GNG? Cbl62 (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary mentions were it was discussed: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Curling/Article_Guidelines#Adding_wheelchair_curlers_to_notability_guidelines Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussions likes this cannot be held in isolation from the main guideline pages. The Wikiproject pages can set up a proposed set of guidelines and then present them here to be added, but they cannot unilaterly add them as these are global wikipedia guidelines. This is why the NSPORTS guidelines are so out of whack with the rest of the notability guidelines is because they are built by Wikiproject fifedoms. I'm sure there was good intent there as with others, but there needs to be a process for the project to recommend guidelines and editors on this page to review and comment before adding. --Masem (t) 14:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. We didn't realize this, but we are now happy to continue the discussion here and achieve consensus before making any changes. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I've put it to the test at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Erb. Fram (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I gave a cursory look and see red links for participants on the World Wheelchair Curling Championship page, and a random look at a blue link, Jon Thurston, shows it's merely sourced to non-independent sources or stats listings. This needs to be discussed further here.—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The main issue we had before the addition of the wheelchair championships to #3 (have won a medal) was that #2 ("Have participated at the World Curling Championships...") was ambiguous. "World Curling Championships" technically refers to men's, women's, mixed doubles, junior, senior, mixed, and wheelchair world championships, but #2 was only supposed to refer to men's, women's, and mixed doubles. Several articles on non-notable curlers who had only participated (not even medalled) in wheelchair worlds were created because of this ambiguity, so I think the first course of action is to rephrase #2 to say "Have participated at the World Men's, Women's, or Mixed Doubles Curling Championships." Perhaps we were too quick to try to add back the wheelchair championships—in the case of Jon Thurston, a quick Google search shows several independent sources (which could be used to expand the article), but this is clearly not the case for all world wheelchair medallists. I know that Olympic vs. Paralympic athletes' notability has been discussed at length in the past (I haven't read up on it all yet), so maybe we should discuss further about where wheelchair curlers fit into the presumed notability guidelines (if at all). For example, while medallists (what we had changed it to) may or may not pass WP:GNG, would world wheelchair champions be presumed notable? Or, like Olympic/Paralympic notability, would wheelchair curlers be left out of WP:NCURLING entirely, and considered only on a case-by-case basis? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"but this is clearly not the case for all world wheelchair medallists." Then it is not appropriate to add that in as a blanket pass. My ongoing stance is that I am happy to support any new criterion where it's been demonstrated that 95%+ of the athletes that meet it will pass the GNG. Ravenswing 19:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I did a quick search of each world wheelchair champion and almost all had at least 2 or 3 (if not more) news articles covering them—at least one covering their worlds win, usually at least one ahead of a world championship/Paralympics after their worlds win (highlighting that they will be participating in that event), and often at least one covering their life/aspects of their life after winning worlds. Canadian wheelchair curlers get significantly more news coverage than international wheelchair curlers, so they could be notable under the GNG (world champions, medallists, or not). My current opinion is that all world wheelchair champions (not just medallists) could be presumed notable. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the criteria should also include winning the Canadian championship? -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Winning the Canadian championship doesn't qualify directly for worlds (since they hand-pick the Canadian team for wheelchair worlds), but it generates significant news coverage, so I think that would make sense. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

But here you quote 90%. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Your point being? As it happens, an editor commented that 90% was too low for "highly likely." Upon reflection, I agreed with him. I'm allowed to change my views. Thank you for playing. Ravenswing 20:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

That you're making up an arbitrary number with no rationale behind it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ahem. Like any other editor, I am quite entitled to decide for myself what "highly likely" means, and assign it a value I believe reasonable and proper. Is that an arbitrary number? No kidding. So is damn near any other notability criterion on Wikipedia. The whole premise that a single top-flight match is presumptively notable, while a thousand minor-league ones aren't? Arbitrary. That the GNG calls for multiple reliable sources instead of just one (or a minimum of five) -- arbitrary. Consensus holds that high schools are notable and elementary schools are not -- arbitrary. And so on and so forth. Welcome to Wikipedia. Ravenswing 07:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. But it could look like your just picking a random number to suit. And please don't take that childish tone. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Provoking a fight for such a petty reason is not the best way to further being treated with respect. I strongly recommend you drop the stick. Ravenswing 13:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Top-flight matches have been agreed by consensus and are part of the guidance. Ditto for high schools. Ditto for GNG. Not the case for you picking 90%, or 95%. Hardly "provoking a fight", but if that's your mentality to blow off steam, so be it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

To be fair his number isn't a random number, 90%+ is the general number that most people in discussions on this page use. 99.999% is a very common one. The point being that there should be almost zero people that don't meet a requirement. The reason we don't go as far as 100% is because there is always some weird exception to the rule, but the goal is to make them so that there are no false positives. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

(nods to DJSasso) Precisely. Now I'd think that 99.999% a poor choice, because that suggests that any notability criterion would be invalidated so long as one person who met it could be found to fail the GNG. (That, by the way, is an actual argument, not a snide "I don't like the number you chose, because, well, reasons.") It just wouldn't occur to me to belabor the notion, because in the end, we all get to decide for ourselves what we're going to support, to what degree, and why, and I'd never attempt such a lameass argument as that anyone's stance as to what's proper or not ought to be determined by consensus. You don't like 90% or 95%, whatever, decide based on whatever number makes you happy. Drop the damn stick. Ravenswing 03:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of people who complain that the sports notability criteria are too generous, so strict criteria are generally more desirable. If one of ten athletes meet the criteria but would ultimately fail to receive consensus support for having an article, that's ~11% extra articles that has to be dealt with through lengthy discussions. If one of twenty athletes are false positives, that's ~5% extra articles, and for one out of hundred, ~1% extra articles. Any extra overhead that can be eliminated is more time for substantive contributions. Zero false positives would be overly restrictive ("Wayne Gretzky gets an article" has zero false positives, but isn't helpful at all), but the closer the criteria approaches this while still including a sizeable number of athletes, the more time can be avoided in articles for deletion discussions. isaacl (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really get that argument. If the sports notability criteria are too restrictive then there will be large numbers of false negatives (ie people who are notable but fail the particular NSPORT). When articles for these people are created it will be much more likely that they will be challenged, leading us to many more lengthy discussions. The truth is that the criteria should match notability as well as can be achieved (based on the likely/highly likely terms used in the guideline). Having said that, I agree that we should generally err somewhat on the restrictive side, but being overly restrictive is not the solution. Nigej (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That being said, more often than otherwise, athletes who fail the relevant NSPORTS criteria but who pass the GNG survive at AfD. Granted, we're getting pretty far afield of curling. Ravenswing 09:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we're largely in agreement: I also said being overly restrictive would not be helpful, and we both agree to err on the restrictive side. Regarding discussions: by default, editors should be finding sources that meet the general notability guideline. The sports-specific notability criteria promote article stability by avoiding quick deletions of articles where it is highly probable that appropriate sources exist. If the criteria are a bit strict, editors will have to do the spadework to find sources without relying on a reprieve from the sports-specific notability criteria, and cite them, which will forestall many deletion discussions. When a discussion does occur, rather than arguing whether or not meeting the sports-specific criteria is an adequate indication that appropriate sources exist, discussions can focus directly on the sources.

The problem with trying to achieve a very low false negative rate is there isn't necessarily a fixed underlying pattern. In North America, many baseball, hockey, and (gridiron) football players may have had suitable coverage, without having played in MLB, NHL, NFL, or CFL. But there's no clear dividing line between who has and hasn't. The only way to have a clear dividing line would be to shift to an achievement-based standard for having an article, but that's a discussion that'll have to take place at a broader community level. isaacl (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I confirm something? I interpret "World Curling Championships" in criterion #2 to mean men's or women's worlds (because it wouldn't make sense to include the other world championships that are specifically part of criterion #3). This means that, technically, no wheelchair curlers pass WP:NCURL right now. Yet a large majority of Paralympians, world champions, and Canadian champions would pass the GNG. Definitely not 99.999%, but over 90%, possibly 95%, have adequate coverage and could have their articles expanded significantly if needed. Thus, even if we do not add them to the notability criteria (although I think we should), we could still keep those articles as long as they pass the GNG? That is, GNG takes precedence over SNG? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The sports-specific notability guidelines do not set a higher bar for having an article, so yes, any person that passes the general notability guideline meets English Wikipedia's standards of having an article from a sourcing perspective. Note that what is being sought is significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources. Typically this means coverage where the athlete is specifically a focus of the source, beyond normal event-related coverage. isaacl (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. After a bit more investigation, I do think the vast majority of, if not all, wheelchair curlers who have either competed in the Paralympics or won the Canadian championship (or both) safely pass the GNG. Thus, I suggest the following changes:

• Change criterion #2 to read "Have participated at the World Men's, Women's, or Mixed Doubles Curling Championships." This would eliminate any more ambiguity as to which world championships are covered under this criterion, which is what led to this discussion in the first place.
• Change criterion #6 to read "Have won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championship, Canadian Senior Curling Championship, Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship, or Canadian Wheelchair Curling Championship." (Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Trials, which is currently there, is a redirect to Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship.)
• Add "Have participated in wheelchair curling at the Winter Paralympics."
• Add "Have won the World Wheelchair Curling Championship." I still think a large enough majority (at least 90%) of world champions would pass, but many just barely, so I wouldn't be opposed to leaving this out and going on a case-by-case basis, if we don't achieve consensus on this.
• Also (because grammar), change #8 to read "Are a member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame." Allthegoldmedals (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Olympics/Paralympics should be left out entirely since WP:NOLY covers that (also your suggested guideline doesn't match up with NOLY). I agree with all the rest of your suggested changes. A202985 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, good point! Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would show some of the results of your investigation. For example, take a random sampling, and list the sources you feel meet the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I meant to give a few examples yesterday but I didn't have enough time. Here are some Canadian wheelchair champions (I'm including red links and blue links that could use more sourcing): Bruno Yizek (1, 2, 3, 4), Darwin Bender (1, 2, 3, 4), Chris Sobkowicz (1, 2, 3), Sonja Gaudet (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), Frank LaBounty (1, 2, 3, 4), Corinne Jensen (1, 2, 3). I tried to choose from the whole time range. I'm a bit busy irl, so I don't have time to look for the world champions right now, and I'm sure I've missed a lot of other sources. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Now I didn't go through all your sources, but I did notice there was a blogspot blog for at least one of them which wouldn't be a reliable source. And I think I saw on most of them curling.ca as sources none of which would be independent because its the Canadian Curling association promoting its teams. So a good chunk of these sources would not go towards meeting GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this... Technically, Curling Canada isn't directly affiliated with the curlers in question, but I suppose it's a slippery slope because they're writing about their own events that those curlers are competing at. Independent or not aside, I'm feeling like a lot of Canadian/world wheelchair champions just barely meet GNG. I'm not sure anymore if they should be necessarily added to the SNG—what do others think? They can still be notable if they do pass GNG on a case-by-case basis. I still think these (minor) changes should be made, regardless of whether we add Canadian/world wheelchair champions:

• #2: "Have participated at the World Men's, Women's, or Mixed Doubles Curling Championships."
• #6: "Have won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championship, Canadian Senior Curling Championship, or Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship."
• #8: "Are a member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame."

Allthegoldmedals (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. IMHO (although I believe this to be the majority position), the function of the SNGs isn't to set up end-arounds to bypass the GNG, but to stipulate the point where one needn't bother to establish a GNG pass as a prerequisite for creating the article. Obviously many people meet the GNG without coming anywhere near close to meeting any SNG. Ravenswing 18:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finn Mikkelsen is also open regarding a wheelchair curler, this one being a wheelchair curler who never medaled at the World Wheelchair Curling Championship power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Multi-sport games medallists

Are Invictus Games medallists notable or not? SarahTHunter (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Only if the Invictus Games is the highest level of competition for the particular sport. For many of the Invictus Games sports the answer is clearly no, because the Paralympic Games and/or respective World Championships are the highest level of competition. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I wasn't sure if it was notable or not. I will continue working on Paralympians and such. SarahTHunter (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent English FC cricketers fail WP:GNG / WP:BIO

Ollie Steele played 6 first-class games, so according to NPORTS clearly notable. He is English, matches were recent (2013-2015), so nothing obscure or pre-internet or language problems in searching for sources. And yet, apart from some very short mentions (in match reports) in some local sources, there seems to be not a single reliable source about him apart from the typical cricket databases. In short, if this was judged only by the WP:GNG / WP:BIO line, this would be a deletion candidate.

Is he an exception, are my searches defective and is there a wealth of information, or is this typical for many recent first-class cricketers? E.g. Ashley Gowers, I can find even less information on him, but 2 FC games in 2016 so automatically notable? Archie Ogden, same issues. Jack Sterland, identical.

These are people about whom very, very little has been written, people who aren't notable by any standard definition and wouldn't survive an AfD if it wasn't for the SNG.

If there are this many persons who fail the GNG (the above is just a sampling), isn't it then time to reassess the validity of the GNG and the claim that playing FC cricket is an indication that sources will exist? Fram (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that you would need to successfully AfD a good percentage to demonstrate that it is broken. Otherwise, I've rarely seen these types of discussions lead anywhere. It would also likely require participation from many non-cricket editors to minimize the risk of the outcome being driven by a possible WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit of a catch-22: when you bring these to AfD, a fair number of people blindly vote "Keep, meets NSPORTS", but you can't change NSPORTS without getting some deletes at AfD first... So, I thought my best approach would be to first check the waters a bit here, to see if some people agree on the one hand, and to see if people would be able to provide evidence that these 4 are notable (GNG-wise, not just for playing FC cricket) and the problem was with my searches for sources. Third option would be that these matches are not "the highest domestic level" as defined by WP:CRIN, but I doubt it. Fram (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That would bring up Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q4. Ideally, a subject should be able to demonstrate GNG at some point. For those whose career are post-internet, it shuold be less likely that sources are mostly offline, where needing more time would be understandable.—Bagumba (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

So Steele played for Durham MCCU, a University team. They had first-class status, which is technically the highest level of domestic cricket. BUT, in reality those matches are low-level practice matches for the professional county sides. Harrias ^talk 09:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains the lack of attention these get. Fram (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, that's an overly cynical view. They are also the launchpads for many careers in county cricket and beyond. In 2012, it was reported "Just under 25% of England-qualified cricketers currently playing in the county game graduated through the system. Durham MCCU alone has helped develop more than 50 county players, six county captains, three England players". It's first-class cricket, against first-class opposition. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And those who go on to reach those heights are presumlably notable (certainly the England players and county captains). But that quote also makes it clear that playing for Durham MCCU (and presumably other Uni teams) are considered less notable than those playing at county level, not equal to it. That they can (and many do) progress is good, but notability is not inherited; it's not because some of your former teammates have become notable, have gotten a further cricket career, that you become notable as well. Fram (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

MCCU matches are "first-class" in name only, certainly not "the highest domestic level" – it's worth noting that they are being downgraded, with first-class status being revoked from next year. Notability of participants in these games is questionable at best. Picking out those who've gone on to stellar careers ignores the majority who are never heard from (in cricket) again. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I would certainly tend to agree that playing *only* for a University side nowadays is unlikely to mean that in depth sources will be found about a cricketer. They might be, but I would doubt it. Once upon a time that was probably different - early 20th century Oxford or Cambridge players may well have a number of more in depth sources that can be found. But, as effective as the work the MCCU's did (and maybe still do - I suspect that 25% figure is going to be lower in the future; it certainly seems to be so), I'm unconvinced that this is truly notable cricket. I appreciate that this makes things harder to manage when it comes to determining articles and so on, but it seems to be the way it is. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This touches on a wider problem with NCRIC/CRIN, with the notability of most cricketers with very few appearances being highly questionable. Sources are almost always limited to indiscriminate statistical repositories and incidental mentions match reports/scorecards – entirely insufficient for N/GNG/BIO. Large numbers of such articles (mostly non-English players) have been deleted/merged/listified at AfD, but opposition to change of the guidelines at WPCRIC is strong, with some feeling that such players are notable (and should have articles) regardless of sources. Merging them into lists is a good option, but that too has been problematic at times. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Six FC appearances is more than notable; one FC with no century/five wicket haul should be a redirect. As pointed out, these matches are FC and we can't allow our opinion of the quality of the matches to get around that. A compromise has been made to redirect one FC players to lists or categories, and for now this should be sufficient. StickyWicket (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The cricket guideline (still) states one match, regardless of contribution/performance in that match (which doesn't even have to be first-class). The complete lack of required sources would seem to suggest that 6 university matches does not equal "more than notable". And of course, we can absolutely make a differentiation between the quality of MCCU matches and the county championship. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems a silly adaption to a guideline which has served us well for 16 years. What more would/could/should be said about a two-appearance first-class player than a one-appearance player? Feeling a wee bit victimized right now... Bobo. 01:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Quality" and "top level" aren't necessarily indicators of coverage. Per the guideline WP:WHYN: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Or appearance data/statistics transposed into a couple of sentences, which is what we have a great deal of here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Stats databases are consider WP:PRIMARY sources, so cannot be used to establish that GNG is met.—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Stats databases of any ilk would not go towards GNG, as they are not "significant" coverage. GiantSnowman 11:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, but they often do confirm NSPORTS requirements are met, leaving GNG requirements ignored, which is the problem. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The alleged problem is the NCRIC criteria, not that a DB is sourcing it.—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's the same criteria that is used for lots of other sports - at least one start - see WP:NFOOTY, WP:NAFL, WP:NBASE, WP:NBASKETBALL, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And if it turns out that meeting any of those criteria is a poor predictor of actual notability (as here), then those should be discussed and amended as well. A rare exception can always exist, but here it looks as if playing FC matches for one of these university teams (I listed players from 3 different teams above, the same exercise probably can be made for other teams as well) is in way too many cases not an indicator of notability (as defined in GNG / BIO). You are free to start discussions about these other guidelines of course, but their existence is hardly a reason to ignore potential issues with this one. Fram (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no potential issue here, I looked at one at random, and added a few sources. Deletion monkeys are going to delete, keepers are going to keep. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. Fram (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

So the one you changed is Ashley Gowers, where you added two sources of very local coverage, spending a few lines each on him (one from the Bury Times for a game when he was 15 years old in the Bolton & District Cricket Association[1], and one from Rochdale Online with a game report for a game in the LCB(?). No, these ones wouldn't make a footballer notable either. Local, routine match coverage, nothing more. Fram (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a one size fits all. Managing to play in one game in one league does not guarantee the same amount of coverage as another league.—Bagumba (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the problem is with the criteria themselves, but the assumption that the criteria are a concrete reference point that it's not possible to be sensible about. There is some work going on with trying to determine a list of competitions that might mean that someone's likely to be notable - Lugnuts has started work on that. And as AssociateAffiliate says, there is an increasing consensus that a limited number of senior appearances but a lack of other information tends to mean that a redirect to a list is a better solution (I wouldn't say that there's a number of appearances that are a determining factor fwiw - it depends on what we know and so on). I think there are some ways that NCRIC could be re-written to make it easier to use (and certainly that CRIN could be), but the basic idea that a single appearance is quite possible a key notability point is, in context, a reasonable one.

Put it another way, if there's a problem with a single appearance in cricket then there's a problem in baseball and association football as well. I have no bones about there being issues with cricket, but there does appear to be a growing acceptance that there is a case for using common sense. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Yep, it would be an across the board issue with all sports, not just cherry-picking one that someone doesn't happen to like. Could be worse, we could have tons of stubs on non-notable villages in Belgium, if I was to pick something at random. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC) Considering that a few sections up on this page, I posted that I had removed the complete notability guideline for a sport I happen to like (speed skating), your ad hominem arguments aren't really convincing. Not surprising after the personal attack you posted earlier in this thread, or your unconvincing "random" Belgium village when you know I'm Belgian. If you would look through my editing history, you would notice that I often redirect villages to larger entities if nothing better can be said (for a Belgian one, see e.g. this), and this example isn't even a very good one, as this village gets full pages in guides[2], thousands of mentions or articles in the news[3] and a history going back at least 800 years[4]. Nothing extremely impressive, but not really comparable to the cricket player examples given above, and in any case totally irrelevant for the discussion here. Fram (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC) You're Belgian? OK, I didn't know that. Anyway, you are obviously picking off ones you don't like, with this comment sounding very much sounding that you're cock-a-hoop at getting something deleted ("I recently succeeded at getting some deletions!", and you've moved on to your next target. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC) "If you would look through my editing history..", such as this and this? OK. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC) That first one, Goar Vartanian, got a NYTimes obituary. I doubt any of the cricketers discussed here will get this (at least not based on their cricket career, they are stll young and may have other achievements later on). The second one, Fleddy Melculy, have released a #2 and a #1 album. Not of major interest, granted, but there are further reliable sources that could be added, like full interviews in Het Laatste Nieuws[5] or a more recent interview with the frontman[6] or an album review in Het Nieuwsblad[7]. So, your ad hominem point being...? I would appreciate if we can perhaps go back to discussing the merits of these cricketer articles and the underlying guideline, instead of raising one irrelevant tangent after another as if by somehow tarnishing me (so far, not really a success) the actual issue here would become moot and void. Fram (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC) You asked me to look at your contributions, but you see every critic of you as a ad hominem! Poor Fram. How's your RFA going? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The last bit about meaning if there is a problem with a single appearance it transfers across sports isn't really true. The whole reason we switched from the old WP:ATHLETE which was one pro appearance for any sport to WP:NSPORTS was because it was found that one shoe doesn't fit all sports. In some sports 1 appearance is enough, in baseball for example the minor leagues are heavily covered as well as the top level league so anyone who plays a single game in the Majors likely has enough sources to meet GNG from simply their minor league days. I don't know enough about cricket to know if that is true, but there are other sports where people don't start getting coverage until they are in the top league. But that is very much not the case for all sports. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I was probably thinking more of historical figures than contemporary ones. In terms of cricket, I think it would be possible, for example, to write an article that just about meets GNG about Nathan Gilchrist (see here for context) who doesn't have a senior appearance to his name - but I can find significant coverage in multiple media sources about him going back 2-3 years. Whether I could find that about a chap who played twice in 1906 or who pinch ran once in 1912, I don't know. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A general reminder that both NSPORTS and the GNG are presumptions of notability. We are giving the allowance of a standalone article expecting more sources to be added so that a comprehensive encyclopedic article can be written. If no more sources can be found or can be expected to be found, the presumption fails and deletion (or actions like merging or redirection) are appropriate. This case is exactly correct: if the player has a career in a first-world country post-2000 which means it should be easily documented online (via Google Search) but nothing comes up, and all we have are stats on 6 games, that's probably an indication the athlete is not notable at all, and the presumption failed. So AFD is the correct course of action. That's how the process is to work. It would be different if this were 6 games in 1960 , or if he was a player from, say, India, where online search may be not as successful as finding sources, and would require a more physical search of sources to prove out. --Masem (t) 14:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

True, but if we don't have sources for these players, it begs the question whether all these others which are "automatically" notable but from a different era are indeed notable or not. Many will be, don't get me wrong, but if the automatic assumption, based on our guidelines, isn't correct for recent ones, then why would it be correct for older ones? Fram (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

“And of course, we can absolutely make a differentiation between the quality of MCCU matches and the county championship”... but we can't, we are not an authority that can make that differentiation, only the ICC, MCC or ACS can. We simply work to their definition of first-class, be it Rajasthan v Delhi, Leinster v North-West, Surrey v Kent ect. StickyWicket (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we can. NSPORTS details are decided solely by us, enwiki editors. We try, for convenience, to base these on some "external" groupings or titles, but in the end we decide what e.g. a fully-professional football league is, or in which sports participation at the world championships is sufficient, or, if we were so inclined, appearing for which FC teams is sufficient and which FC teams fall below that standard. Whether any other body makes that distinction is not, in the end, decisive, although it is something we normally take into consideration. Fram (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. We are not talking about article content that needs to be sourced. We're discussing guidelines for presumed/likely notability, for which we can easily and rightly make a differentiation when necessary. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think in some cases we certainly can and in others it's more difficult to. Fwiw I was listening to commentary yesterday where a very well respected ex-professional was generally of the opinion that "runs's against the Universities didn't count". Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I can kind of see the point about the F/C status of the University matches. But I guess we go with what the ICC/ECB class them as. Using football as an example (ugh) I can think of plenty of lower-league cups that are called Mickey Mouse tournaments by fans and players alike. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand the logic of that, but on the other hand I think there would be worse places to end up. Football, iirc, uses "fully professional league" as the rationale iirc. That might provide the logic for compromise for current players? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they have their stand-alone league list, which I assume is all sourced/agreed on before leagues are added. As you know, I've been working on a similar list for cricket tournaments/matches, using the ICC's definition of "Official Cricket". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Which I think could be a good place to work from. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It occurred to me that we've already decided to draw the line differently to the ICC for T20I players. For very good reasons - essentially people playing in very minor teams probably aren't notable. There's not that much difference with applying that same logic to other situations, is there? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, there isn't. I guess we need to be careful of applying retro-downgrading (for want of a better term) to players to push them below the current threshold. Might be worth looking at some examples. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me offer a slightly different and sincere take on several of the above comments: A general reminder that both NSPORTS and the GNG are presumptions of notability. We are given the allowance of a standalone article expecting more sources to be added so that an encyclopedic article can be written. If no more sources can be found or can be expected to be found, the presumption fails. Where online search may not be successful at finding sources, a more physical search of sources would be required to prove out. In many, if not most, cases from long-ago eras, we cannot easily and rightly make a determination. It may be difficult, if not impossible, for us. We must allow a lengthy extended period of time for others to search, locate and dig out the information. This should be on the order of years. Jeff in CA (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"on the order of years" would be appropriate for anyone with career that was before 2000 ("Internet times") , or was not in a major 1st-world country (which for most purposes, I'd consider US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia/NZ, and Japan) where documentation was not readily put to the web when published. Then yes, a local search would be fair. This specific person is neither - English with a career in the 2010s. If you can't find more now with googling, that's a pretty good sign there's not much more there to it. There's a slim chance a source or two could be buried at a more local source from where he grew up, but I mean, that's likely not going to give use the notability needed for a comprehensive article. There's a reasonable limit of how long we can allow stubby articles based on NSPORT criteria to stand, but when their presumed notability can be proven to be faulty rather quickly, we shouldn't be waiting years to say "but maybe there's a source that hasn't come up..." --Masem (t) 18:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a true sampling of recent English cricketers: they all happen to be former university players, which at a guess would form a subset of maybe 20% of all first class cricketers. I would personally exclude this category of player from the SNG but see this as an incremental improvement rather than a need to radically overhaul it. As others have suggested above, I'd add a requirement that the match appeared in is part of a competition. Spike 'em (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that if any of these conversations relating to applicability of subject-specific guidelines (Fram, please know I don't mean this conversation, as this is questioning to find a solution rather than argue against it) were occurring on any other team sporting subject-specific guideline, this whole issue would be thrown out within eighteen seconds and the instigator(s) in question admonished for disruption and/or topic banned. But, that's just me. The point that the question has, after 16 years, moved from brightline inclusion criteria to suitability of secondary source material shows that we need to do revisit the topic itself. And I don't know the answer. What can I say? To me, working to brightline criteria seems the only logical answer and nobody has convinced me otherwise regarding that. Nor has anyone convinced me that there are any other workable brightline inclusion criteria. As I've said elsewhere, nobody would bat an eyelid if any of these cricket biographies contained infoboxes. It's much easier to tag a cricketer for AfD than it is to write an infobox or to find alternative source material.

I wish I could remember the answer to this question, but I am fairly sure that some of the Indian cricketers whose articles were directly translated from my originals (most of which still have mainspace content unchanged for at least 11 years) into southern Indian languages), still exist on those Wikipedias. I always worked to the principle that WP was the complete sum of all human knowledge, as long as it could be agreed to pass consistent brightline criteria. And now the project has become akin to Frankenstein and Frankenstein's monster.

And to point out once again that GNG and N directly contradict each other as to the applicability of subject-specific notability criteria and the relationship between standalone lists and individual articles. Nobody can convince me that there was any consensus in this thread regarding the over-inclusivity of sports notability criteria. Most of the anti- arguments in said topic worked on the principle of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than trying to find a universally applicable solution. As noted down the page, "The conversation has too many threads and its clear that nothing will get resolved..." As I've said, the entire conversation was a mess and appears on the face of it to have solved nothing, even though we bring our arguments back to it over and over again.

My main point is the only one I'm truly trying to make. We've completely moved the nature of the argument away from applicability of brightline subject-specific notability criteria to suitability of secondary sources. Can we on the cricket project demonstrate that the secondary sources we use are as, more, or less watertight and reliable as those used for other sports? How do we do so to the "inexperienced" eye? And what can we do about it regarding the tens of thousands of biographies which already exist? Bobo. 01:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The sports notability criteria, from their inception, have always kept the general notability guideline in consideration. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4#RfC: Promote Notability .28sports.29 to a guideline where the guideline was approved on the basis that it did not supersede the general notability guideline and the criteria indicated that it was highly likely that appropriate sources are available. It is true enough that many criteria did not get the type of scrutiny that new ones would today. This more stringent standard echoes the general trend in English Wikipedia for improved sourcing. isaacl (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

+1 to Issacl. And to answer Bobo further, come now. NO one is making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. We are making an argument that the cricket guidelines in place grant presumptive notability to far too many athletes who fail the GNG, and therefore need significant tightening to meet the principle that the sports SNGs reflect players highly likely to meet the GNG. IMHO, the methods used to determine this are far less relevant than the results. How does the cricket project demonstrate the reliability of your sources? By being able to demonstrate that 90+% of the players you certify as notable can meet the GNG. How do you deal with "inexperienced" eyes? You don't. I shouldn't need to know a damn thing about cricket to be able to verify whether a cricketeer meets the GNG. What do we do about the tens of thousands of biographies that already exist? The same thing that happens whenever Wikipedia notability standards change; deprecating PORNBIO didn't immunize those who previously qualified from the deletion process. This isn't rocket science. It does presage a lot of hard, grunt work. The question to the cricket project here is this: how comfortable are you with taking this on yourselves, as opposed to it being decided for you? Ravenswing 05:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, criteria should be selected that the "false positive" rate - athletes in this case that get articles but end up that notability really isn't there, should be less than 1-2% of all articles normally allowed by the criteria. Or another way, 98% of the time, that criteria should be an assurance that we are going to get a notable article at the end of the day. This is probably rather important for cricket as there's likely what, on the order of 2000-5000 new players into the global teams each year? A 2% rate means at worst, 40-100 articles are at AFD each year. A 10% rate would mean 200-500 AFDs which is a bit too much. But it sounds like the current state is trending towards that, suggesting the current criteria may need tweaking to be more selective. --Masem (t) 05:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"More selective" indeed. One day, one day, someone might take up my challenge on that one. My trouble with "at the end of the day" is precisely it. When bodyspace content has not been altered for 11 years, I challenge these people to actually add information rather than trying to hack down knowledge for the sake of hacking it down. And my problem with using the word "guideline" is that GNG is just as much a "guideline" as N. GNG allows for flimsy interpretation of brightline criteria, while N simply allows us to say "yes" or "no". To me "yes" and "no" is easier. Bobo. 08:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

For modern cricketers I think it's much easier to tighten the criteria a little. The list Lugnuts is working on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Official cricket is a reasonable way of doing so. Historically, however, cricket has been rather different games at various times and we'd need to have a think about what we'd want to do with anyone who played for teams from a while back. There are solutions - using lists and so on perhaps - but it will need a bit of thought. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully none of that changes what we do already in terms of covering, for example, cricketers who make their first-class debuts there and then, day by day. India is the best example I can think of regarding amount of coverage on CA. There were 18 Ranji Trophy matches on the first day of the 2019-20 season, which saw 55 first-class debutantes. Now the great thing about CA is that it gives significant information, particularly regarding Indian cricketers, of pre-first class activity. My frustration is, why does it matter that Shoeb Sopariya had played 70 "miscellaneous" games before his debut List A appearance, based on the application of WP:CRIN? If the answer is that I were to add him before achieving his debut appearance and his article still got deleted, to me that answers that question. (Incidentally, Lugnuts, CA has Soyeb Sopariya down as Shoeb Sopariya). However much we claim that the non-brightline criteria actually matter, at the end of the day we would need to re-evaluate thousands of articles in order to get there Some of which are Test cricketers whose articles, like those I've created, haven't had their mainbody content changed in over a decade, and still remain without sources for mainbody material. Bobo. 09:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we're going off-topic in relation to articles that haven't had any edits in years. But 70 "miscellaneous" games is vague enough to question the notability before making a FC/LA start, hence the notabilty that's currently used. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Vague" indeed. My point wasn't really about the mainbody content, my point was about the apparent questionability of the sources used, where in some cases they are deemed to be acceptable and some aren't. All we would end up saying extra in the article is "Shaoib Sopariya also played in the 2011/12 Late Mamasaheb Ghorpade Under-19 Three-Day Tournament, the 2011/12 Jaisinghrao Surve Under-19 One-Day Tournament, the HD Zaveri Three Day Premier League 2014/15..." Seems a lot to add for matches which wouldn't confer notability based on brightline criteria... Bobo. 09:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• NCRIT is the worst of the NSPORTS guidelines and that's saying something. There's no way that we should have a bio article without at least one, in-depth source about that person (stats don't count). (t · c) buidhe 20:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

How to rewrite the cricket section

So, has anyone any suggestions on how to rewrite the cricket section to make it more realistic (meaning that people meeting the letter of the section, are indeed very likely to meet the GNG as well)? Fram (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be looking at it the other way round. Is GNG still a useful concept for determining notability? It was useful in the early days but, it seems to me, that it becomes less and less useful as Wikipedia develops. Nigej (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a discussion for another page though (basically, a local consensus here cannot overrule the general consensus of the GNG). Until the GNG is changed or abolished, it is what we have to follow. Fram (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

However, continuing with a fundamentally flawed approach (trying to square the circle) is not likely to lead to a happy conclusion, as has been shown by the discussions on here countless times. Nigej (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you are considering a "fundamentally flawed approach" or what is your proposed solution. There are many discussions here which get reasonable results (both for inclusion and exclusion of certain groups of people or sports), and some which don't lead anywhere. GNG is like democracy, it may be a poor system, but it is better than the alternatives. Fram (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The reality is that no team writing an encyclopedia would use anything like GNG to decide which articles to include (WP:N). I know many wikipedians are wedded to GNG but really it's not the way forward. Personally I'd say that there are occasionally discussions here which get reasonable results (both for inclusion and exclusion of certain groups of people or sports), but the majority don't lead anywhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talk • contribs) 08:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that there's a "fundamentally flawed" approach: there's just an approach that the cricket project has been demonstrated to be either unwilling or unable to make. To wit: set a standard, and tighten the standard if it's found to be too loose. Too many players in X League fail the GNG? Then you have to strike "Playing in one match at the X League level is notable" and replace it with "Playing in fifty (100, 250, whatever) matches at the X League level is notable." Most players in Y League fail the GNG? Then you replace "Plays in 100 matches" with "Top ten All-Time X or Most Valuable Players in Y League are notable."

Or, y'know, we can always go with the nuclear option if they're just unable to do it: strike WP:CRIN altogether, and we'll just evaluate cricket players on the GNG alone. Which, after all, every single athlete meeting a NSPORTS guideline ought to be able to pass anyway. Honestly, at this stage, after watching the flailing about for too long, if anyone proposed that, I'd support it. Ravenswing 08:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually the nuclear option is to give NSPORT precedence over GNG. I'd probably support that. Nigej (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Which no one on Wikipedia outside the sports projects (joined by many of us within) would remotely contemplate -- not the least of the reasons that non-sports editors generally feel that ALL NSPORTS criteria are far too loose. Among others, why would this be limited to sports? Shouldn't those aggrieved at PORNBIO's deprecation get another bite of the apple? What about those who feel that all schools are notable, down to the kindergarten level? Or those who go beyond census-designated areas to feel that every geographical feature that could be found on any map, no matter how obscure, ought to get an article? And so on and so forth. Ravenswing 09:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I hate GNG because it's too loose and vague. Using NSPORT doesn't imply looseness. Nigej (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Using NSPORT doesn't imply looseness: Yes, it's dependent on the quality of a given sport's criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need rewriting. There is ongoing work to clarify the status of each competition, similar to the football project's fully professional league list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NCRIC doesn't link there though, it links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket#CRIN, which doesn't seem to link to that "official cricket" page either. So yes, this page, WP:NCRIC needs rewriting to make it clear that only some first-class games are considered indicators of notability (probably still a way too wide net for e.g. 18th century cricket, but let's stick to the current ones for now). Whether that rewriting just means adding a link to that "official cricket" page or something else can be discussed here, but claiming that nothing needs to be done seems wrong. Fram (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't link there yet, as it's a work in progress. Once it's good to go, then it will be linked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

At present, and unfortunately, the "official cricket" list seems to be just generating a list of ALL competitions that would meet a modern first-class/list-A/T20 definition (and some are clearly not even close to the "highest level of domestic competition") without doing the necessary work to trim those competitions down to include only those where players are likely to meet GNG and set an appropriate number appearances whereby notability can be reliably presumed for the rest. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. There needs to be a lot less work on compiling a competition list and a lot more work on gauging what meets the GNG or not. What work on that has been accomplished? Ravenswing 09:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That work has already been done in writing the sports notability in the first place. A more pragmatic approach has already been undertaken with regards to some cricketers playing in University matches, with articles being redirected, where needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree that NCRIC (like the footy one) is too broad. We either need to tighten the list of competitions (which, as noted, seem to be based on first class cricket, albeit with, eg, university matches in England excluded) or to tighten the number of appearances (currently 1). Personally I'm not very keen on the concept of appearances determining notability (except at the highest level, eg international), although I can see that in team sports it's difficult to come up with good performance-based criteria. Perhaps the traditional: 50 or 5 wickets in an innings, could be the basis of something. Nigej (talk)

I've mentioned the University scenario, above. Having 50 runs/five wickets just goes back to the perennial discussions. What about 49 runs and four wickets? What if they played two matches and scored 49 twice? Or three matches, taking one, two and three wickets, etc, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You could argue that about everything but it's the nature of NSPORT that the criteria need to be precise, albeit with an element of arbitrariness. 50 runs/five wickets have, for much of cricket history, been used as some measure of achievement and worthy of note. Player stats generally include these and have done for a long time. The Lancashire League used to give a "collection" for pros getting a 50 or 5WI. Nigej (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

So for instance under those grounds would you say that Segar Bastard (for example, I know he's got FOOTYN too but just for arguments sake) should not have an article because he didn't make 50 for the MCC or Essex? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bastard would not pass WP:NCRIC, as he didn't play in a first-class match, per his profile. The five matches he appeared in are classed as "misc status" on Cricket Archive (IE - other). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

NSPORT is only a short-cut way of determining whether a player automatically warrants an article solely on the basis of their sporting achievement. Nigej (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

50 or 5 wickets is much, much worse than the existing criteria and takes no account of the quality of the sourcing or the wider notability of a player. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. Common sense says that someone who's achieved something like scoring a 50 or 5WI is more likely to have sources than someone who never has. Someone who's never got a 50 or 5WI is unlikely to be notable purely as a cricketer. NCRIC is about notability as a cricketer, nothing to do with "wider notability". Nigej (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Fred Klaassen doesn't have a 50 or a five-for, but clearly meets the general notability guidelines. He is much, much more notable than Kristian Adams, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There are ways in which NCRIC can be improved a little - it's a tad wordy. We could go something along the lines of:

Cricket figures are likely to be notable if they meet the following:

1. Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one competitive international cricket Test match or One Day International, as defined by the ICC, or in a Twenty20 International match which meets the criteria outlined at *NOTABILITY LIST*
2. Have appeared as a player or umpire in a competitive match between two teams playing in a top-level domestic competition. See a list of top-level domestic competitions kept by WikiProject Cricket.

Other cricket figures may be notable if in-depth sources exist such that they can be shown to meet the General Notability Guideline.

That seems easier to work with than the current version - although there isn't much difference to be honest. It's quite similar to the football criteria fwiw. In terms of the list of competitions: it's a start. In my view, I'd query some of those, but I appreciate that even moving towards that list is a big jump for some people.

The real problem is with CRIN which is, frankly, dreadful. Much of the stuff there appears to have been added without any discussion as far as I can tell. That needs considerable pruning. That did at one point say prominently say very clearly that in depth sources needed to exist about any cricketer. I would strongly support that in every sports criteria. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see much difference. It still says that someone who played in a single county championship match, but who didn't bat or bowl (say), is a cricketer worthy of an article, purely as a cricketer. Surely this can't be true. Nigej (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a start. Changing CRIN and placing emphasis on the importance of detailed sources over database entries - which is how it was until it got bloated - is a little further. I'd go much, much further and insist of at least two prose sources on each sports person, but I think that'd probably wipe out at least 90% of the sports biographies on here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The long term goal is that we want to have a decent article about the cricketer that is more than just a career stats dump. Early life, school, team history, recognition, post-career, etc, alongside what he did while playing cricket. Obviously, like with any sport, the top players will get that from being top players, but the more average players may not and this is where editors should challenge themselves "when do cricket players get more indepth coverage about themselves as a result of their caraeer plays on the field?" I am an American and my intro to cricket is by way of Douglas Adams so I can't speak at all for how to measure that well, but I am assuming there is some performance metric better than "participated in a match" that reasonably assures that bio-type source will follow. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it should avoid the false positives most of the time. And I think it is better to think from this as a career or seasonal standpoint than from an individual match or performance standpoint. --Masem (t) 14:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

" I am an American and my intro to cricket is by way of Douglas Adams" Haha, that did genuinely make me laugh out loud! Thank you. :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that there is a performance metric that really applies - I think it sort of depends (unfortunately). It's a bit like tea I suppose - something can be "almost but not exactly". Maybe.

The best I think I could do is ask "did he get a Wisden obituary"? In some ways that's a good cut off point - if there's no obit, then you have to wonder whether the chap was all that notable. Of course, this has a number of flaws: it only really applies to English chaps, and, at least in the pre-80s days, it's a factor of what school the chap went to as much as anything else. And they have to be dead, which is sort of an issue at times. And that's before we even get to wonder about notability for women... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

NSPORT is nothing to do with the quality of the article. It's about notability WP:N: "a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Nigej (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

NSPORT needs to provide criteria that is not going to create articles that will later fail the key content policies (NOT/V/NOR/NPOV/BLP), notability, nor can be expanded beyond a stub. Just saying "anyone that played a cricket match at any level" is not going to cut it because clearly not all players are documented that way, but on the other side, players that routinely play in the bulk of every match at the highest level of play probably will. Its not asking for quality now but quality later that you need to think ahead of the curve here. --Masem (t) 17:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

It's been another 4 weeks and there still seems to be little progress on this. As it seems to be the domestic appearance criteria that are the most unreliable, should we simply remove words "or domestic" from the first statement of the cricket notability guideline as an interim measure? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Any change needs to be properly discussed and agreed on as a long-lasting solution. An interim measure will likely lead to a flood of AfDs, which will then need to be re-assessed if a different solution is ever found. Spike 'em (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, if no-one is able to say what benchmark there should be for domestic players (e.g. 5 matches, 10, a full season playing most games, 2 seasons, at least one 50/100/5wk haul, etc.?) it seems reasonable to remove it as we have other guidelines which should be met if the subjects are indeed notable, e.g. SPORTBASIC, GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the current benchmark is 1 game. If you think the best solution is to just remove any domestic criteria from NCRIC then get consensus to do so. I agree that the criteria should be improved, but think removing it completely would be worse than leaving as is. Spike 'em (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course it would be preferable if a new criteria could be agreed, but in the absence of that (and even a hint of progress towards change) I do think removing it is better than leaving it at "1 game". Hence my question above. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that would actually achieve anything though. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea, but I'm not sure where it gets us - unless we look to replace it with "they have to meet the GNG; there have to be multiple, written sources dealing with them". Even then I'm not sure where that gets us. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

As noted, GNG is always the fallback position and other relevant guidelines exist independently; as such, no such clarification is necessary. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability Agenda for Football (Soccer) Match Official (Referees)

I have come here to address the issue on the notability of FIFA match officials (referees).

The recent article that I created was about a referee (Alan Millner), that was deemed to be deleted via the Articles of Deletion. I requested a deletion review on the page, but even they endorse the deletion close as they said they sources are not accepted other than his receiving his FIFA badge, and the fact he has already retired.

If the original guidelines for the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) were to include referees in this regard, then I entirely agree. But it appears that it does not have the coverage on match officials referees which should have respectfully, with the proof of the previous discussion, [8]

My suggestion is that referees, not just football referees, but in referees in general, would be included on Wikipedia for W:N as long as they had significant coverage on important games.

For football (soccer) referees, I suggest that to satisfy notability, is they should be included for important high level international matches and/or competitions for as long the officiated the FIFA World Cup, the UEFA European Championship, the Nations League, whether a tournament, qualifiers or otherwise.

If any questions asked, please kindly leave a reply or my talk page. Thank you. Ivan Milenin (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• The DRV is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 15#Alan Milliner and the AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Milliner (2nd nomination). I urge those editors here to read both. It does seem to me that referees should be included in NSPORTS at levels comparable to those for players. I am not experienced enough with the various sports to suggest what the exact criteria should be. I would suggest that discussion occurr here, rather than on a user talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this needs a RFC with input from WP:FOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, and I think this page would be a good place for an RfC, but I think it would be advisable to discuss what the proposal would be rather more before formally opening an RfC. RfCs started off-the-cuff often do not work out well. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I presume Ivan is suggesting that WP:NFOOTBALL should be expanded from "players and managers" to "players, managers and referees". I would oppose such a change. GiantSnowman 17:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but apparently only changing part 1) for internationals, not part 2) for club leagues etc. But it's still too much. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any form of automatic notability, based on the matches refereed. If they pass GNG, fine, but that should be the test. Of course the ideal referee never attracts individual coverage! But what an enormous number of articles we have in Category:Association football referees, with its 147 national sub-cats. Few seem longer than a couple of lines. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose no evidence that most football/soccer referees pass WP:GNG, which would need to be the case for them to be presumed notable in WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  That's not how WP:NFOOTY works at all (unfortunately). Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  I definitely read that somewhere (can't find it at moment- to be added to a "presumed notable" SNG their should be evidence that most people in that category meet WP:GNG. I'll try and fine it later. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Joseph2302 I think that some editors have taken that position, but to the best of my understanding there is no written policy or guideline to that effect, and no such demonstration has been made for many of the current SNGs that have consensus. If there is such a guideline or policy, I have never seen it. Certainly in the case of historical figures, long before the internet era, notability presumptions based on SNGs have been applied in the absence of GNG-meeting sources. I am not sure how often this has in fact been done in other cases. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  No, this is exactly how NFOOTBALL works - indeed the whole of NATHLETE. "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline". There is a presumption that if an athlete meets the SNG, they will meet the GNG and therefore be notable. GiantSnowman 18:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  Ok, that's the theology, but we all know that presumption is complete bullshit on cases anywhere near the edge. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • If you mean that GNG trumps SNG at AFDs, then yes. After all, the SNG is only a presumption of notability, but one that ultimately has to be proved by GNG. GiantSnowman 19:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    • But, very luckily for a large proportion of our hundreds of thousands of football bios, one that is never tested. And at the rare nom, a flood of 'keepers' brandishing the SNG as though carved in stone will turn up. Let's be honest here. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Off topic here, but actually there are regularly AFDs on players who technically meet the SNG but fail GNG, and they are often deleted. GiantSnowman 14:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment “presume Ivan is suggesting that WP:NFOOTBALL should be expanded from "players and managers" to "players, managers and referees".” I do not mean that. If this is true, then let me emphasize on that. It is true that referees cannot hold the same job as athletes would. There should be a third option: make a sports policy for the referees separately, whether they are football referees to have referred the highest level of competition, or other match officials in other sports that had important levels of competition. Either way, it would make some sense to include that in this regard. Ivan Milenin (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  So that is exactly what you are suggesting then - trying to grant some form of 'automatic' notability to referees as I suspected. GiantSnowman 21:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'd go for equating it to NFOOTY by saying if he has refereed in a fully professional league or at international level, then he is notable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Almost the only time referees get coverage -- in just about any sport -- is if they boot a call in some epic match. Otherwise, I challenge editors to name (without looking at any match reports or articles) who was the chief official at the most recent World Cup final, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup seventh game. Heck, I *watched* all three, my childhood favorite team was in one of those, and I have no idea. (Come to that, if you did tell me who were the chief officials at the World Cup final or the Super Bowl, I would almost certainly react with "Who?") I reiterate that the purpose of NSPORTS is not to enshrine a subjective assessment of "importance," but to gauge whether or not a subject is highly likely to meet the GNG. Match officials in any sport imaginable just do not meet that, and should in every case rise and fall on the GNG.

  Beyond that, the OP has not made any argument as to why such a change would be desirable, and this strikes me frankly as forum shopping. The article was deleted for non-notability three years ago, the OP created a new article for him, it was deleted at AfD, the OP protested to DRV without much a valid rationale to overturn (the close has so far been endorsed unanimously by ten editors), and now here. Ravenswing 21:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Ravenswing and Johnbod, GNG applies here. Football matches don't confer notability to the officials involved, sorry, fact. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: referees are unquestionably much less notable than the players, and I can't envision an SNG that could accurately predict notability. Continuing to use the GNG alone makes the most sense. Harrias ^talk 21:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Retaliatory question If everything you say is true, if it ever comes from my mind and mouth, should all referees in general be deleted in the regard as they are less notable than players? Simple question. Ivan Milenin (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As all of those who have opposed the proposal have said, if the referee passes the general notability guideline, then the standard for having an article is met. isaacl (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I don't say all, but I was very surprised to see (never having looked before) how many we have in Category:Association football referees, with its 147 national sub-cats. I looked at a sample, & doubt that most of those would survive an Afd. Anyone spending much time creating these is in my opinion risking seeing their work vanishing down the Afd plughole at some point. Of course some are notable as players, or for other things entirely, like Dennis Thatcher in rugby. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A number of game officials would certainly meet the GNG, and many either qualify in their own right from their own athletic careers, or have been selected for their sport's Hall of Fame. That a category of people are not presumptively notable doesn't automatically follow that no one in that category can be notable. Ravenswing 04:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: Generally not notable. Probably best if they are listed in a "List of ... referees" article. We already have some 1,500 Association football referee articles (although some of those are perhaps notable in other areas). Recent referee articles include Timur Faizullin and John Blackwell (referee), neither of who seem (at first sight) to be notable. Nigej (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, this seems like a recipe for yet more sports permastubs. Those need trimming way back, not expanding. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose mostly per Harrias: there's no simple metric by which you could predict that it would be possible to write a decent and neutral article about the person. The point of an SNG is to save editors' time and efforts: Some things "automatically" get enough coverage that you know you'll be able to write an article about them, without over-reliance on weak and biased sources. Head of state? Check: No matter how small or under-developed the country, someone's going to write about the latest election/appointment/coronation/coup. University? Check: even in the smallest of small towns, that school's formation, construction, routine activities, etc., are going to get mentioned in the local paper. Professional sports team? Oh, yeah. No question. Restaurant? Um, better check the individual business, case by case. CEO? Some are, and some aren't, so you've got to check the individual. Referees IMO fall into that "case by case" category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Referees must be subject to the WP:GNG. Even excellent international referees will not receive any source coverage. It is what it is for their profession, though I would support including them in a properly sourced list. SportingFlyer T·C 08:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, especially Seraphimblade. MER-C 19:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPORTSEVENT all-star clarification

At current, WP:SPORTSEVENT states that "All-star or similar exhibition games" are generally inherently notable, citing 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star Game as an example. Does this apply to amateur and minor league All-star games? (Fully acknowledging that these could still pass WP:GNG, just clarifying the scope of the listing.) --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Amateur? Almost certainly not. Minor league? Probably. I think the intent is for it to apply to professional sporting events, and so amateur events are by definition excluded. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Amateur? They would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but there is nothing in the guideline that excludes amateur games. To the contrary, the guideline explicitly includes at least one category of amateur games: "college bowl games". Cbl62 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• No, amateur or minor league all star games should not be considered "inherently notable" and need to be shown to meet GNG in order to be considered notable. GiantSnowman 09:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• No, amateur sports shouldn't be considered inherently notable. Most other sports have a professionalism requirement written in, this one should too. Otherwise if Peru run an all star baseball game for their best players, all players would be considered notable, even if it's a league that pays players £50. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Not in general, although I agree with Cbl that college football all-star games such as the 2019 Senior Bowl meet the criteria. Smartyllama (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

SNGs and GNG

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

World Football League

The World Football League should be considered a major American Football League. It was bigger than the All-America Football Conference, which is considered in the WP:NGRIDIRON definition.Tecmo (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• "Bigger" how? It fielded more teams, sure, but it went belly up halfway through its second season, became a national joke and a byword for bumbling, the only championship game it ever played was nearly blocked by the IRS for lack of tax payments, its only champion had their jerseys seized after the game and promptly folded, and on and on. By contrast, the AAFC played four full seasons before forcing a merger with the NFL, and it was strong enough that its Cleveland Browns promptly became the NFL champions the next season. Equating the two leagues as "top-flight" is farcical. (Granted, there's no way the Arena league or the USFL should be up there either.) Ravenswing 06:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• The WFL had more teams and cities than the AAFC. It had its games broadcasted in national coverage, which is more than the AAFC could do. The WFL was also covered by important publications like the New York Times and you could also see many articles of the time, where the NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle would take the time and effort to put down this new league on multiple occasions. It also had a multi-million dollar backing, signing players away from the NFL and CFL like Larry Csonka, Paul Warfield, Jim Kiick, John Matuszak, Calvin Hill, Danny White, Ted Kwalick, Ron East, etc. Which is something that the AAFC could not achieve. To compete, the NFL was forced to raise its own salaries, which is something no minor league could ever achieve against the NFL. The WFL forced lower level leagues like the Atlantic Coast Football League and Seaboard Football League to close. The WFL teams had over 500,000 fans in their stadiums during the first season of existence. Even the NFL recognizes its historic significance by having NFL Films doing history episodes of the WFL (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gkfb7dwT4IQ) and the Pro Football Hall of Fame saving information of the league (https://www.profootballhof.com/news/world-football-league-standings/). Tecmo (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• (coughs) The NFL didn't have games broadcasted in national coverage; NO pro football league did in the 1940s. Nor did the NFL have more than ten teams during the AAFC's lifespan. The AAFC owners were millionaires with deep pockets -- deeper than the the NFL owners, which was a factor in the merger. The league being founded by the sports editor of the Chicago Tribune, it had ample coverage in the national press. And to quote from its own article, "[the AAFC]'s 1946 rosters included 40 of the 66 College All-Stars, two recent Heisman Trophy winners (Frank Sinkwich and Angelo Bertelli), more than 100 players with NFL experience" ... and numerous future Hall of Famers. As far as forcing lower leagues to shut down, the AAFC forced the Cleveland Rams -- at the time the NFL champion -- to move. And as far as having 500,000 fans attending games their first season of existence goes, the WFL was not only infamous for giving away tickets (with as much as 80% of the gate being free admissions, in some cities), but the AAFC's first game had 60,000 fans, at the time a professional football record.

  But this joke of a comparison-fest isn't really the issue. You are stipulating that every player on every team should be presumptively notable. What work have you done to demonstrate that they ought to be? Ravenswing 00:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• The Cleveland Rams moved because they wanted a much bigger market in Los Angeles, not because of the Browns. Even the original Browns moved to Baltimore because they wanted a bigger market. In regards to the television coverage, you are making my point, it was a smaller league as well as the NFL at the time, so no TV network invested in it. The AAFC could never convince established NFL players to change leagues or can you tell me of just 1 example ?. The WFL had 9 Hall of Fame members play or be involved in the league (Larry Csonka, Paul Warfield, Don Maynard, Leroy Kelly, Tom Fears, Willie Wood, Herb Adderley, Ron Mix, Johnny Robinson (safety)), one former Heisman winner (John Huarte), a second place Heisman candidate (Anthony Davis (running back, born 1952)) and multiple Pro Bowl players. In terms of the ticket sales, you are generalizing, most of the teams had a paid base.Tecmo (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• The coverage is what matters. In order to add the WFL to WP:NGRIDIRON, one would need to show that the vast majority of players pass WP:GNG. It appears that we currently have > 300 biographies for WFL players. See Category:World Football League players by team. While that's some evidence of the WFL's notability, a fuller review of WFL rosters would be needed show whether the WFL should be included in NGRIDIRON. Does anyone know where WFL rosters can be found?Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

So, the "Just Sports Stats" web site has WFL rosters. Links to three teams found here, here, and here. We would need to see an indication that at least 90% of these players received GNG-level coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see that ~90% of the World Football League players that don't already satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON received GNG-level coverage. I'm assuming that this is a much smaller group of players. Nigej (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That's never been the standard and there's no reason to modify it in this manner. The fact that many WFL players already pass NGRIDIRON is an indicator that the league had a high talent level. Excluding those players would be wholly unreasonable. Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It would clearly be crazy if, say, 450 of 500 already pass NGRIDIRON, that the remaining 50 get a free pass, because we've reached the 90% level. Logically, when making additions we should only consider those not already qualified, otherwise there's notability by association. Nigej (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That's simply ludicrous, and the standard has never been applied in such a manner. I doubt that the 90% level will be reached in any event, but let's not stack the deck, please. Cbl62 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The standard has absolutely been applied in such a manner; that's the only reason to HAVE a standard. It is not "stacking the deck" to believe that meeting the standard is the fundamental measure of presumptive notability. Ravenswing 00:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Oh really? Not that it matters since the standard is not met either way, but can you show me an example in which we applied the test in this manner? In every discussion I've seen, we have looked at the total population of players in the league/association in question and determined whether those players meet notability standards by an overwhelming margin of 90% or more. Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I think there is agreement that the sports notability guidelines here should match actual notability (WP:N), as far as possible, keeping false positives and false negatives to a minimum (although there is still disagreement as to the balance between the false positives and false negatives). As such, adding a new league which adds new false positives could make the guideline worse. We need to consider whether the guideline with the league added, is "better" than the guideline without it. As such it's inevitable that we focus on those not currently passing the guideline. Nigej (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You can find the rosters in the Pro Football Archives web site. For example: https://www.profootballarchives.com/1975wflmem.html, https://www.profootballarchives.com/1975wflhaw.html, https://www.profootballarchives.com/wflplayers.html .Tecmo (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• See User:Cbl62/WFL test for the roster of the 1974 Memphis Southmen. Without even probing for extra coverage, 30 of the 61 players (49%) from the roster already have articles. In order to make a case that WFL should be included in NGRIDIRON, we would need someone to show that another 25 of these players pass GNG (i.e., 55 of 61 = 90%). Not an easy task, but feel free to mark up my draft WFL test page if anyone (User:Tecmo?) wants to give it a shot. Cbl62 (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

So based on some preliminary searches, I have 59% 66% 68.9% of the Southmen roster passing notability standards. This still falls short of the level needed to qualify for inclusion in NGRIDIRON. And the Southmen were one of the most talented teams in the WFL. @Tecmo: Feel free to modify User:Cbl62/WFL test if you think you can push it up to the 90% level, but I think it's going to be a very difficult task. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be a firm Oppose at this point. The WFL was a byword at the time for being a poorly managed joke, and any notion of it being comparable to a "major" league is baffling. Ravenswing 00:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

When 60% 66% 68.9% of the league's players meet notability standards, I wouldn't call it a "joke", but we do agree that the standard is not met for inclusion in NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, I put in the User:Cbl62/WFL test a quick list of the WFL player names found in the page https://www.profootballarchives.com/wflplayers.html. Some of them have to be double checked, which I have done from number 1 to 280. Be advised that for some of these players, their WFL experience has not being registered yet in their Wikipedia articles. Not sure if this is what you are looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecmo (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tecmo: What we would need is a showing that at least 90% of WFL players meet notability standards. In the past, we have gone about this by reviewing a random sampling. I took the Memphis roster as a proposed random sampling and unfortunately could only verify that around 60% 68.9% from that roster qualified -- this percentage is insufficient. If you can show that 90% or more are notable, you would have a shot at persuading folks. Without that, your proposal is unlikely to be approved. Cbl62 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Cbl62, the Arena Football League, the USFL and the AAFC do not even get close to the 90% you mention, so let's be fair when evaluating the WFL. This is a league that has multiple players moving on to the NFL and the CFL. It also meets all the criteria of a major sports league if you take out the 90% requirement that you mention, which is not realistic unless you are the NFL.Tecmo (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

A 90% standard is admittedly tough. Some have advocated for even tighter standards of as high as 99%. Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

My own view is that discussions such as this tend to show that we should be deleting leagues from the list, not adding new ones. Propose deleting the AAFC, etc. and you'd probably get my support. Nigej (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is little doubt that all NSPORT guidelines would be far less permissive if they were created now. And that is because they have commonly become used as justification for the creation/keeping of 1000s of junk stubs. As such 90% is a pretty low threshold for consideration, and I would oppose adding the WFL and also support removing others. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that I made the case as to why the WFL is a major American football league with different argumens and from what I can see, there is only 1 argument against it, which is an unrealistic 90% GNG-level coverage. I wouldn't agree in removing other professional leagues, because then you are left with only the NFL monopoly and that would be historically unaccurate. I also don't agree with the comment that the WFL was a joke, because that just wasn't the case.Tecmo (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tecmo: Per the basic criteria for NSPORTS (meeting WP:GNG), the only argument that matters here is the 90% (and that is a low number for what some editors expect to see proven for inclusion here, many push for 95% and 99%). Whatever "tier" the league played at is irrelevant to player coverage. A third tier league that gets lots of coverage can be considered to have "assumed player notability" when a top tier league somewhere else that gets no coverage will not. In regards to removing leagues here, there are a couple of outliers that I can see. For example, outside of a couple of peak seasons in the late 90s-early 2000s, the Arena league probably did not get substantial coverage on its non-star players (especially in its post bankruptcy seasons). Yosemiter (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tecmo: You certainly made an argument that the WFL was a major league; I do not equate that with having proven your case. And that's quite aside from some curious assertions. You claim, for instance, that it is not the case that 90% of the AAFC's players could meet the GNG. Upon what research do you base that claim? Ravenswing 20:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: both the AAFC and the American Football League became part of the NFL and that is the reason they can meet the criteria. That is also why I said that outside of the NFL no other league can match it. Lets take the following example, assume for a moment that the Canadian Football League is no longer considered in Wikipedia as a major league, in that scenario, we will not even find 1 team that could meet the 90% GNG-level coverage, much less the league.Tecmo (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

In short, you've done none of the needful research to make that assumption. Fair enough. So noted. Ravenswing 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said in one of my comments, I do think the AAFC is a major league and I wouldn't remove it from the list, but if you accept that fact, there is another fact you need to accept in regards to the WFL being a bigger league than the AAFC.Tecmo (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Tecmo, I agree that a great project would be to try to locate more notable WFL players and create articles for them. The WFL played a significant role in the history of professional football in the United States, and if we can find sufficient coverage for some of the players in that league, it would be great to add them. Unfortunately it doesn't make any sense to include articles for all of them (and by extension create an SNG criterion for them) because playing in the WFL, by itself, isn't a good predictor that sufficient coverage of them exists in independent, reliable secondary sources. It's not an indictment of the league to say so, it's just a fact about the available sourcing. If the AAFC is in the same situation, we probably should remove that too, and rely on the GNG for those athletes as well. CThomas³ (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Cthomas3 As I mentioned, I don't think the answer is removing more football leagues because you will end up with just NFL articles. In regards to the coverage of the WFL players, I would like to see how many more profiles would be created if the WFL is recognized as a major American football league in Wikipedia.Tecmo (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Tecmo, if we did that, my guess is that we would wind up with dozens and dozens of tiny one-line permastubs, which is exactly the problem with NCRIC and NFOOTY as currently written. There isn’t, and never has been, any prohibition on writing an article on any notable WFL player; someone just has to do the research and find enough material to write one. If even a significant minority of WFL players ultimately don’t have enough material to write a decent article on them, I would prefer to judge them for inclusion on a case-by-case basis rather than create them en masse and then have to have to go through dozens if not hundreds of deletion discussions weeding out those we really can’t find coverage for. The reason we include NFL players by default and not others isn’t because it’s a "better" or a "more important" league; it is simply because it is our experience that the overwhelming majority will have plenty of useful material written about them. CThomas³ (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Cthomas3 But the problem is that you leave out All-stars or notable WFL players that didn't have important college careers or didn't play in the NFL or CFL. For example, with the current setup, you can argue that Sonny Sixkiller should be deleted. Plus, the community can always delete the articles that they don't feel matter.Tecmo (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tecmo: I think you are missing the point of NSPORTS, it is not meant to exclude players that have played in other leagues, only that participation in the leagues listed indicates that the individual very likely meets WP:GNG. So it does not mean a player that only played in the WFL should be deleted, it means that the player's coverage should be evaluated against WP:GNG sources. Yosemiter (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. You seem to think that by adding WFL, that somehow that would be a green light to creating lots of articles about WFL players. That's 100% NOT what NSPORT is about. The purpose of the NSPORT criteria is to match with notability (ie someone passing an NSPORT criteria is likely to be notable). We must never think that the criteria somehow define notability (WP:N), it's the other way round. Nigej (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Nigej If you agree 100% with the above comment, please explain how you will get approved an article of a player that his best years were in the WFL (not in college) and that also didn't play in one of the approved league's like the NFL or CFL ?. He could have been one of the best players in the WFL and the article can be deleted immediatly.Tecmo (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Such an article cannot be deleted immediately. It would have to go through the AfD process and would be tested against the WP:GNG standards. There are many WFL players who have articles based on satisfying this standard. E.g., J. J. Jennings. Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You still seem to be misunderstanding NSPORT. It doesn't define whether someone deserves an article or not. It defines players that are "likely" to deserve an article. Players covered by NGRIDIRON can be non-notable while those not covered can be notable. This is decided by the AfD process. So, to take your example of a player that his best years were in the WFL etc. Someone can create an article (provided they have evidence that he's notable, per WP:N). This can be challenged by another person, via WP:AfD. The AfD then decides whether he does warrant an article or not. If fact, exactly the same process can happen if someone passes NGRIDIRON. The purpose of NSPORT is to provide guidelines as to whether a player is "likely" to get through the AfD, thus avoiding an unnecessary creation/AfD/delete cycle. Nigej (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Bit of data. We currently have 288 players in Category:World Football League players (its sub-categories). Removing those who are also in Category:National Football League players or Category:Canadian Football League players leaves 19 (ie 269 currently satisfy NGRIDIRON as NFL or CFL players). The 19 are Jim Fassel, Ed Kezirian, Stan Hansen, Sonny Sixkiller, Lucious Selmon, Van DeCree, Terry Henley, Mike Townsend, Bill Yoest, John Villapiano, Maurie Daigneau, Denny Duron, Reggie Oliver (American football), Luther Palmer, John Conley (American football), Drane Scrivener, Jim Bright (American football), Bill Dulin, John Kelsey (American football). Nigej (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Actually relevant data: Despite Nigegj's misguided effort to rewrite the rules, The test remains whether at least 90% of the the players in the league are notable -- not whether 90% of the benchwamers are notable and not whether some other narrow subset of the players are notable. Based on my review of the 1974 Memphis roster (at User:Cbl62/WFL test), and despite the fact that Memphis was one of the best teams in the WFL, I've only been able to show that 42 of 61 players are notable. That's 68.9% -- a solid showing and not a joke ... but significantly short of the threshold required to be added to WP:NCOLLATH. So there's not going to be consensus to add WFL to the list. Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Then I would recommend that the text:"or any other top-level professional league", should be removed from the WP:NGRIDIRON article, as no other American football league outside the NFL can ever match the 90% required. And also specify that leagues like NFL Europe, XFL (2020) and Alliance of American Football don't apply. Tecmo (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with removing '"or any other top-level professional league". The wording dates back to 2007. Perhaps future-proofing? One of the most important aspects of these guidelines is that they should be precise, and this sort of wording fails that. If these words are removed then I don't see the need to mention leagues where it doesn't apply. Nigej (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No objection there. We've had similar tightening of NHOCKEY, where original generic wordings caused rampaging by rogue editors and years of angst at XfD. Best to just spell it all out precisely. (Quite aside that I loathe the inclusion generally of national "top-flight" leagues as an indicator of notability: an American football league in Peru paying its players $50 a match qualifies under that premise.) Ravenswing 09:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, without doubt, bin it. The way these guidelines are used has changed substantially over the years, and there is now no place for such slack wording. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Any objection to me deleting the phrase ", or any other top-level professional league" from WP:NGRIDIRON? I'm not sure we need a more formal debate but we could go that way. Nigej (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I support this, for the reasons highlighted in discussion above. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of deleting it as well. We can always specifically add a league later if some level of participation in it is determined to be a reasonable indicator of notability. CThomas³ (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I would support that as well. The list already there is essentially complete and comprehensive. --Jayron32 16:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Ravenswing 17:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase ", or any other top-level professional league" per this discussion. Nigej (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

On the roster for a major team event, didn't compete

What is the notability status for an athlete who was selected for the national team, and actually traveled with the team for a relay event but as an alternate, and their team made the finals? Lucy Evans (sprinter) was part of the 4x100m relay team for Wales in the 2014 Commonwealth Games, but was the 5th member. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF:I asked a related question earlier this year, and the response was that no, that player would not pass this SNG based on that event because they didn't compete at the event. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_34#Team_participation_question Iffy★Chat -- 15:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is AFD consensus from the world of football, that a player on the squad for a major tournament but doesn't play will not meet SNG. GiantSnowman 16:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)