Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Local sources[edit]

One point brought up from the #Potential new interpretation: NCOLLATH vs. GNG thread above that has always seemed problematic with NSPORTS is the treatment of "local" sources. Is a source considered local if it is from a city, state, or even a single country? I'd propose abandoning the "local" distinction altogether. If a subject is really that "local", it will fail GNG criteria of needing multiple sources, significant coverage i.e. more than routine game recaps, or fail to be independent (school newspaper, team website, etc.)—Bagumba (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I was one of the users who raised the point, and your proposal seems to me to take away the solution to the problem, thereby making the problem much worse. In the US, it's pretty easy to see the difference between a local news source (not from the school or the team) and a national one, and it's helpful and appropriate to make it clear that a local source can be equivalent to a school source for purposes of notability. In other nations, the line should be drawn differently, but I think such a line can still be drawn. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree, Bagumba. I think hometown newspapers do need to be discounted. Otherwise, every high school football coach and every high school quarterback in America would be notable. I also think some measure of discounting needs to be applied to the hometown newspaper of major universities. The issue is independence under GNG for purpose of determining notability; in most cases, the university hometown papers are perfectly reliable sources for factual purposes, but are somewhat captive of the university community in their coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Both above points are right. We can't easily define "local" cleanly, but I think it should be fairly obvious. In terms of sports, a high school athlete being covered by a home-town newspaper will be local, by a state newspaper at the cusp of local-ness, and by an out-of-state paper as non-local. A state-college athlete being covered by a state paper from that state would be local too. But that's something to be considered if AFDs come up. --MASEM (t) 21:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Obvious to you, obvious to Rikster, obvious to me, but not so obvious to many editors who participate in AfDs and believe that hometown media should be treated like The New York Times, The Washington Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution or Dallas Morning News. It's even harder to explain it to the newbies when major regional papers can function as hybrid local-nonlocal for coverage of local high school and local college teams. You need to get out in the trenches more, Masem, and participate in AfDs; it would help those of us who are trying to enforce meaningful standards, and give you a more practical understanding of how the specific notability guidelines are being interpreted and how they might be tweaked and improved upon. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • At least in the days of print newspaper, I don't know of many "state" newspapers, at least in the US.—Bagumba (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I do think it's not quite as easy to say "hometown" is out for college players. The New York Times reporting stories about St. John's athletes is a little different from The Stillwater Okie (or whatever it is) reporting about Oklahoma State. Major metro papers are more discerning about the real estate they give the local college, and usually have a number of local colleges in their service areas. College town papers are basically at the whim of the University that dominates the city. Rikster2 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @Dirtlawyer1: A high school coach or player is not going get multiple sources of significant coverage. Remember, GNG states "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Therefore, 10 articles from the same newspaper will not qualify.—Bagumba (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, and no, Bags. Prominent high school coaches often get coverage in multiple local papers. My high school sports conference is a good example: ten schools in three major urban areas, each with a newspaper of 35,000 to 50,000 daily circulation. And any good head coach who has had more than one job is likely to have been in multiple media markets. If you don't discount local coverage, we would have a lot more high school athletes and coaches with articles. We really could use a better specific notability guideline for high school sports -- one that is far more restrictive. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Personally, if a decent sized article can be written, I'd rather err on the side of allowing people to write usable content and avoiding massive discussion. WP:WHYN's goal is that "we can write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic."—Bagumba (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My view on the local newspaper issue has been and remains one of viewing newspapers as a spectrum. At the top are national media outlets like The New York Times, The Times, etc. One small step below are the major regional papers like the Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning-News and Chicago Tribune. Essentially, I don't think that any of the top newspapers, say the top 25 circulation dailies in the US, which exercise a high level of editorial judgment, can be discounted in a notability discussion. Below that, there's still a big range. The ones at the bottom, the small-town papers, should in my view be discounted in notability discussions, but not disregarded. Cbl62 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree. Whether the source is considered local depends on the range and size of its audience, rather than the distance of its headquarters from the subject. Otherwise the NYT/BBC would be considered a local source for something in New York/London, while newspaper in a small town would be considered a non-local source for something in another town. And that's why we consider mayors in larger cities inherently more notable than those in smaller cites: Mayors in larger cities gain media attention with larger audience.-- (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      • While editing political content I have found the best sources come from local journalists who are paying closer attention to the activities of their representatives. The larger journalism organizations focus their efforts on the media hogs, the spotlight chasers. And in the political arena, the media giants are also the targets and victims of partisan spin, media management, public relations. Sports would be no different. A league might have more than a thousand players, so a lot of the players get reduced to agate. As I noted in one recent debate, in some sports, how do defensive players even make the agate? With what stats? Who is going to write the background story or the details WE NEED to write an accurate story of these subjects? Cutting off the use of local sources would be another case of a few wikipedia editors with their nose up in the air, to elitify our sourcing at the expense of content. And you will have more useless stub articles that might just mention one statistic or event, because we can't source anything deeper. Trackinfo (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, it doesn't mean local sources shouldn't be used as reliable secondary sources. If a topic is covered significantly in multiple sources, and at least one of them is non-local, the topic passes WP:GNG anyway. (See WP:AUD)-- (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Trackinfo, you've missed the point: no one is suggesting that editors should not be able to use local newspapers and other media that are reliable sources per WP:RS. The use of reliable source local media for factual purposes is acceptable. The discussion here is to what extent local media may be used to establish the notability of high school and college athletes in AfD discussions. The basic principle is that national media (e.g., The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, etc.) and major regional media (e.g., Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, etc.) carry more weight in notability discussions than do university home town newspapers (e.g., The Gainesville Sun, The Bryan-College Station Eagle, etc.) or small town newspapers (e.g., the Peoria, Illinois Journal Star, etc.) because coverage in the national and major regional media are better indicators of the lasting notability of sports persons. That's all -- no one is suggesting you cannot use all of the great data provided by a given university's hometown newspaper. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Perhaps you have not been involved with the same ridiculous debates I have. No pun on your name, but there are idiot editors who will wikilawyer fine points in order to gain a victory, which is to get an article removed. I think there is a group of editors who think they get brownie points for every article they can remove from wikipedia. I've had to fight some of these battles at the bottom of the slippery slope. Limiting the sources causes articles to become stubs based on a mention in the agate. Small articles attract deletionists like flies to shit. The next step is a battle and occasionally, the removal of the article. When we have the opportunity to build a substantial article, it prevents the problem from taking place. That means using all resources available, including local papers, school papers and sport specific sources. Above or archived on this talk page are discussions by other editors suggesting that subjects who meet NSPORT still don't meet GNG. I hope we don't buy into that concept, I think I have proven them wrong by finding source, albeit obscure sources. That stew of limiting useable sources and an essentially numerical GNG attack will turn sections of wikipedia into a melting Greenland glacier falling off into the sea. Trackinfo (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
            • We limit local sources due to the fact that WP is not an indiscriminate source of information. It is common sense that, at least in the US, if you play at even the high school level, you will likely be covered to a degree, but mostly in local sources. That shows very limit impact or importance to the world as a whole (not all , of course, eg Lebron James for one) and thus the bulk of these players are indiscriminate inclusion that we do not want. That's why these guidelines are tuned to start at the point where we allow articles on pro players as has been argued before, getting to pro usually means you have a number of successes in your past that can be documented and expected coverage by being a pro player in the future. Being a high school or college player is not the same thing, and hence why there's no general allowance for them and why we reject notability only on local sources for these players. Same with local politicians, same with local businesses, same with local garage bands, etc. We're looking to write a work that is globally relevant and including every person in a broad catagory just because they can be documented is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
We do not "reject notability only on local sources" for college players. That is the policy for high school players, but not college players. As I said above, it may be appropriate to discount truly "local" sources (e.g., small town or college paper), even for college or pro players, but we do not "reject" those sources altogether. Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
NCOLLATH (in addition to the preamble to all of NSPORTS) suggests otherwise. A player that is only the attention of non-routine but otherwise only local sources does not meet NCOLLATH and fails the consideration of local sources that NSPORTS sets out. Of course, if there is some national attention to that player at some point, all those local sources are valid sources, but alone they don't show notability we need. (To be clear, this is not saying local sources are unreliable, just not sufficient for notability of a global encyclopedia) --MASEM (t) 18:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's how these discussions go. It is brought to AfD, someone claiming the subject isn't notable. From a major source we are able to find a mention showing them on the roster of something notable. We say they meet NSPORT. But its just a stub, no widespread reporting, Doesn't meet GNG. The backup to GNG is; anybody who gets to this "highest level" in their sport should have a history. That history will almost always come from local sources, school sources. Every benchwarmer at the major level, is one of the best players to come out of their town or school. Killing local sources will essentially turn wikipedia into only covering LeBron James, someone who gets major national coverage. If we carry the argument too far, even the guys who pass him the ball won't have sufficient coverage to get an article. Trackinfo (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, we're not talking about removing/disallowing local sources. They just cannot be used alone without at least one significant source of larger coverage or meeting one of the criteria here. As has been argued for the professional athletes, the reason the criteria exists is because by participation in a game, you should have had cover in previous points in that career (you don't just end up in the pros), and as you said, most of that will be local sources. That use of local is fine. But when we talk college or high-school, there's no assurance that there's an earlier history to build from, and with only local coverage (which readily exists for most of these athletes at the local level) there's no readily good reason why we should be including them in an encyclopedia that covers global topics. (And to note, a source saying someone is on a roster fails the GNG and fails the standard professional allowance, as it actually requires a game to be played) . --MASEM (t) 18:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
This takes into assumption that minor sports will get ANY coverage on the major source level. Some sports never merit the mention of the sport, much less the players. I was going to illustrate an example (using an obscure team in an obscure pro league, probably stretching the definition of pro) but I can predict what some of these malicious editors would do if I gave them the lead. It would have doomed an entire swath of content written by other editors. Trackinfo (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Masem -- You continue to treat high school and college sports as though they were comparable. They are not, and our poicies recognize that. Local sources are disallowed for establishing notability of local athletes. There is no such disallowance on local sources for college athletes. That's reflected on the face of the policies. Cbl62 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
College athletes are local athletes, since even small non-NCAA schools will have athletic teams covered by local sources and membership in these clubs is not indicative of previous performance. That said, college athletes, particularly leaders in football and basketball from top NCAA schools, will have a likely chance of meeting the GNG by national coverage. But this is absolutely not true of a random college athlete. Hence why college athletes are required to have national coverage per NCOLLATH to presume notability. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the time to continue the discussion, but your interpretation is another attempt to say that NCOLLATH trumps GNG. It does not. The one exception that has been created involves high school athletes, where there is an explicit restriction on using local sources to establish notability. There is no such restriction for college athletes, nor should there be. Nobody is suggesting that every college football player should have an article. I've been following college football afds since 2007 or so, and 99% of college football players don't generate enough coverage to warrant a wikipedia article. The small number that do get sufficient coverage, however, should not have to pass a higher bar than musicians, businessmen, local politicians, or even anime characters and video game developers. WP:GNG is the same whether the person is an athlete or otherwise. Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Nope, as demonstrated above, practice allows SNGs to describe sources that should be used to determine notability for the topic that SNG covers. Limiting local-only sources is completely in line with practice done here and at other SNG guidelines like ORG (about local businesses) and NMUSIC (for local bands), and this is also spelled out at WP:COOKIE. Mind you, where local sources might apply to other topics that don't spell this out, and only local coverage exists, the same idea that local sources tend to lack the independence of the topic apply. It's not setting a higher bar, but it is being clear in an area where editors, unaware of all the nuances of notability guidelines, may mis-take local coverage as GNG-meeting. It is making sure things are on parity with the rest of the encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The source and the article's prominent placement in that source in its entirety needs to be weighed in full. Example: LA times sports section within it has a local sports subsection. If a high school athlete has substantial coverage in that subsection, this source should be considered local. However, if they have a page on the front page of the sports section, I'd argue that is not a "local" source. For more regional papers the placement of the article is important. A full page article on the front page of the the NEWARK STAR-LEDGER is different than an article it's sports section. MATThematical (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Boxing - interim titles[edit]

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Jackson (boxer born 1986) a slight issue has come up if interim boxing titles should count for meeting WP:NBOX. While I believe that the guideline include interim titles, it appears not all share that view. Thus, I think it should be addressed if only "regular/full" titles meet the guideline or if interim titles also meet the guideline. Also, is there a distinction to be drawn (e.g., world interim titles count only or world and regional interim titles count and not national interim). Seems like clarification is needed. RonSigPi (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with Papaursa's reasoning at that AfD discussion as to why interim titles do not confer automatic notability. Jakejr (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I believe I clearly stated why I don't believe that interim titles don't show notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Jackson (boxer born 1986). This would be especially true for national or regional titles, which was the case in the aforementioned deletion discussion. For a world title, those fighters involved probably already meet WP:NBOX because they likely were already ranked in the top 10. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I also don't think that fighting for an interim title guarantees notability, especially at lower levels. Interim titles are not the same as regular titles and are frequently ignored even by the organization's that give them--after all, they can't have 2 champions in the same division.Mdtemp (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I made changes to WP:NBOX to reflect that regional interim titles do not meet the standard. Also, reformatted to make it look like other guidelines. RonSigPi (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


I find WP:NBASEBALL to be too restrictive in that AAA minor league teams operate in major cities and they are considered direct Major League prep factories. Can anyone explain the arbitrary limitation to Major League players only? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Many players in Triple-A are run-of-the-mill organizational filler, who lack prospect status and significant coverage as described in WP:GNG. NBASEBALL allows for MLB players under the assumption that there is significant coverage of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, Triple-A is direct prep for the Majors and they operate in major cities, so on that basis, I don't see any reason why the same assumption doesn't apply. Calling the players "run-of-the-mill" organizational filler when they are in a class just below the Majors seems to at least require some analysis or links. This isn't something I will simply accept because it is stated. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This article by The Hardball Times describes organizational players and their purpose. It's not "direct prep" for everybody, just the prospects. But, organizations have at least 7 minor league affiliates, and need to have warm bodies to fill all of that playing time. About the major cities part, there are teams in legit "big league" cities (New Orleans, Charlotte), but there are also Triple-A teams in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Pawtucket, Rhode Island, Rochester, New York, and Moosic, Pennsylvania. As you can see at Triple-A (baseball), only two IL or PCL stadiums have a capacity above 15,000 (Mexican League doesn't count). Besides, the size of the city of a Triple-A team means nothing about the notability of the players on that cities' baseball team. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Size of the city has some relevance, in that if you are a prominent person in a big city you are more likely to get sigificant coverage. For example, there will be more newspapers and media outlets in a large city than in a smaller city, and more people to pay attention to the person. But minor leaguers still can be notable (and many are), we just don't presume it from the fact that they are minor leaguers. And I don't really have a problem with that for "organizational filler" or players being prepped for the top league. I do have a problem with this presumption as it applies to pre-1960 AAA players, when PCL, IL or AA team was generally the top league in the region (i.e., south of DC, west of Missouri, north of the border). Even the players who were not being prepped for the Major Leagues received attention as important players in the area, far more so than today when even people in New Orleans or Charlotte have access via TV and other media to major league teams. People in California had far less access to Major League baseball before 1958, and PCL players were their stars and got much of their media attention. And it is for them that a notability presumption is more important, because much fewer sources are readily accessible on the internet that were created half a century or more ago than for sources that were created recently. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I might remove the presumption for true organizational fillers, but I don't see the relevance of stadium sizes, as these AAA cities are in metropolitan areas where there would be adequate ongoing coverage by sports journalists in the associated media markets. These teams and their star players for the most part likely have a big enough following where they are at least considered to have regional notability. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 19:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
We should strive to make WP WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Is their a compelling reason why WP:GNG is not sufficient for AAA players?—Bagumba (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
SNGs are intended to reflect the points at which we can safely assume that virtually anyone who meets the criteria is notable, per relevant policies and guidelines. Minor leaguers - in most sports, not just baseball - have not been convincingly argued to meet that threshold. As Bagumba notes, however, a player who meets GNG but not NBASEBALL should still survive. Resolute 20:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Any minor league baseball player who can satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG may have a stand-alone article, and we have a lot of them already. There is no reason to create a separate specific notability guideline for minor league players; GNG is adequate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Do you believe nearly every AAA baseball player gets significant media coverage (outside of things like game summaries, which don't count via WP:routine)? A player satisfying WP:NSPORTS is suppose to signify that there is an extremely high probability (near 100%) that the player actually satisfy WP:GNG. If even as little as 10-20% of players who qualify under a clause (say your proposed clause of AAA player) don't satisfy WP:GNG, it renders WP:NSPORTS useless in AfDs because no one would take it seriously. MATThematical (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I simply hold that if we accept the assertion of presumed notability from WP:NBASEBALL, then it extends to AAA teams as well for the same reasons. If there's no burden of proof on WP:NBASEBALL, there's none for my position. But certainly WP:GNG should overrule presumptions. At any rate, anyone can throw around guessed stats that show that a high percentage of Major League players would pass GNG vs. a probably lower, but maybe still somewhat high percentage of AAA players passing it as well. AAA isn't podunk chopped liver. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 19:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not in favor of presuming notability for AAA players (I think GNG is sufficient for minor league players), but I would point out that WP:NFOOTY presumes notabilty for players who appear in at least one USL Pro game, which in my opinion receives less press coverage (and in turn less chance of meeting GNG) than AAA baseball. I brought this point up in a recent deletion discussion to deaf ears. In my opinion, we should look at North American minor leagues as a whole and have a consistent way of looking at AAA, NBA Development League and USL Pro. I am not enough of a hockey guy to comment, but it seems like they use game minimums to include some levels of minor league players (which seems like a reasonable way to look at it). The discrepency between sports on this is ridiculous. Rikster2 (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Agreed. We probably need a separate notability rule for American baseball minor leagues and basketball development league, as well as North American minor league soccer. Minor league soccer/association football players do not get anywhere near the coverage that European players in lower leagues do, and it's probably time that we acknowledge that. If and when that changes in the future, it can be revisited. As for Triple-A baseball players, I firmly oppose any presumption of notability. We have too many marginally notable minor leaguers (and Major Leaguers) already. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion: regular season single-game articles[edit]

The following AfDs may be of interest to regular WP:NSPORTS talk page participants because they concern the notability and suitability of stand-alone articles for regular season games. There are currently 17 pending articles for deletion:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Cowboys Classic;
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Cowboys Classic;
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Cowboys Classic;
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Cowboys Classic;
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Cowboys Classic;
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Cowboys Classic;
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Alabama vs. Texas A&M football game;
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 Tennessee vs. Florida football game;
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game;
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game;
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game;
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game;
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game;
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Texas Tech vs. Kansas State football game;
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff;
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 AdvoCare Texas Kickoff; and
17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Lights III.

Your informed participation is welcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oy. Rather wish you had bundled those nominations! Resolute 14:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Resolute, the problem with bundled multi-article AfDs is they typically only work for relatively non-controversial AfDs, where the articles are all closely related, few objections are anticipated, and there is a strong likelihood of the same outcome for all articles. Here, I fully anticipated that a vocal minority would object to deleting, redirecting and/or merging these articles. Present experience bears out that expectation. If the objecting parties are going to argue that these articles are individually notable and suitable for inclusion (which they presently are), then the fairest way to handle the AfDs is individually, and on their separate individual merits. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Another option in the future would be to nominate one representative article for AfD, see if it gets deleted, then bundle the rest while citing the first AfD as a precedent (be careful with WP:OTHERSTUFF).—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
True, Bagumba, but we have deleted several other single-game articles in the last couple of months. And bundling AfDs is always a high-risk proposition if you don't know what opposition to expect. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
High risk? Wikipedia is not about "winning" or "getting your way" -- the discussions should be about determining what is right for the encyclopedia. They should have been handled better, 17 AFDs on relatively similar topics is unweildy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Paul, bundled AfDs may be "high risk" in the sense they have the strong potential to become a 7- to 14-day waste of time for everyone who participates. There is nothing unwieldy about 17 individual AfDs; it's the normal procedure. A bundled 17-article AfD, on the other hand, is an invitation to a giant waste of time if there are any meritorius arguments regarding the notability and suitability of some, but not all of the bundled articles. But that's the nominator's choice, and the lack of a bundled AfD is not a valid objection to individual AfDs. Alleged efficiency does not trump individual consideration of individual articles on their individual merits. Enough said: I have no desire to debate baseless procedural objections in multiple forums. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If the consensus that emerges from these deletion discussions ends up continuing the recent trend towards deleting such pages, then I would suggest that we consider adding some guidance here, reflecting that consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • That is my intention, Tryptofish. This debate has been argued multiple times, across multiple sports, and I believe a de facto consensus already exists -- across multiple sports -- that stand-alone articles about individual regular season sports events are disfavored, with exceptions for individual matches of historical significance or matches that are otherwise important to the culture and lore of the particular sport. There will be clean-up required across several notability provisions in order to clarify this provision, including GNG, NSPORTS, ROUTINE, etc. Most of the proponents for stand-alone articles for individual regular season sports matches are relying on a misreading of WP:ROUTINE, in that they are misreading "sports scores" as a limitation on the definition of "routine coverage," and not an example of "routine coverage." To my knowledge, this has never been the consensus interpretation, but here we are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Similar to how NSPORTS at Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Applicable_policies_and_guidelines directs readers to WP:ORG for notability of teams, there should be verbage that points to WP:EVENT for notability of individual sporting events.—Bagumba (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
      • There's a couple of different ways to skin this cat, Bags, but your suggested cross-reference is a good start. In addition to making the necessary clarifications to the above-cited provisions, I also think the sports projects should probably collect a list of quotations from and links to the relevant guidelines. There is ample support in the guidelines for discouraging single-game articles, but that wisdom is fragmented across a half-dozen different provisions of several different guidelines. When they are read together, the intent is crystal clear, but one has to know where to look . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I agree with all of the above. I also think that some clarification to WP:NSEASONS should occur in parallel to WP:SPORTSEVENT. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Oh, yeah, we need some clarifications of NSEASONS, too, but I expect that discussion to be far more controversial than clarifications related to SPORTSEVENT and related provisions. I've learned never to fight on two fronts (see Hitler, Adolf; and Wilhelm II, Kaiser), nor take a bigger bite than I am able to chew. I suggest we tackle one problem at a time, and take the easiest first. Cheers, 'Fish. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFOOTY - Competitive Competitions[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Thompson (and apparently other discussions?), the consensus in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football community is that appearances in "...competitive fixture[s] between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." is enough to merit notability. In his specific case, one appearance in a competitive cup competition was correctly referred to. The (since superseded) WP:FOOTYN clearly stated these requirements, as quoted there, however the updated WP:NFOOTY does not have this mention. If this is the consensus, it should be noted as such. cc: @GiantSnowman: @Mikemor92: @Sir Sputnik: @Nfitz: @Pharaoh of the Wizards: for expert opinions from the footy community, but would like to hear from non-footy experts as well. – GauchoDude (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not just consensus at WT:FOOTY, there is also consensus at AFD for this. There is no difference between a competitive league game (in a fully-professional league, as required by NFOOTBALL) and a competitive cup game (between two clubs both from FPLs). NFOOTY should be re-worded (slightly) to reflect this. GiantSnowman 09:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with GiantSnowman; we have treated WP:NFOOTY as covering these type of matches for several years. Number 57 11:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - to suggest, in an extreme example, that playing for Manchester United vs Liverpool in the Premier League final makes one notable but that playing for Manchester United vs Liverpool in the final of the Champions League doesn't would be ridiculous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
That's all fine and good, I'm not trying to overturn consensus because it is what it is, what I'm suggesting is that either Point 2 be edited to include all competitive games between two professional teams (as we're currently working under) or adding a third point, similar to the old WP:FOOTYN, that clearly states the othet matches and competitions included outside of the traditional fully professional league. Also, it's a bit misleading to say it's consensus at Footy and AfD because of course it would be, the set of rules everyone was operating under at the time were different and included these "other" games, written in black and white, hence the current discrepancy. I'm not sure when, or why, something changed when going from WP:FOOTYN to WP:NFOOTY, what I'm saying is that we should clarify the guidelines which we currently operate under at WP:NFOOTY, especially for people who are outside of the Footy community who wouldn't know of these unwritten rules. – GauchoDude (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is that notability is assumed for players who have appeared in a match between teams from fully professional leagues, not between two professional teams. Hack (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hack, that seems to be a distinction without meaning. Are there professional football teams from leagues that are not fully professional? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: yep, plenty of semi-pro leagues, where some teams are professional and some are not. e.g. League of Ireland, Conference Premier etc. GiantSnowman 11:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. I did not know that. It's always good to learn something new before lunch. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
To me its not quite a distinction without meaning. In my opinion, a key here is that professional leagues gain a lot of non-routine coverage while semi-pro leagues do not. Therefore, a professional team in a professional league will likely gain more non-routine coverage than a team in a semi-pro league. As an example, in a pro league each week coverage is generated on two sides - one for each team - as well as national media and the like. In a semi-pro league, on a weekly basis only one side is pro and thus only one side of coverage is generated that is to be more routine plus there is less national media if any. If two pro teams from semi-pro leagues play each other I think less coverage is generated than if two pro teams from pro leagues play each other due to the typical coverage produced. Again, this is speaking generally for the guidelines. I can see the different sides, but to me there is a distinction.RonSigPi (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand now, Ron. Pardon the ignorance of an American regarding the nuances of the Beautiful Game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

NGYMNASTICS piping[edit]

I've reverted this recent edit to WP:NGYMNASTICS that removed the piping of World Artistic Gymnastics Championships, replacing it with the more generic World Gymnastics Championships. Background is that this piping has apparently been there since April 2010. I'm inclined to remove the piping, but not without a discussion of whether the inclusion criteria should be "World Artistic Gymnastics Championships" or "World Gymnastics Championships". Is there evidence that participation in non-artistic championships presumably generates enough coverage for the athlete to meet WP:GNG? Otherwise, the more restrictive "World Artistic Gymnastics Championships" should be used unpiped, as that is what has been linked since WP:GYMNASTICS' original inclusion. —Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the final choice the piping needs to go. I got into a whole argument on a CSD because the subject of the article had competed in the "World Artistic Gymnastics Championships" and the criteria as written here said "World Gymnastics Championships". The point of the notability guidelines is to help not to mislead. Gymnastics isn't my thing, so it's not helpful getting guidance in the text that's contradicted in the link's piping. Bazj (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)