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.

Masters Athletics World Championships[edit]

At one point in time, this was mentioned in NSPORTS. It was inauspiciously removed in a burst of edits here without further discussion by user: MATThematical, an opponent. As you can see the earlier discussion, months before the edit, was at best inconclusive. It really had not been discussed much at all. MATTs proposal was for multiple but nobody else reacted. We had not concluded how much of a showing at the meet constituted notability, but NOWHERE in the discussion was there a suggestion for removal. Even though I do watch the progress of this policy, the burst of edits effectively hid the edit from my attention at the time. Now, years later, I have to track this down as its absence becomes an issue. I'm going to replace the original language before the edit. We know MATT's opposing opinion. Do any other voices have an opinion here? Trackinfo (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

World masters championships should be mentioned, although as my orginal post states, I think a single gold medal in an event that doesn't necessarily field the best masters running is questionable. I thought a multiple gold requirement (either through multiple years or multiple events) was the best solution. MATThematical (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about rugby union rules[edit]

Why are there separate notability rules for men and women rugby players? According to the current (May 23 2014) rules, female rugby players are notable only if they participated from specific countries during specific (World Cup) years. All years are notable years for male players from Tier 1 and 2 countries. Seems unfair and in comparison there is no such distinction for association football (soccer). My name is Valerie Griffeth. I am a female rugby union player who represented the United States in both 7s and 15s, and now because of a notability-rule technicality which I view as discriminatory, my article here is being put up for deletion. Wondering.--Vgriffeth (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The purpose of notability standards on Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights laws, but to reflect what the world finds notable or not, whether or not that suits our amour propre. In particular, the underpinning of the NSPORTS subordinate notability criteria is that those who meet it should generally be able to pass the General Notability Guideline. That different sports have differing notability criteria is plain common sense; collegiate-level play is highly notable in some sports and not in others, minor league play is highly notable in some sports and not in others, and women's competition is highly notable in some sports and not in others. Ravenswing 16:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but can you see the problem here? Wikipedia's contributors are almost all men (one estimate: 90%). You are a man I bet. I am too. Rugby is a male-dominated sport (although women are starting to catch on). So it is highly possible that the male-rugby-notability-rule writers came up with something very male oriented such that if a male player participated in such-and-such a competition, in such-and-such a year (point 1), he is automatically notable, whereas the chances for women are meager (point 4). The result is highly discriminatory, so there are very few female rugby players considered notable, yet male players, whose only claim to fame is to have participated in one of the selected matches, qualify for pages in Wikipedia. This is highly unfair in my view. Consider Griffeth. Her college magazine was so proud of her they devoted an entire article to her; she earned plenty of media attention at Rugby magazine, Erugbynews, the International Rugby Board, 16 references in total, but because her matches did not happen to have the right nation or year, she is automatically excluded from notability. The male-oriented rugby notability rule goes against all the other notability guidelines. Can you begin to see how unfair this is?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Consider that Valerie Griffeth played for US rugby teams in international competitions. She played for 7s; she played for 15s. But she is a WOMAN. Now, check out the following American male rugby players who have only 1 reference (a primary source usually, just a few lines each for each article, but who, BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN and happened to play in the "right" (according to Wikipedia) competitions, have Wikipedia pages which are unchallenged: Mike Mangan, Owen Lentz, Mark Aylor, Hayden Mexted, Chad Erskine, Jonathan Vitale, Blake Burdette, Dan Payne (rugby union), Henry Bloomfield, Junior Sifa, Patrick Danahy, Bill Hayward (rugby union), Tom Billups, Richard Tardits (no references), Dan Lyle (2 refs), Alec Parker, etc etc. Is this fair? It is not fair. The rules need rethinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
      • As I mentioned in the AfD when you posted that self-same laundry list, if there are articles on male rugby players for which reliable sources can't be found, by all means prod or AfD them.[Ha! Good luck! If you try, the !keep votes will all point to WP:NSPORT and cry "presumed notable", and you will get nowhere! KDS4444Talk 00:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)] For another, you're falling into a common trap of someone thirsting to save an article on AfD: that if some excuse can be made for the subject not having the multiple reliable sources, which discuss the subject in significant detail, that the GNG requires, somehow WP:V and WP:N should be suspended in the subject's favor. This curious doctrine forms no part of Wikipedia policy.

        I stand by what I said above: that the purpose of notability standards on Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights laws, but to reflect what the world finds notable or not. There are women's sports which by virtue of media coverage and public support have relatively loose notable standards: basketball, soccer, hockey, tennis, golf. There are many that don't attract that attention, and don't. Now if you want to argue that WP:V and WP:N should be suspended if you believe they disparage groups you personally favor, I commend their respective talk pages to you. Ravenswing 06:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

        • Generally I agree with your view that the purpose of notability standards in Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights, that their aim should be to reflect what the world finds notable. Given that, what I am arguing is this: that the world finds female athletes such as Valerie Griffeth notable, that this notability is reflected by numerous sources in respected media, and that the current Wikipedia rugby guidelines (ie point 1, point 4, etc) fail to reflect this reality. That is, the more specific rugby-related guidelines are geared towards men, not women; as a result, Wikipedia has dozens and dozens of one-line articles about male rugby players (many of whom get little press) and which are poorly referenced, with the only reason for their being in Wikipedia is that they happened to participate in the right tournament, from the right country, for the right years. So while it is easy for a male rugby player to qualify for a Wikipedia article, it is extremely difficult for a female rugby player to do so. I advocate a rethinking of the point 1 to point 4 rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
          • As I responded at length in the AfD, I disagree with your characterization. A Google News search for Griffeth turned up only the Wikipedia article; she is not so much as mentioned in a single mainstream media article that could be found. The only sources you have produced come from rugby websites and from the subject's collegiate athletic department. Claiming that there are many articles on male rugby players that are similarly poorly referenced -- aside from being an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument -- is not an adequate or legal defense of Griffeth's article: it's an indictment of those other subjects' notability, and a good reason to make a systematic examination of those articles and weed out the ones which fail of references which satisfy the GNG. Ravenswing 08:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
            • A systematic examination of those articles, with numerous AfDs, would be a gargantuan task, fraught with fuss. Frankly, I do not know enough about rugby, or rugby players, to even attempt such an undertaking. It might very well be that the rule-writers (point 1, point 4, etc) are correct, that participating in certain matches, from certain countries, from certain years, automatically should qualify a player for Wikipedia notability. From my viewpoint, it looks suspect, however, when there are numerous one-line article with the only reference being a link to a site saying player X participated in such-and-such a playoff match. It would be much cleaner, simpler, and smarter to more closely align Wikipedia's notability guidelines to reflect the reality of notability, to suggest the same general standard of notability for all athletes. That is what I am asking: for people who know rugby, know the rules, to take a good hard look at the point 1 point 4 business, and come up with a workable guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
              • A bit bewildered here: if you're unfamiliar with rugby, upon what basis do you consider yourself knowledgeable enough to challenge the guideline's accuracy? (I never have myself; I am not a rugby expert, and I presume that those on Wikipedia who are know better than I do what competitions at what levels are notable.)

                That being said, we broke up the old WP:ATHLETE into differing SNGs for each sport for the basic reason that one-size-fits-all doesn't work. There are certain sports where 14-year-old athletes are highly notable. There are many where they never are. There are certain sports where female athletes are highly notable. There are others where they seldom are. There are certain sports where low-level minor leagues receive national press coverage. There are certain sports that get noticed by the public only for so long as their competitions are on the TV during broadcasts of the Olympics. This is why we don't consider "sports" a homogenous heap when it comes to SNGs. Ravenswing 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • This discussion appears to rest on a flawed assumption. WP:Notability_(sports) is not what makes things notable. WP:GNG is what makes things notable. WP:GNG rests on the coverage that subjects achieve. Coverage of sports-played-by-males hugely outweighs sports-played-by-females, thus it's easiler for sports-played-by-males to achieve notability. I completely agree that this sucks, but Wikipedia is not the place to correct this (although Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias has some great hints on attempting to avoid perpetuating it). WP:Notability_(sports) is a shortcut for our collective feeling for where the various lines are for notability are in the field of sports. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with Stuartyeates somewhat, in that WP:GNG makes things notable, except that (if I understand things correctly) a player can qualify if he/she passes the WP:Notability_(sports) guideline; that is, either GNG or SNG works, that is, if a player meets either the GNG or the SNG, they're notable. Is this right? If I don't know much about rugby, I know about Wikipedia, and what occurred to me, seeing article after article in Wikipedia of male rugby players, which only had one or two references at most, that something was amiss. My sense is the culprit here is the point 1 point 4 rules, that it is poorly written or needs to be rethought, that's all I'm saying.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
      • See the frequently asked questions page, which is included within the guideline page, and linked to at the top of this page, for more information on the role of the sports-specific guidelines with respect to the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for your input on this. I really appreciate the discourse my small page has sparked. After reading the discussion, I still think the WP:Notability_(sports) should be changed to be more reflective of the evolving growth of the game. As Stuartyeates noted, it sucks that women's sports generally do not get as much coverage as men's sports. This does not mean that there are not people interested in following those sports and the women making spectacular achievements in them. Finding publications to support WP:GNG is unfortunately more difficult for women than for men, but as an athlete that has competed internationally, it is notable. Period. End of story. People find out and they're awed by it. The IRB sanctions international matches for both men and women for this reason. They are the gate keepers above the gate keepers of the national team selectors, so why should Wikipedia then say international participation in your sport is not notable if there are both International and National governing bodies both saying yes, you are notable. That said, can we at least get rid of the qualification that women must have played in the semi-final or higher at the World Cup? And explicitly include the Women's Sevens World Series? Players must still meet WP:GNG of course. Vgriffeth (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And so must any subordinate notability criteria. It's already been mentioned in this discussion that the various SNGs -- the NSPORTS criteria included -- have one essential premise: that someone meeting them would be reasonably assured of passing the GNG. Every such criterion has to be checked and tested against that premise; if athletes who fulfill that criterion generally do not meet the GNG, then the criterion is flawed and must be stricken.

    On Wikipedia, "notable" has a precise definition at variance with the general public's definition of "I think this is important." That meaning is set forth in Wikipedia:Notability, which holds that "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Neither that definition nor the GNG makes any reference -- nor should they -- to the decisions of sports national sanctioning bodies. Since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, we can not serve as an advocate for the growth of your sport. Ultimately, if the media chooses not to cover your sport, that doesn't impede the various sanctioning bodies from declaring anything "notable" they see fit. It just deters Wikipedia from having articles about it.

    As far as your specific objection about international play goes, if you review the various NSPORTS criteria, you'll see that in almost every case, merely playing for an international team (and in every case of merely being named to a squad) is not sufficient to meet the criteria. Over and over again, the criteria requires competing for a national team at the top level of competition, such as the Olympic Games or at top-rung World Championships. If, in this particular instance, you can demonstrate that the typical competitor in this Women's Sevens World Series meets the GNG, that would be a good reason to amend the SNG. I recommend the FAQ link that isaacl posted uptopic for more clarification. Ravenswing 08:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


WP:NSPORTS has come to trump WP:GNG: Wikipedia is flooded with thousands and thousands of unreferenced one-line articles on players who are "presumed notable." Check it out: click on "Random article" from the main page. If you don't get a sports player within the first four clicks, you are my new hero. References be damned: they are notable because they seem like they autta be notable, because references "seem likely to exist" somewhere, even if no one can find any... which is pretty weak reasoning if you ask me, but there you have it. And the guys who made it happen are very proud of their 800+ articles apiece on these players. Wikipedia is now a sports roster. Whodathunkit?? Not me! KDS4444Talk 00:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Case in point, I give you Stefan Stojanović (footballer born 1992). (and okay, it took me five clicks to hit on a footballer randomly, but you get the idea). KDS4444Talk 00:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Brilliantly put. I agree WP:NSPORTS has come to trump WP:GNG. And it should not do this. GNG should rule. The NSPORTS guideline is causing huge mayhem in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hrm. Speaking of Mr. Stojanovic -- have you attempted, and failed, to find sourcing for him? Has there been an AfD filed? Any attempt there at finding Balkan-language sources? Heck, have you attempted to find him on either the Serbian or Serbo-Croat Wikipedias? No? In your shoes, I wouldn't be bemoaning the sad condition of an article I declined to source, improve or file on.

    The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia has many tens of thousands of stub articles. A lot of us have been working very hard for many years to take these stubs and turn them into useful articles ... and, come to that, a lot of us have worked very hard to AfDing or PROD sub-stubs which don't even make NSPORTS criteria. It is, in fact, the case that the GNG trumps NSPORTS, and many of us advocate that at AfD on a regular basis. (If what the complaint really is here is that sports figures have a disproportionate media impact in our culture, and altogether too many of them would meet the GNG thereby, that's an arguable position, and I wish you well in having WP:V, WP:N and the GNG changed to conform to your own preferences.)

    That being said, Tomwsulcer, what is the "huge mayhem" you claim is being caused? Ravenswing 02:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up for Ravenswing: searches now completed on Google & GoogleNews, only trivial hits, does not even exist in the Wikipedias for Serbian or Serbo-Croatian, AfD process now underway, point well taken, and thank you. Having even 6% of the English Wikipedia's articles dedicated to the rosters of non-notable players does seem, if not like huge mayhem, at least a little like a cl#sterf*ck of some kind though, doesn't it? KDS4444Talk 05:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not that I accept your wholly unsubstantiated WAG that there are over 200,000 articles of non-notable sports players; as with the "huge mayhem" charge, Chicken Little-esque hyperbole does no one here much good. Good work on the Stojanovic AfD, though. Ravenswing 11:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There are two competing guidelines for notability: the general notability guideline and the sports specific guidelines. There really should be only ONE guideline: the GNG. That should be it. It should apply to all subjects, persons, topics, including sportspeople. But the point made by KDS4444 and myself is that the SNG has been overriding the GNG. What has been happening is these sports-specific guidelines have been written, so that a player plays in such-and-such a game or tournament, and there is the presumption that he or she will automatically meet the GNG. I sincerely doubt that this is the case. For one thing, there have been one-line stub articles that have persisted in Wikipedia for years without improvement. My sense -- unproven I admit -- is that many or maybe even most of these subjects are not really notable according to the GNG and they should not be in Wikipedia. There is not much media coverage of them. They seem non-notable. What KDS4444 asserts I believe to be correct: Wikipedia has become the repository of slews of one-line stub articles, subjects who don't meet the GNG, subjects who are in Wikipedia merely because they passed a requirement based on the sports-specific guidelines. Consider these articles: Mike Mangan, Owen Lentz, Mark Aylor, Hayden Mexted, Chad Erskine, Jonathan Vitale, Blake Burdette, Dan Payne (rugby union), Henry Bloomfield, Junior Sifa, Patrick Danahy, Bill Hayward (rugby union), Tom Billups, Richard Tardits (no references), Dan Lyle (2 refs), Alec Parker. Are these athletes notable? Maybe some are; but maybe some are not. What I am saying is these sports-specific guidelines cause confusion, undermine the GNG, and need to be seriously rethought. Maybe as a test of this hypothesis, I might put up the above articles for AfD, simply to see what happens, although here again, somebody may be stymied, because doing an AfD requires some preparation, background checking, and such -- a lot of work -- but I may just do it any way as an experiment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (shrugs) Any article upon which you do the reasonable due diligence that WP:BEFORE requires, prior to filing an AfD, that turns up lacking sources, you can file on them with my goodwill. That being said, "they seem non-notable" is the standard battle cry of those who don't actually have any clue one way or another. If there are as few as a hundred thousand biographical articles on Wikipedia of whose subjects I've never heard, I'd gape with astonishment, but the only way I'd ever say "They seem non-notable" is if I actually checked first. Stub articles persist for years without improvement not because they're inherently unimprovable, but because no one's yet taken the time to do so. For instance, let's take a look at the unreferenced article you cite above. It took me all of 45 seconds to find out that Sports Illustrated did a feature article on the subject in 1988. There are a number of other articles on the subject, which quite properly validate the NSPORTS football guideline stipulating that any NFL player is presumptively notable.

    That being said, I recognize that SNGs may well confuse you and KDS4444, and that your personal opinion is that they override the GNG, but those opinions ought not be conflated into a Wikipedia-wide state of confusion about the meaning of the word "subordinate."

    (I also admit to being confused. Weren't you arguing, just a couple of weeks ago, that the NSPORTS rugby union guideline ought to be expanded to include a female athlete you thought ought to pass it, and now you're advocating the abolition of NSPORTS guidelines, citing as example a bunch of male athletes who meet the very same SNG you were arguing ought to be expanded? WP:POINTY, perhaps?) Ravenswing 03:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, I did, but I acted in good faith. The NSPORTS caused confusion not just for me and several others but even for the person who nominated the article Valerie Griffeth for deletion on the basis of failing to meet the NSPORTS guideline. GNG should rule, not NSPORTS. That was unclear. Is there a problem with the NSPORTS wording, its existence, its relation to GNG? There appears to me to be a problem.

    My sense is that many contributors misunderstand the NSPORTS guideline. They think it trumps or matches GNG, and this has led to the creation of numerous articles in Wikipedia which fail GNG but meet NSPORTS. These stub-articles can linger in Wikipedia for years, unchecked, unreferenced. It may be that many of them belong in Wikipedia, but my sense is that many do not. This is a testable hypothesis; I can take a sample of the dubious sportsperson articles, check them out, see what percentage of these articles are notable, and get a better sense of what is going on here. I may do this.

    I tried KDS4444's random experiment, hitting the "Random article" on the Wikipedia main page. I did not get one of every 4 or 5 articles being a one-line sportsperson stub barely referenced, but rather, I did a hundred random ones, and found perhaps among them 6 dubious sportsperson articles (short, unreferenced, etc.) So it seems to be not as prevalent as KDS4444 makes it to be, but still there could be a problem, since 6% of Wikipedia's 4 million-plus articles is considerable. My one hundred was only one sample; if one repeats the experiment many times, finds the percentage of dubious sportsperson articles each times, and then averages these percentages, a more accurate percentage will emerge, and I may do this too.

    So, here is where I am now: test these hypotheses, find out, sample, research. I will keep an open mind that NSPORTS guideline may be right (that, say, the one-line stub unreferenced sportperson articles will prove notable after more work) but if I find otherwise, I hope that others will keep an open mind that maybe there is a problem here.

    My overall concern is that the NSPORTS guideline, via confusion, bad wording, its existence even, may be causing a lot of non-notable sportspeople biographies to slip into Wikipedia which is subsequently hard for the community to remove, if one strictly observes the steps required before deleting each article. In addition, the logic of NSPORTS seems unclear; why is it the case that playing in such-and-such a game automatically qualifies a subject to be notable? Is not each case different?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Others have answered other aspects of your response, but I'll take on the last sentence: the premise behind all NSPORTS criteria -- as well as behind any SNG -- is that someone who meets one or more of the criteria will be highly likely to meet the GNG. Playing a single major professional game might seem to a layman like a very low threshold, but the logic is quite sound: in our sports-happy, media-flooded culture, the odds these days that anyone playing so much as a single match in the Premier League, the National Hockey League or at a golf major will have been the subject of several qualifying articles.

    Is the system perfect? Nope. Heck, I drafted the ice hockey criteria, but I've also proposed significant overhauls to it (the most recent being only in December), because some of us recognized that various aspects didn't work out as well as we'd hoped. So I invite you to test it yourself: if (for instance) you think that the rugby union SNG is too loose, and too many players who pass it fail the GNG, propose that it be tightened. Ravenswing 01:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It seems that the examples provided are all rugby players, which may indicate that the guidelines specific to rugby are too loose. Or it may mean that there haven't been enough editors motivated to find the sources that may exist to support these articles. It hardly means that NSPORTS itself is a problem. For example, I cannot recall a situation where an American baseball player who played in the past century or so was AfDed on the basis of having played "only" one game where it was not possible to find sources to support the article. And it is certainly possible to tweak the guidelines as appropriate, and as has happened on several occassions. And I certainly don't see any evidence of anything remotely resembling "mayhem" as a result of having NSPORTS. Rlendog (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is this discussion focused solely on WP:NSPORTS? There are notability guidelines for a wide variety of topic areas, all of which serve to give editors guidance on subjects that will typically meet GNG - entertainment, academia, history, etc. NSPORTS is clear that GNG must still be met. If the issue is that one feels the sports guidelines are too loose and go beyond GNG, that is a different question, but it feels like sports are being singled out a bit unfairly. This issue cuts both ways. I recently took part in an AfD review for Anete Jēkabsone-Žogota, a female basketball player who has starred on 2 European championships, plays in the WNBA and has represented Latvia in the Olympics. Checking NSPORTS would have helped that editor understand that this person is absolutely notable - certainly as much or more as an ensemble cast member in a TV show or an academic who has published in journals. Rikster2 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Why focused on WP:NSPORTS? Check out its second sentence, in bold: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. That is misleading: it implies either GNG or NSPORTS means notability. Only GNG rules; NSPORTS is only a guide. All articles must meet the GNG. In my view, this lack of clarity is causing problems here in Wikipedia. It enables article creators to skip the tough steps of finding references for articles about sportspeople, leads to numerous one-line stub unreferenced articles. In my case, the lack of clarity enabled a long deletion battle about rugby player Valerie Griffeth.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Then propose a wording change that makes it clear that the subject must still meet GNG (or makes it more clear, because it is in there). The same issue is present in WP:ACADEMIC, by the way. Perhaps even less clear the subject needs to meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, probably will do, but first I want to study things more, specifically examining sportsperson unreferenced or under-referenced stubs. I see your point about the same problem being present in WP:ACADEMIC. It could be another instance when a supposedly helpful guideline has an unintended side effect of short-circuiting the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is the previous discussion on the second sentence, which in turn links to the discussion before that one. My attempt to clarify matters was to add the FAQ, and in particular its first question, where the answer clearly states: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. Additionally, the first sentence on this page says: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia., and the first sentence of the third paragraph says: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Personally, I would prefer different wording for the second sentence, but I don't think inconsistent wording in one sentence is the root cause of misinterpretation. Editors must adequately communicate their concerns in discussion; there is lots of appropriate evidence within the wording of the guidance, in the FAQ, and in the discussion page archives about the intent of the sports-specific notability guidelines. isaacl (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll just comment that we just need to remember that these criteria set a presumption for notability, to allow a standalone article to be created and give time for editors to find sources to bring the article up to encyclopedic quality. This means that if an editor can reasonably show that there are no appropriate sources for a player after a goof faith search (per BEFORE) and that no new sources can be expected, that's a completely fair challenge to the presumption of notability. This guideline does not prevent these articles from being deleted, just to give them a fair change to get past that. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I think there are two issues at hand here. First, we have the opinion that the sports guideline is allowing inclusion of non-notable people. Second, is the profusion of poor, stubby articles from this topic area. In some cases, a sheer lack of coverage will directly contribute to production of a stub (as in the case of Jack Monohan, Jr.). Sometimes such a stub is produced out of disinterest. We actually have quite a lot of editors here that are happy to produce something like Anis Ananenka. It reveals a desire to produce an article while holding not the smallest bit of enthusiasm to engage with the article subject and its literature. I think this trend is just as responsible for these sports stubs as the overreaching of notability (I think Jack Monohan, Jr. would be much better treated by having a redirect with the current categories linking to a broader list article on related players). I have a feeling this "tiny stub creation" phenomenon has more to do with Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count than real content improvement – I find redlinks a great indicator of what topics require attention. Tiny stubs of only one or two sentences actually make it more difficult for me to locate knowledge gaps (as they aren't apparent unless viewed). I think article creators should actually engage with the topic to more than a superficial degree. Perhaps an extension of Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion#A1._No_context might discourage this kind of editing, but I get the feeling that is something that would generate a lot argument. SFB 19:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've started an idea lab thread on this topic of making tiny stubs noticeable. SFB 19:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the notion, I admit. Yeah, the sub-stubs bother me, and yeah, we know -- and many of us can name some perps -- that a number of editors think Wikipedia is some geeky MMORPG and create these near-to-worthless sub-stubs because they're whoring after edit count or some mythical article creation crown. So stipulated. But changes to deter or prevent this (such as broadening the scope of CSD) is a cure worse than the disease. If having some of these perps crowing over their place on the Top 1000 in the privacy of their parents' basement is the price we pay for people to feel they can create articles without undue burden, we ought to accept that. Ravenswing 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I can add to that list by providing two examples in which I participated from baseball: Jose Lugo and Omar Poveda. Having said all this, can we agree that meeting WP:NSPORTS, the "presumption of notability" alone, is insufficient justification for retaining any article on a sports personality, and that WP:GNG must always trump it whenever notability is called into question? This allows anyone to justifiably nominate for deletion (though not prevent the creation of) any of the countless stub articles on participants in any sport for whom no actual, real, material, substantive, independent, multiple, secondary, non-trivial sources with in-depth coverage in any language (I think that's everything, right??!) can be SHOWN by someone to exist (i.e., we will not base article retention on the mere "presumption" of such sources) as well as allow the counters to try to rack up their list of created stub articles knowing that they may be taken down just as quickly if anyone calls them into question and the article's subjects are subsequently shown to fail to meet WP:GNG? This would mean that, if written, an article on a female rugby player (mentioned above) could be deleted as failing to meet GNG if inadequate sources are found, as well as could all of the corresponding articles on male players in any sport, rugby or otherwise, in the same situation (i.e., all of those stub articles written based on the presumption clause and then left alone or defended in the mistaken belief that WP:NSPORTS trumps WP:GNG). This would be fair to both the men and the women while not elevating or reducing the significance of any sports player based on gender (though it still gives men an edge as the subject for the creation of articles, which is still kinda unfair, but Jerry, don't let's ask for the moon as I am so very fond of the stars when they can be had). KDS4444Talk 04:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • While at the same time wiping out all of the pre-internet era athletes that will require going to actual newspaper archives to source. So that anyone who has an itchy delete finger will have reason to throw up athletes that aren't immediately sourced, even if they are very likely to be notable. In essence, your suggestion completely negates the whole purpose of this guideline. -DJSasso (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, not really. If someone nominates an article on a 1940s athlete on the claim "not notable, couldn't find any hits on Google", that's a case where responders can call out BS on the lack of a in-depth search by the nominator and ask for a speedy keep. However, KDS has captured what the relationship is between the GNG and subject-specific guidelines; it is not a guarantee of an article but an allowance. What is the elephant in the room is that in the past, a few editors have used earlier versions of NSPORTS (back when it was PRO?) to semi-automate the process of creating stub articles for 100,000s of athletes which we are now stuck with. Realistically, NSPORTS and all other subject-specific guidelines are meant to be one-off allowances for an involved editor to have time to take a topic that meets NSPORTS to get more sourcing to improve it - that is, there is all good intentions in further expanding the articles. This mass creation of the 100,000s of athletes without carrying out any improves later is a problem , because these subject-specific guidelines are not automatic inclusion guidelines - no other guideline has seen an attempt to create an article for every possible case of the criteria that they have met. We have to recognize (via demonstrated AFDs below) that the community is not really accepting these stubs any more but we're well past the point of no return in terms of deleting them outright; we are likely going to be less tolerant however, of claims that sourcing exists for players with minimal game time/careers. --MASEM (t) 13:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • So then nominate ones you have looked into that aren't sourced and nominate them for Afd. The guideline already allows for that. It in fact emphasizes it in the lead of the page. We don't need more bureaucratic wording to state that which is already stated. Semi-automated creation of articles is now disallowed on a wiki-wide level through other policies, so semi-automated mass creations will never be a problem again anyway. That being said yes some articles have been deleted because sources couldn't be found. That would indicate that this current wording is working. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Except that his comment indicates what this guideline is supposed to do. Protect this article from someone who makes no mention that they actually searched for references in the language of the player. All they say is they looked on other wikis to see if there was an article for the player. This is a perfect example of why this guideline is needed as it is. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident that the nom's description of what steps they took to try to verify this (and in particular, an athlete who's entire career was while the Internet was a thing, so an online search will be sufficient) is a good faith, BEFORE-like effort to show no likely sources exists, thus making any claims that it meets NSPORTS as a reason to keep an invalid reason - now it is time for those that want to keep the article to find the sources now that it is challenged. This is how these guidelines are supposed to work. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Pre-internet isn't the only issue these SNGs are meant to protect against, language based issues are another one. To protect from editors who speak English and can't check Swedish language sources to see if there are articles in Swedish from deleting a wack of Swedish athletes without performing WP:BEFORE in the correct language. In otherwords to protect against Systemic Bias. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Names stand out in foreign-language searches even if you can't understand the language, and presumably if you get hits on that name for the sites, simple translation will give you an idea of what the article is about. The fact a player is not in an English-speaking country does not prevent a person from trying to prove or disprove their notability, as long as we are talking about where online sources would be the norm (eg here, 2005 and beyond). Now, I would also consider that not every country in the world has equal coverage in internet sources - but we are also talking Sweden here, which is a very well-connected country. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
If you are doing searches in English on google often it will drop results that are not in English so you wouldn't even see them. Some do get through whatever filtering they use, but many do not. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
There is some magic that Google does, I agree, but I've found when searching on a term that is clearly in a language Google can make out, it will also give you results from that language too. But you can also force Google to return results from a given country too. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just taken a stab at rewording the tricky paragraph in question to clarify that GNG still supersedes NSPORTS. What a difference a colon makes! The earlier wording clearly suggested that one could meet GNG or NSPORTS; with the current wording, that is no longer the case, I hope. KDS4444Talk 09:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Excellently done!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
But then I just got reverted. Oh, well. You gotta play to win (as they say). I now understand that an WP:RfC is the correct procedure for this process, and so....KDS4444Talk 19:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should we consider a rewording of the intro paragraph of WP:NSPORTS?[edit]

Should we consider a rephrasing of the intro to WP:NSPORTS which clarifies that WP:NSPORTS is a useful guideline, but that WP:GNG is a superseding policy? If so, what might that phrasing be? KDS4444Talk 20:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It already says that doesn't it?Spanneraol (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it does. However, that doesn't mean that there is still not a problem. As we've been hashing it out on the talk page above and gone over at some length in the relatively recent past (here), the second sentence of WP:NSPORTS seems to suggest that a sports person can meet WP:GNG or the [at first glance] less-restrictive criteria outlined in WP:NSPORTS. Although a careful reading of the WP:NSPORTS guidelines makes clear that this is not, in fact, the case, the two seem to be at odds with each other and as a result Wikipedia has acquired a certain proportion (agreement as to exactly how much is not yet clear) of sub-stub articles on non-notable individuals whose existence might reasonably be the result of any good intentioned editor misreading these guidelines and interpreting them in ways not intended. It also looks like it would take relatively little to change the wording so that the contradiction does not exist, and so I have made this RfC to assess whether or not there would be an agreement to change the wording to a more consistent form. The fact that there has been so much discussion in the past seems to indicate that maybe something should be done. KDS4444Talk 20:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Approve. There is much confusion with the present wording which implies that either the GNG or the NSPORTS guideline establishes notability. Here is the current wording:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.

—current (June 29 2014) wording.
But this wording causes confusion. It is not the case that either GNG or NSPORTS establishes notability. There is consensus that NSPORTS is only an indicator of probable notability, a time-saver, a guess. The confusion has led to unnecessary battling and the (probable) creation of numerous one-line stub articles (persons who meet NSPORTS while not meeting GNG). I like the KDS proposed wording:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guidelines: the sport specific criteria set forth below are not an alternative to those guidelines, they are rules of thumb to assist with determining the likelihood of a person having met them.

—KDS4444's proposed wording.
Therefore, I support KDS's proposed wording.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
KDS's wording is exactly correct on how the subject-specific notability guidelines are to work. They are presumptions of notability based on conditions that should lead to good sourcing being found in time. If an editor in good faith finds that a stub article cannot be expanded beyond that (having done the steps of WP:BEFORE) then deletion is completely fair. NSPORTS (or any other subject-specific guideline) is not a guarantee that we retain an article. --MASEM (t) 21:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Approve KDS4444's proposed wording. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, rules are meant to "document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.". They "do not set accepted practice", which is what this proposal is attempting to do. One benefit of SNGs is avoiding a backlog of AfDs on inherently notable subjects on the grounds that a non-subject expert does not currently see sources in the article that meet GNG. The proposed wording gives the go-ahead to again create those AfDs. Also, the proposed wording does not exist in any other SNG that I am aware of. Note that Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)/FAQ#Q4 already addresses current practice of how articles that meet NSPORT but seemingly not GNG are addressed. If specific sports are too lenient, those should be identified and tightened.—Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Approve concept of clarification, this helps non-experts understand what might be notable, but it could be confused with GNG to newbies. Montanabw(talk) 03:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I find Bagumba's argument persuasive: we would be in for a tidal wave of AfDs, having been bedeviled by exactly that before the SNGs were established in the first place. This also seems rather a back door way to eliminate NSPORTS altogether, as KDS4444 had been recently arguing until it was clear that there was no consensus for such a drastic move. Yet what's the difference here? Stating explicitly that SNGd don't really matter at all does pretty much the same thing. Since no one has yet demonstrated a general inability to AfD articles which cannot meet the GNG, this is a great deal of bother in order to produce a solution where no actual problem has been demonstrated. Ravenswing 05:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • This is not correct at all. The point of NSPORTS as well as all subject-specific guidelines is to say "these are criteria that suggest that sources can be found if not at the immediate present and so we should give these time to be developed" with the ultimate goal for articles that meet the SNG to be of encyclopedic quality (read: more than a few bio lines) in the future. It is a presumption that allows for a stand-alone article to be made. Any editor can challenge that presumption but that claim better be one that has followed the steps of WP:BEFORE - specifically have they recognized if enough time has passed for sources to be found, and have they made a good extensive (read: more than google search's first few pages) search for material, appropriate for the topic. The SNGs are a balance between the quality control on topics required by notability, and the fact that there is no deadline for WP to improve articles. This would not eliminate NSPORTS as suggested because of the fact we're giving editors time (on the order of years) to figure out sourcing better. And FWIW this is how all SNGs have been handled in the past and reiterated at WP:N - it's a presumption, not an automatic allowance for an article, as has been treated in the past (the reason we have 100,000s of sports stub articles). --MASEM (t) 06:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Ravenswing, this would be a slippery slope in the opposite direction. This would cause the very issue that these SNGs were created to stop. Masem mentions that we would give articles years to improve, however, this wording makes it likely that no time would be given to those articles. This would likely cause a mass wave of Afd's on notable but hard to source individual from pre-internet era. Which is exactly what these SNGs are created to stop. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The SNGs were not meant to allow creation of 100,000s of stubs, they were meant as a case-by-case for a topic. But as I've noted above, an AFD nom of a pre-Internet player that claims "couldn't find any google hits" as the reason to delete is a good reason for a speedy keep for lack of good faith efforts by the nom. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I never said anything about creation of 100,000s of stubs. They were created to protect notable people from being deleted by people who didn't go through the necessary research before deleting. In the case of pre-internet era people that involves archives/libraries. However, couldn't find any google hits is a very common deletion rational. You and I both know that Afds are not closed when people use that rational. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
        • That's still a misstatement of the purpose of the SNGs, because we have no evidence yet that most of these stubs are of "notable people" - that's your claim, but as long as there are no secondary sources to back that up, it's only a claim. The SNGs are meant to give the benefit of doubt when certain criteria are met that sourcing will likely happen (induction in a Hall of Fame, for example) and it will just take time to find it. But that effort has to be made by the people that want to create or keep these articles. If no one wants to make the effort to improve beyond a stub, and someone else has made a fair effort to show that there are no sources, deletion is completely appropriate. And if that means the 100,000s of semi-automated-created stubs end up deleted (each one being individually reviewed in turn) that's completely fair. The SNGs are not "protection from deletion", but instead a presumption that allows for article creation. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Except that it is not a misstatement. They are protection from overzealous deletion. Yes, they can still be deleted if someone shows they have put in the required effort to find the sources. Now you are calling article semi-automated-created stubs. Is there a reason why you keep trying to minimize peoples work? It is obvious you have a hate on for sports stubs and that is fine. But opening up this guideline to make it easy to abuse is not good for the wiki. The guideline already states the GNG must be met in the end. We don't need more wording that essentially indicates that this guideline doesn't matter. This proposal is essentially asking that the SNG is removed but is doing it in a way that leaves the page here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
            • There was several cases about 6-7 years ago of editors using semi-automated tools to create 10,000s of articles on athletes on the basis of meeting the previous iteration of NSPORTS that was the guideline at that time (this was part of the reason that NSPORTS was revised). Not all athlete articles are that way, but there are a lot of articles created without thinking about improvement, and that's a problem; overzealous creation is just as bad if not worse than deletion, because deletion is a much harder metric to met while creation can be done by any editor. The problem is that the language as it stands does not emphasis the need to continue improvement after meeting NSPORTS, which is what the change given is needed. --MASEM (t) 17:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the other voices above. Wording as it currently stands is sufficient for the stated objective. I also don't see a bunch of stubs as being a real crime that requires immediate solving. Spanneraol (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Steroid-like growth of one-line stub-articles is not the only problem, but the current rule's lack of clarity causes confusion elsewhere, such as in deletion discussions. For example, consider this deletion discussion; the reason the article was AfD-ed was for failure to meet the SNG guideline (not the GNG guideline). The nominator read SNG, thought SNG was the dominant guideline (it is not); this triggered the deletion battle. But it did not end there. When I read SNG, I thought SNG was the dominant guideline; later, I thought it was either SNG or GNG; only near the end of the deletion battle did I get at the correct interpretation: that GNG is the dominant guideline, SNG is only a timesaver, a rule of thumb (akin to a grand jury, not the real jury). Lack of clarity caused fuss. Rules should be clear, straightforward, unambiguous, succinct, simple, easy-to-understand, like the double yellow line down the middle of a highway. The current wording is a muddle.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Except there is no lack of clarity. It says it in big letter straight out that meeting or not meeting does not mean the article must be kept or deleted. The suggested wording above however completely neuters the purpose of this SNG and this opens the floodgates to many more problems. Problems that were finally solved when this was created. Any admin closing a deletion discussion is well aware of what SNGs do and do not mean, despite what people might say in deletion discussions. This page is clear and straightforward and completely unambiguous. Hell it even has an FAQ to make it extremely clear. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The second line, bolded, confused me: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Like, either SNG or GNG means notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
That sentence is pretty clear to me. You need sources to proove that an article meets the GNG or the SNG if you are going to claim they do. Nowhere in that sentence does it mention notability. For example you need a source to show that a player played a game in the NHL to say that he meets #1 of the NHOCKEY criteria. It goes on to state if you keep reading further into the lead that meeting these criteria are not guarantees of notability. The problem isn't the guideline, the problem is failing to read further. Changing the wording isn't a solution to that issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Not everybody keeps reading; we're busy people; the bolded line looks like it says it all. It does not need to mention notability in the sentence because the whole guideline is about notability. Somebody reading that line is misled to thinking either SNG or GNG means notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
And I was making the exact same mistake as Tomwsulcer!! I read "Either meet this requirement, or meet that requirement, either one is fine, take your pick, they're both perfectly good, and these requirements are a lot less stringent anyway." If I had read that while considering creating an article on a sports personality, and was a casual editor looking to write a few articles fast, I would have understood that as an invitation to create an article (a substub) about them with no references necessary (since guidelines say so) and with no intent of ever adding more in the future (so many articles, so little time! Next!). I do not know the history behind the reasoning for creating the various SNG guidelines, and maybe the aforementioned flood of AfD nominations is indeed to be dreaded and forestalled by just letting the waters build (since the dam is metaphoric, we can do this theoretically forever anyway). But I think the point that article creation is WAY easier than deletion suggests we should try to put the brakes on the creation end by being clearer with the wording in the first place. Is there no way we can do that? Somehow?? Without triggering an AfD flood? (Maybe there is not...?) KDS4444Talk 22:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change to any wording here at all if it results in more WP:POINT nominations of notable individuals as KDS4444 has recently been engaged in.GiantSnowman 17:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
*Dude... I checked the WP:BEFORE on each of those nominations... I came up empty, which is why I nominated them. It did not occur to me that it would be out of line for me to do so. But if I checked in good faith for viable sources on each one and didn't find any, then should I have... PRODed them instead?? My guess is you're gonna say, "No," so I could use some help— from you-- in figuring that out then. Meet me on my talk page, okay? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 15:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Dude, no, you obviously did not employ WP:BEFORE seeing as all but one of the AFDs I participated in were for a player who met WP:NFOOTBALL (as confirmed in reliable sources) and are therefore notable... GiantSnowman 18:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the point that's being made. Of course these players meet FOOTBALL, and there's sources to show they played the sport. Fine. But now the presumption of notability that the persons are really suitable for an article by having more detailed secondary sources beyond the evidence they played football was challenged, and KDS's BEFORE research brought up nothing. That is completely a fair challenge and the ball is in the court of those that want to keep to show there is more coverage than just the evidence of playing the sport. That's how the presumption of notability is supposed to work. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose in agreement with the Snowman. When confronted with wikilawyering types the more legal technicalities you give them, means more hoops to jump through. And frankly, when pushed into a corner with a wikilawyer, our "*fD" system comes up with some insane rulings just like the current american supreme court, for similar factionalized reasons (I digress). Frankly, if we were to reword the lede, I would eliminate the GNG loophole entirely. A wise wikilawyer could use that to make you "prove it." As more newspapers lock their archives behind paid firewalls, finding that history and making it available for the public is that much more difficult to prove (that a specified subject received significant coverage in a specific block of time). It is much more cut and dried to have a standard to achieve and not need to go further. Trackinfo (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • They lock down online archives, but not print ones which are still publically accessible. This does mean that there is work on a AFD nominator's side, particularly for players from pre-Internet eras, to do the leg work prior to filing and try to validate the lack of sourcing there, but if they have done that, then it is completely fair for the nomination to proceed. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
        • You know they don't do that. Many of the AfDs I have been involved in have not been good natured. It requires no due diligence on the part of the nominator to put a subject on the defensive. And there are enough "yes men" to knod in agreement if anything can't be proven on line. Even when a solid case is proven, you cannot depend on the good senses of wiki consensus--if the case is weak due to historical blackouts, that spells doom for perfectly proper articles. Furthermore, with the red stain of an AfD deletion, when harder to find print sources are discovered, there is a permanent prejudice on the resurrection of the article. By giving any edge to bad faith nominations, you will increase their number. We already have far too many people here who seem to enjoy deleting valid content. I don't understand their logic at all. It seems like they make some sort of brownie points for the most articles they can trash. The proper application of NSPORT alone, without the additional application of GNG saves a chunk of that dispute. Trackinfo (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Stubs that have no way to be expanded are not valid content (read: third-party, secondary sourcing to meet NOR and produce encyclopedic-quality articles) with Wikipedia. And while I'm sure there are some AFDs that challenge NSPORT made in bad faith, there are also plenty that have been shown where the nominator did the right leg work to prove the absence of sources. So no, this is not a valid objection to this. When push comes to shove, there has to be sourcing to justify articles - that's the whole basis of "presumption" of notability in both the GNG and subject-specific guidelines, not a magic bullet that doesn't allow any challenge, particular with as broad as the NSPORTS guidelines cover (eg the one pro game rule) --MASEM (t) 05:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
            • My personal experience here has been, of the articles I have chosen to defend, the nominator was either acting in bad faith (not researching the subject before they NOM) or utterly clueless about the subject. Very very few have ever backed off and said sorry. Most pursue the "*fD" aggressively to conclusion. Some even win. Many of the supporters are equally clueless and I suggest, in bad faith because they refuse to use google (or use the search engine of their choice) to see the available sources. Some even ignore sources when I post them. The utter absurdity of some of these now historical arguments is confounding. I've commented on it in my personal remarks posted years ago. Its the worst feature of wikipedia operations. Now there are a lot of one line stub articles out there that conform to NSPORT. Can they be improved, certainly. It looks bad when we advertise what we don't know. Should the failure of someone to lift a finger to improve them make them subject to deletion? NO. If you discover such an article, use your google and you can improve the article yourself, in fewer keystrokes than it would take to send it to AfD. I have no clue how many articles have been deleted without my knowledge. All I know is much as I try, I don't have enough time to improve the chain of content alone, nor do I have the time to fight these built in derisive elements amongst the most experienced wikipedia editors. They should know better. They should act better to improve content rather than to remove it.Trackinfo (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
              • There is definitely bad behavior at AFD, both on nominators and !voters; this discussion won't change that, nor are those behaviors desirable. The problem is that when we actually have some who may want to go out and question if an article can be expanded and do the appropriate work and come out with no sources and thus nominates at AFD in good faith, !voters can no longer use "but it meets NSPORTS!" because the presumption that there would be more sources has been effectively challenged. That's what this change in wording is aimed to remind editors - NSPORTS is not a one-time check that prevents any challenge to the article as some treat it is as. Even an article that just meets the GNG is not an immunity to such challenges, though there that's likely more to direct the merging of the content. Particular with how loose and broad NSPORTS' criteria are compared to others, those creating or maintaining articles need to be aware that they will be more likely challenged for notability to meet broader WP's expectations. But that's all pending on fair AFD challenges that have gone through all steps of BEFORE. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
                • Just happened onto an example today. Charles Foster (athlete) was a one line stub that looked like this, prose that said absolutely nothing about this man's accomplishments (though the info box had the info). From the single sports-reference external link, I was able to expand the article, find corroborating sources. And the first few lines of a google search showed even more. Which kind of confirmed the NSPORT assumed GNG association. Point is, it has been this way for almost four years, fodder for an AfD, with no attention except by bots. All it takes is for someone to notice it and do a little work. If the person who notices it first is one of the bad faith deletionists, a crew of "yes" men could have speedied this out of existence based on GNG without one attempt to do research. NSPORT and the external link probably saved that from happening. Don't give these bad intentioned, mean spirited editors any more ammunition. Trackinfo (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
                  • Remember, I am not dismissing the importance of the work needed by WP:BEFORE. I entered "'Charles Foster' hurdler" into Google can got hits that , maybe not the best of sources, would tell me than an AFD of that article would be completely inappropriate. If someone did nominate it for deletion claiming there were no sources, that would be a bad faith nomination, and one easily proven out, and that's behavior (not process) we would admonish. What is happening is that there are editors making good faith attempts at BEFORE (explaining where they searched and how they failed to find anything) and being admonished for that and keep !voters continuing to wield NSPORT as a reason not to delete (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saša Blagojević). The language is needed to make it clear that NSPORTS is an allowance while efforts to find sources are found, but if sources simply can't be found in a good faith effort, NSPORTS no long can apply. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
                    • Perhaps we should put some teeth into WP:BEFORE, maybe a short term ban for a bad faith NOM, with the length increasing with multiple offenses. I doubt that would happen because the worst offenders are high volume, experienced editors who know how to sway these back room deals effectively. Right now these people hurt wikipedia with impunity. I don't follow your logic on Saša Blagojević. I don't know the sport--I'm American. Our team at the World Cup is mostly players who grew up outside of the U.S. To me, this guy looks like an active soccer player, playing within the last month. Yeah its a shitty article, but not hopeless and in need of deletion. The fact that he is young and active in itself means there is potential for expansion. There are other people with the same name, the social media and wikipedia mirrors certainly clog google. It ain't easy, but still I was able to add an additional source to the article showing he played on the International team. How hard did the NOM work before? Trackinfo (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
                      • Specifically on Saša Blagojević: the person has a 10 year career, all post-2000, which means that Internet-only searches seem perfectly reasonable; this is also justified that he is from a country that is well-connected (not a third-world one). Yes, only foreign sources will likely be available but that doesn't prevent anyone from searching for foreign sources using that name and judging sources using Google Translate. Could there be other possible sources, sure, but the lack of any significant hits on Google for someone in this position is a good sign that not much else has been written about them. Of course, if this was someone from, say, the 1990s or earlier, or someone from a more economically-struggling nation, in which Internet coverage is much much less likely, I would demand that the person have searched paper sources for details. The point on this is that this is far from a bad faith nomination; it's not airtight, but it begs the question that NSPORTS can't be used wholesale to protect the article. In regards to giving BEFORE teeth, this has been a perennial proposal and has never gained traction, because it can be used both ways to game the system - just as there's bad faith nominations, there can be bad faith !votes that would try to keep obscure topics on claims the nominating editor didn't look in a dusty corner of a obscure building somewhere for sourcing (effectively). --MASEM (t) 21:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Which the current wording already allows them to do. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The proponents of this RfC are contradicting WP:N; namely, a topic is presumed to be notable if "It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."—Bagumba (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    This point was discussed at length previously, so in the interest of expediting conversation, can any interested parties review that thread? If there are any new points of interest to add or additional clarifications, please do offer them forth. isaacl (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    The key word that you omitted is "presumed"; the point of the change here is to remind editors that you can't just meet NSPORTS's criteria and then walk away without worry that the article will never be deleted. The presumption of notability can always be challenged, and the more you bring an article towards or beyond the GNG, the less likely it will be challenged. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, in favor of the new proposal below. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of alternative proposals[edit]

I think those opposed to change are overestimating the influence that a modification to the second sentence will have, given there is ample precedence behind the other locations in this guideline that already make the purpose of the guideline clear. How about just deleting the second sentence so its ambiguity will no longer be an issue? The nutshell summary and the rest of the introduction, I believe, cover everything necessary to describe the guideline. isaacl (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I like it, isaacl. Your proposed change would mean both 1.) not opening up the AfD floodgates, and 2.) not encouraging the creation of countless dead-end substubs. That seems like a best-possible. (And for what it is worth, and to set the record straight, I never meant to suggest that WP:NSPORTS be eliminated— that characterization feels unfair. I did mean to suggest that the current guidelines looked confusing and contradictory, and that a minor change might make things better. I am here to create a better Wikipedia with useful tools and information. I get excited about it! I make mistakes sometimes, too. I try not to. And I try to remain open to correction. I hope I haven't made a mistake with this RfC (have I?).) KDS4444Talk 22:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Just so I have this clear in my head, issacl ... you're looking to replace that first paragraph with "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia," full stop? I can get behind that.

    For further clarification, though, the next paragraph, which currently reads:

If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).

... should be changed to "If the article does meet the sport-specific criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet any of the sport-specific criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Ravenswing 23:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the first paragraph would no longer have the current second sentence (set in bold). Your proposed changes to the next sentence, I believe, are purely grammatical and so I think could be made independently of any other proposal (and, in my opinion, could be made now as an uncontroversial grammatical edit). isaacl (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • One other thing the bolded sentence accomplishes is to point editors to the need for sourcing, and that isn't mentioned elsewhere. With that in mind, I suggest changing the sentence in question, to be in regular font, and to read: "All articles must provide reliable sources showing that the subject satisfies notability criteria." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC
  • You mean, remove the emphatic nature of the part that mentions sourcing (which isn't mentioned elsewhere) and make it regular font? (which, btw, is fine with me: WP:ACADEMIC, for example, contains no such introductory bolded emphasis on sources). Or am I getting you wrong? Only seeking clarification. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 23:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry that wasn't clear. I actually mean two things. First, remove the bold font. Second, change the wording of the sentence, to what I wrote just above. (The gist of the second change is that we would get rid of the apparently confusing/complicating language about this page versus GNG.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Here, for more direct comparison, are the existing wording (and font), followed by my suggested change in wording and font:
  • The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
  • All articles must provide reliable sources showing that the subject satisfies notability criteria.
  • Which I like, except that it's not entirely true in practice and we may not want people pointing to that line as evidence of another kind of confusing contradiction. Maybe something like, "All articles are expected to eventually include reliable sources showing that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria." That might allow people to still feel comfortable generating brief stub articles while not encouraging them to do so recklessly and without initiating a flood at AfD (all of which is what I hope any new wording will accomplish). KDS4444Talk 14:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a good point, and I agree with you. Let me suggest: "Reliable sources showing that the subject satisfies notability criteria should be added to the article." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A point that I've come to realize is that what we want is to have all article meet the qualities of an encyclopedic article as defined by the core policies of NOT, V, NOR, and NPOV; the GNG gives a minimum level of sourcing that assures that this likely can happen. The SNGs like NSPORTS thus should be about giving ways the GNG will likely be met and thus reasonably good assurance that these articles are on their way to a proper encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. So, then... Where does all of this leave us? Does it seem like there is some consensus to change some of the wording of that second sentence? Or do we still need to collect additional input? I understand that an RfC usually remains open for 30 days or so, which means this one is to be considered ongoing for awhile yet (which is fine, just wanted to clarify for myself). KDS4444Talk 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Good question. I'll set this up as an alternative proposal now. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal[edit]

Instead of the change proposed above, this proposal is to change:

The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. (bold font)


Reliable sources showing that the subject satisfies notability criteria should be added to the article. (regular font)

--Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, as proposer, per the discussion above. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support. I am striking my support for the proposed alternative (at least for the time being), and I respectfully request that Tryptofish provide a word-by-word explanation of his proposal, and how he believes that this will impact AfD discussions evaluating the notability of a sports article in the context of both GNG and the sport-specific guideline under NSPORTS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This just seems like a change in wording and not content, unless I am mis-reading it? GiantSnowman 11:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
As I see it, the only substantive change is that we are not including language about "general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria", because the discussion at the top of the RfC indicates that there is editor confusion about GNG versus NSPORTS that results from the juxtaposition of those two guidelines in the existing sentence. Keep the existing point about sourcing (not really changing it, unless I'm missing something), but get rid of the ambiguous language about the two guidelines. Dirtlawyer1, please tell me if I can clarify that further. (That said, I don't much care if we make no change from the status quo.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This trimmed version accurately states the reality that the GNG is the basic guideline, removes the confusing line (GNG or SNG).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Golf clarification[edit]

I would like some clarification regarding points 3 and 4. In both cases, the most notable examples are used, and thus give no clue about how notable a tour or amateur event has to be. The Tour, Challenge Tour, Japan Golf Tour, Asian Tour, PGA Tour of Australasia, Sunshine Tour, OneAsia, Korean Tour, PGA Tour Canada, PGA Tour Latinoamérica, PGA Tour China, and Asian Development Tour all offer OWGR points, but I don't suppose ADT winners are notable. As for amateur events, the European Amateur and Asia-Pacific Amateur are considered elite by the WAGR; the lame-duck U.S. Amateur Public Links is also notable in that the winner gets a Masters invitation (defending champion Jordan Niebrugge has an article). I think the NCAA Division I Men's Golf Championships could also be notable enough. I particularly want to know what Tewapack (talk · contribs) thinks about this. (suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 03:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The European Amateur and Asia-Pacific Amateur are international level events - yes; U.S. Amateur Public Links - national but not top level - no; NCAA Division I Men's Golf Championships - probably. For minor tours that offer OWGR points, my personal stance is only if they offer above the minimum level points (6). For all, players may meet WP:GNG but not WP:NGOLF. Tewapack (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. And I suppose the new Latin America Amateur Championship would also qualify. (suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 19:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)