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.

Potential new interpretation: NCOLLATH vs. GNG[edit]

A new interpretation of WP:NCOLLATH has been advanced as part of this pending AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dodge. Under this interpretation, NCOLLATH would effectively trump WP:GNG, meaning, in short, that if a given college athlete did not satisfy NCOLLATH, then there would no longer be an opportunity to argue the college athlete's notability under the general notability guidelines per GNG. In my experience in dealing with the AfDs for over 200 college athletes in the last three years, the majority were decided under GNG not NCOLLATH. Most college athletes would never be able to have stand-alone Wikipedia articles under this new interpretation. I urge everyone with an interest to participate in this AfD discussion, as well as the new talk page discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

When the sport-specific standards were proposed years ago, it was done with the clear understanding that they would not and did not trump WP:GNG. The sport-specific standards are intended to create presumptions that a person would pass WP:GNG, but WP:GNG remains the cornerstone of determining notability on a Wikipedia-wide basis. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not what is being argued. The issue that can come into play is that local and routine coverage is not specifically called out as not appropriate in the GNG, but has always been an issue for college/high-school players. As such, a player may pass the GNG but both fail NCOLLATH and only have coverage from local/routine sources. In such cases, NSPORTS overrides the GNG and says we shouldn't have an article. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
that argument holds no water. I think there is a legitimate disagreement as to whether the coverage is or isn't routine. You are arguing GNG, not that NSPORTS overrides GNG ever. Look at the long discussion above this one about wording the guideline - everyone agrees articles must meet GNG regardless of whether or not they meet the sports guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Masem, if you want to continue to argue that major feature articles from USA Today, the Associated Press,, and the Houston Chronicle are somehow "local," "routine" or "trivial" in nature, I wish you luck with that. Before going any further, I urge you to familiarize with these major American media outlets. You might as well argue that BBC coverage of the Boat Race is local based on the logic you are employing here, but you don't seem to understand that yet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From the Frequently Asked Questions menu at the top of WP:NSPORTS:

"Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?

"A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.

"Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?[hide]

"A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

"Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?

"A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist."

[emphasis added by Dirtlawyer1]

Any comments regarding the plain meaning of the FAQs from NSPORTS, Masem? Especially regarding Q3 and A3? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This is easy. GNG always trumps project-specific guidelines. When I read the AfD it feels like people have differing ideas of what constitutes GNG. If anyone is arguing otherwise (ie that the project guidelines trump GNG) they have no basis in Wikipedia policy. Rikster2 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
We have always allowed SNGs to be more restrictive than the GNG. This is the case for NSPORTS because GNG does not have any distinction on the concept of local or routine sources (We tried to add this to GNG but this was rejected), so NSPORTS makes sure to mention that local or routine coverage is not sufficient even for GNG standards. I believe NBOOKS has similar , more restrictive language. So the GNG is not the end-all of notability concerns. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe so, as a general principle, when it was done intentionally and the language is crystal clear, Masem. But it's pretty clear that was not the intent in NCOLLATH. Please review and acknowledge Q3 and A3 from the NSPORTS Frequently Asked Questions, as posted above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The FAQ is not policy or guideline. And that local/routine langauge is still part of NSPORTS. So it applies. --MASEM (t) 19:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
oh no, no, no. As someone who has contributed to sport guidelines, I can say they would be a LOT looser if they were the more restrictive guideline. GNG is always the final say. Please do take a few moments and read the other discussions on this page. They wouldn't be happening if what you suggest were the case. The SNGs are meant to be a guideline to who probably meets GNG, not as a replacement for GNG. I didn't just fall off of the turnip truck this morning, I've been embroiled in these conversations for years. The whole reason I found this discussion is that I watch this Talk page. Rikster2 (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, Masem, I know, but I can point to the FAQs as part of the established consensus interpretation of NSPORTS and NCOLLATH. I can also point to hundreds of sports AfDs that have been decided over the past several years in a manner consistent with that consensus interpretation. What can you point to? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The arguments that Rikster and Dirtlawyer1, claiming the GNG is absolute, would mean that we should have articles on effectively every college athletes that play for the major NCAA schools, because they all do get coverage (of the local/routine ilk) that would meet the GNG, but fail the criteria of NCOLLATH. When this guideline was developed it was recognized that the GNG was insufficient because it did not address the consideration of local sources, and thus NSPORTS includes the general disclaimer that local and routine coverage is not valid alone for notability. As such, this overrides the GNG. This is an acceptable practice, based on a long-ago RFC about the interaction of the GNG and the SNGs in general (that the SNGs can be more restrictive than the GNG if they need to). Several other SNGs, like ORG, have similar language. Many Wikiprojects also have internal guidelines that even though topics may meet the GNG, its not considered approprite. All this stems, effectively from WP:NOT and WP:IINFO. The GNG is often the base allowance, but at times, if a SNG guideline developed by people that know the area well recognize that GNG-style coverage would allow for too much inclusion, they can override the GNG. At the end of the day, it's still about the presumption of notability, and the GNG is not an absolute for retaining an article either. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that I often vote "delete" on college basketball figure AfDs, your assumption about my intent is false. In the US, major college men's basketball and football are covered at a level similar to professional sports. This does not mean that every player - even at the very highest profile schools - is notable. I have personally voted to delete articles of basketball players from Kentucky, Duke and North Carolina (my Alma mater, mind you) - arguably the three highest profile "basketball schools" out there - because the players did not receive coverage significant enough to meet GNG. So you can stop right now in trying to name my motivations as you have no clue. The college athlete guidelines identify characteristics of people, who probably meet GNG because scads of ignorant folks (many from countries who have nothing similar to college sports and assume based on their local experience) AfD articles with the note "not notable - not fully professional." I haven't even assessed the AfD you guys are fretting over because it seems borderline and requiring more work than I want to put into it. But as someone who has been hammered about how the sport guidelines don't make clear enough that GNG supercedes them (an argument YOU are taking part in on the opposite side I might add) I find it galling that now someone would actually try to flip the script and argue the other side because it supports their view of what the outcome should be. You have a valid argument about Mark Dodge not meeting GNG - stick to that, because this argument is ridiculous and insulting. Rikster2 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Masem, if you're under the impression that either Rikster or I are some sort of proponents for manipulating GNG to keep articles for marginally notable or non-notable college athletes, you're barking up the wrong trees. We are the standards guys; take a look at our AfD participation histories. We believe in enforcing GNG as written, with teeth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To both, my argument is not to try to question your motives, but to point out that the reason we do not cover college athletes is because NSPORTS specifically overrides the GNG when the only sources available are local or routine (the case of many college athletes). The GNG is not the absolute that is being claimed. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Your intent and your execution are two different things. And you still need to point to something that actually backs up what you are saying. The sports guidelines point to WP:ROUTINE, but otherwise they basically go back to "must meet GNG." Rikster2 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
"Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage." at SPORTCRIT. That's the language that is not in GNG that is more specific to NSPORTS, showing how NSPORTS can override the GNG. --22:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talkcontribs)
That is non-binding guidance, not law. If your issue is with the wording of GNG, then work to get it changed since that is the thing that actually has teeth. NSPORTS doesn't, which I am told often by editors during AfDs. Rikster2 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I see it as a sport clarification that are consistent with the principles of "significant coverage" and "independence" in GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion (whether any SNG can be more restrictive than the GNG) has been asked several times in the past and it has always been that yes it can be, particularly dealing in an area where better expertise exists by interested editors to know how to avoid WP:IINFO inclusion where there is a systematic bias of coverage. I know that NSPORTS has had this discussion several several times before, and I haven't seen anything that changes this approach. This applies to both SNGs and Wikiproject guidelines. The only thing SNGs can't be is less restrictive than the GNG. This often includes limiting what sources can be used, onces that may be okay from a general standpoint of the GNG but inappropate to the specific topic (so Bagumba's point is in fact consistent with this). So yes, it is still the case that SNGs can override the GNG to some extent. It may be the language of that approach but that's how one can consider the practice. This is not a novel reading. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
if this has been asked many times then link some of those discussions. If true, I am going to spearhead some re-writing of these guidelines if, in effect, anti-sport editors can choose either side of the issue to AfD valid articles. Rikster2 (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The big one is: Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_29#RFC results. I note the closure's language pointing that SNG's that how Bagumba's described it - that SNGs can specify sources that clarify how to evaluate the GNG - is what we're talking about here and agrees with that conclusion of a large RFC. --MASEM (t) 23:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I looked at that 6 year old discussion (I also did a random spot check of editors involved - congrats you are one of the few still active) and while there was support that "SNGs can outline sources that assert notability," many of the positive votes stressed that this did not trump GNG or the definition of WP:RS. Meanwhile, the proposal that "SNGs Trump GNG" was opposed at an 80% clip. Sorry, not buying. Rikster2 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if it's 6 years old, it hasn't been challenged in any manner, and it is practice on NSPORTS (as one example) by limiting what sources can be used as stated by Bagumba). So again, this is not a novel interpretation as being claimed. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, topic-specific guidelines can provide assistance in how to determine if a source is appropriate for establishing the notability of a subject. This does not mean the guideline is setting a higher bar, or superseding GNG; it is acting in concert with GNG to clarify it. I think editors should not feel one is being pitted against the other; one is just refining the other. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Also, I read the linked discussion and the next archive page and it was clear the details of the RFC had not been landed. Perhaps Masem would be so kind as to link the actually point where these changes were adopted. Rikster2 (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
My recollection was that the results were consistent with the practice at the time (the RFC issued begging if the practice of the various questions was right, this was around the time of trying to creating guidelines for fictional characters/etc) and as the results were consistent with that, nothing needed to be changed. If anything, currently, WP:PAGEDECIDE has this information in it (last paragraph about determining sources), so it was added at some point. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I looked at the AfD, and it seems to me that part of the problem resides in where some editors are arguing for deletion on the grounds that some sources are "human interest" stories, even though those sources are, as Dirtlawyer1 correctly points out, from significant news sources such as USA Today and others. The way I see it, GNG includes, in general language, a legitimate requirement that sources be "independent of the subject". Here at the SNG, I don't think that we are setting a higher standard so much as clarifying what "independence" means in this subject area. GNG gives examples such as personal websites as being non-independent. Here, we recognize that the local small-town news outlet can also be, in effect, non-independent. But that does not mean that national sources are also non-independent. So I would argue that this is less a "new" interpretation than an incorrect one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • There is a separate issue about whether the non-sports part of his life, that being the 3 national stories that recount his 9/11 experience, are notable per the GNG. If they were, I would not question keeping the article on this point, because that goes back to the fact that the GNG is fine, despite having a non-notable college career. The question is if these stories really are sufficient under the GNG (and keeping in mind that he's been out of the spotlight for 7 years since those were written), as if they fail the GNG , and he fails NCOLLATH, then removal is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • You raise an interesting point: whether being not-quite-notable for two separate and unrelated reasons adds up to being notable for the sum – it shouldn't. My suggestion would be to argue that it is a case of failing GNG on each aspect. If that argument holds, then it's a valid reason to delete. But if the subject passes GNG on just one aspect, either one, then it should be a keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Tryptofish, you are wise. I think your analysis is four square on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • WP:WHYN's goal is that "we can write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." I'd rather not create more rules about how subjectively "meaningful" the subject is to society.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've two thoughts. First off, the notion that the subordinate notability criteria are somehow superior to the GNG is completely wrong, and if Masem and crew wish to enshrine the SNGs as trumping it, the GNG's talk page is where they ought to start.

    Secondly, the notion that an article that otherwise passes the GNG must be stricken if it fails the mighty NCOLLATH is so farcical as to make a proper characterization of the proposal a civility violation. What the pluperfect hell? There are many thousands of prominent people who were, in their youth, undistinguished college athletes. Do we strike Gerald Ford's article because he wasn't a college All-American? Ronald Reagan's? John Kennedy's? I'm sorry, but if NCOLLATH is going to be the supreme measure of notability on Wikipedia, I want rather a broader consensus than Masem's say-so. Ravenswing 00:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

    • There is an issue with how this thread was started, because I and others were not challenging NCOLLATH, but more specifically that the language at the top of NSPORTS, specifically about local/routine sourcing not being appropriate. If the GNG was clearly met but did not qualify for NCOLLATH, we wouls still presume an standalone article unless the sourcing for meeting the GNG is local/routine only, in which case NSPORTS says not to have an article due to this sourcing being weak/inappropriate for sports areas. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, given that the article you are bunched up over has sources from USA Today, and the Houston Chronicle it doesn't matter if NCOLLATH says local, non-independent sources can't be used because none of those are. And, no, the Houston Chronicle is not the local paper for College Station, Texas. Rikster2 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
        • And I've said on that article I'm no longer considering those sources being local, but there are other issues with those sources in terms of other policy/guidelines. But fact still remains that if the sources were only local for that person, NSPORTS would be reason to delete it. --MASEM (t) 00:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
          • No, that is covered under WP:RS as well (specifically the sections titled "Context Matters" and "News Organizations"), which is linked at GNG. The SNG simply gives more color as to what that might look like for the subject. It isn't some binding rule. Rikster2 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Neither is the GNG being absolute - it is a guideline after all. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The specific guidelines in this article are not, by consensus agreement at the time of their creation and in many discussions since, intended to replace the guidance of the GNG with an accomplishment-based threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thus using the thresholds in these guidelines to supersede GNG is inappropriate. I agree (and have raised previously) that the issue of what constitutes a reliable, independent, neutral, non-promotional source for demonstrating Wikipedia notability is something that ought to be clarified. However, this would not result in replacing the need for appropriate sources with accomplishment-based criteria for inclusion, as this would run counter to the basic principles of Wikipedia notability. isaacl (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of reminding editors of WP:ROUTINE for college and high school athletes as this does tend to be a problem. The whole point of NSPORT is addressing sport specific problems and I think this language is in that spirit. MATThematical (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

On the presumption of notability and SNG criteria[edit]

I invite interested parties to comment at WT:N#The application of the "presumption" of notability. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I would like to ask about WP:NFOOTY. There is stated that player is notable if he played in fully professional league. So I would like to ask how many games does he have to play in FPL to be regarded as notable? 1, 10, 50? --Silesianus (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One match is sufficient to meet WP:NFOOTY. Demonstrating that the article meets WP:GNG makes it better. Hack (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand the concensus to be 1 match in a fully-pro league (or FIFA "A" international) is enough, but if sources cannot be found to show compliance with the GNG within a reasonable period (maybe 1 year or so), the article doesn't merit the presumption of notability and can be deleted. Jogurney (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
So, for example, if Lukáš Godula will play one match in current 2014–15 Fotbalová národní liga, is he eligible to have his own article? --Silesianus (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
As that league is mentioned here, then yes.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I need to reiterate that even if a biography meets WP:FOOTY, it would still need to meet WP:GNG if challenged. Though offline or non-English reliable sources are fine. Rikster2 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Pending AfD: Single-season articles for individual athletes[edit]

Here is an AfD discussion that may be of interest for those editors concerned with notability guidelines for sports-related articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Maria Sharapova tennis season. WikiProject Tennis editors are asserting that an internal WikiProject "guideline" is the basis for keeping the article, not Wikipedia-wide notability guidelines. Please feel free to express your opinion in this AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlaywer1, I kindly request you to rephrase this notification. It is biased and therefore inappropriate according to canvassing guidelines (WP:CAN). These guidelines clearly state that notifications must be "neutrally worded" and that it is considered "campaigning" to post "a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" as you have done here. The first and last sentences are fine and frankly you could and should have left it at that. The rest is not only unnecessary but also subjective, contains a factual error (three editors were part of the WikiProject discussion not two) and a textbook strawman, i.e. a biased misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. Please modify.--Wolbo (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
While I disagree with your characterization of my notice as factually inaccurate, I have nevertheless modified the notice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: That is still not OK. I am one of the editors you are referring to but I never asserted that "an internal WikiProject "guideline" is the basis for keeping the article, not Wikipedia-wide notability guidelines.". That is a strawman argument, it misrepresents my view (and I believe other's as well) and it frames the issue in a non-neutral way that favours your viewpoint (which violates WP:CAN). That sentence needs to change or be deleted. I'm sure you do not appreciate having your viewpoints misrepresented any more than I do and I would expect some care in this from someone who recently stated that "I'm fairly sensitive to canvassing issues because I've been on the receiving end of it..." --Wolbo (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In response, let's review the following quoted arguments:
  • "Articles of this sort are common for the top current tennis players. Category:Tennis player seasons lists 64 such articles (by my count), including 9 for Maria Sharapova. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines states that articles like this are allowed for tennis players who have won a grand slam tournament."
  • "[T]he point is that according to the current tennis project criteria, which were discussed, she qualifies for a season article and that is what we should judge, in addition to any other relevant guidelines that apply. If you disagree with those project criteria then that is a discussion to be held at WP:TENNIS but not here. As it stand I believe the tennis project has strict criteria compared to some other sports."
  • "Strong Keep per longstanding Tennis Project consensus. Why the heck was this even nominated? All players who have won a major in their careers can have seasonal articles for every season they competed. Certainly to create it one should do the proper sourcing to make it complete, but this is a long established protocol."
The meaning of the quoted statements is clear enough, Wolbo, and I see no reason to further modify the AfD notice above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I have lost hours of sleep on this subject. There is an abundance of single-season articles for various non-major sports teams and players (many of them at). In my opinion many of them are of non-notable teams, playing non-notable seasons, often with incomplete statistics and no prose. I want to delete them all en masse and send scolding emails to these article creators, but I'm just not familiar enough with the conventions of sports Wikipedia, and it seems like these articles are encouraged. Is there any way to reach a consensus with both sides, and clearly distinguish notable seasons from what IMO is data cruft? I mean, I wouldn't make a separate article for the 2009 season of Wicked, or the 2012-2013 season of the NBC Nightly News. Gccwang (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply: I'll reiterate the same argument I made at the Sharapova AfD, which is more pertinent here anyway. To wit, the (rather obvious) reason why season team articles are notable is that seasons are how team sports are organized. Teams compete within discrete seasons, their whole activity is based around achievement in discrete seasons, team honors are exclusively gained within discrete seasons, championships are defined as being the best in any given season, and the media coverage of those seasons, as discrete units, is overwhelming. There is nothing particularly notable about, and no one particularly writes about, performances of Broadway plays or seasons of network news shows. (By contrast, discrete seasons of network dramas do receive coverage, especially where story arcs are concerned, and Wikipedia has many such articles.) The coverage of team sports seasons can be found anywhere: sportswriters discuss the team's prospects in the next season, write recaps of the previous one, and so on.

    Since Wikipedia defines notability as whether a subject is discussed in "significant detail" in multiple reliable sources (as opposed to whether we think a subject ought to be important or not), NSPORTS criteria generally hold team seasons to be notable. Indeed, such articles are allowed -- and it's just as well you held back from scolding editors for creating articles they're allowed to create -- and no doubt will continue to be. Ravenswing 09:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty I am having trouble resolving in my mind is that 2009 Philadelphia Phillies season has been evaluated as achieving Good Article status, and it has at least one sentence on every series in the season, with many individual games being covered as well. If this level of detail is considered desirable (personally, I don't believe so, as do others, but obviously there are those who disagree), then I find it hard to refute by analogy that the extensive coverage of major tennis players doesn't warrant similar summarization in Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • For the record there was a WP:TENNIS request posted here back in 2011 regarding this problem. I found this entry at the Notability talk archives, which clearly shows that there was intent to bring other editors' opinion to the table. It's interesting to see that on the same page there are regular editors who are very vocal at the current AfD but failed to even reply to this heads-up. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 18:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, this issue is getting more attention this time around from experienced editors, Lajbi. I am seriously considering posting an AfD notice on the talk page for all of the sports WikiProjects because I believe that this concerns all regular sports editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't deal in analogies, which are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, and from an angle debarred through WP:V. We do not have team season articles because there are editors who want to cover teams in anal detail; we have them because there are reliable sources discussing the subjects. We don't have individual tennis player season articles just because the concept of "seasons" doesn't generally pertain to individual sports; we lack them because reliable sources don't exist discussing them as seasons.

    If (say) you believe there is reliable coverage, discussed in significant detail, of tennis players' seasons as seasons, demonstrate it through proven sources. Ravenswing 20:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Are you saying there should be no individual season articles in tennis? Is this the same Ravenswing who three years ago laid out a pretty well thought out argument in favor of individual season articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010? As you said there: "We allow season articles in team sports, and I see no reason why such articles in individual sports couldn't be notable or well-sourced for preeminent stars such as Federer. ... I'd have to imagine there'd be enough to say about the years of a Federer, a Tiger Woods or a Jeff Gordon to sustain such articles and strip excess detail out of the main articles." That made good sense then. What's changed? Cbl62 (talk)
  • I am saying exactly what I said; kindly don't put words in my mouth or set up strawmen. I also stand by my earlier statement; I see no reason why it's impossible for seasons of preeminent stars to be well-sourced. (You'd likely do rather well at such sourcing, if you're ferreting out comments from three-year old AfDs.) Indeed, pretty much any subject that's well-sourced wins a GNG pass, regardless of how unimportant we think the subject is. That is a very long way away from giving a presumptive pass to season articles for players of individual sports generally, something for which I do not believe sources exist, for which I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on a general level, and which I quite oppose. Ravenswing 16:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Uhhh..... quoting you is not putting the words in your mouth, it's finding them there. Your more recent comment (i.e., that "the concept of 'seasons' doesn't generally apply to individual sports") had led me to think that you had adopted a more draconian view that season articles should not be permitted for individual tennis players. I'm glad to hear that I misunderstood you and that you still stand by your earlier comments. Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned, I would not personally argue for this level of detail in team season articles. However I have difficulty constructing an argument that would reflect a view that this detail meets Wikipedia's standards of inclusion which would not also apply to top-level tennis players, who also have extensive coverage. My preference, as I stated in the discussion I linked to, would be to use reliable, independent, non-promotional, notable sources that summarize the season in question as guidance for what should be included in a season article. Others have chosen not to do this for baseball season articles, and have relied solely on individual game coverage as a justification. Thus I cannot say that individual tennis tournament coverage should not be used to justify including this information about specific players. isaacl (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
      • @Ravenswing: ATP usually cover the seasons of bigger names. Here's one for Djokovic's 2011 season. It also calls it "one of the most storied seasons in tennis history". One could argue that it's a primary source but it's not from Djokovic's website nor does the ATP organises the Grand Slams (the ITF does) but covers them in the article. Also it is true that it is one of the most widely covered seasons as you can see at the 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season references. Are these satisfactory enough? Lajbi Holla @ me CP 13:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Lajbi, the ATP's coverage of tennis players and their seasons cannot be used to determine the notability of those subjects, any more than coverage of,,, or other press releases and articles written by leagues, conferences, and teams because such sources are not independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG. Such sources may be reliable sources, however, to verify facts in our Wikipedia articles. Editors often confuse the two uses. Bottom line: material written by an athlete's association, league, conference or team does not support the athlete's (or individual season's) notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "One could argue that it's a primary source?" One can't argue otherwise. I really want better examples of reliable sources than the pro tour websites. How about newspapers? Ravenswing 16:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Read between the lines. I said visit the 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season and see it for yourself if it's good for you. I won't post articles here one-by-one, because there they are already and plenty of them since that was the season with the "winning streak", which was indeed widely covered at the end of the year by newspaper sites. (And still ATP is independent from the four biggest tournaments, which clearly defines what was accomplished in the season; ATP literally has nothing to do with them). Lajbi Holla @ me CP 19:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying that around 30% of the current season articles shouldn't be deleted just pointing out that some seasons deserve an article contrary to what @Dirtlawyer1: expressed above (if I understood it right). Lajbi Holla @ me CP 13:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, Lajbi, I have not said that none of these individual player seasons deserves a stand-alone article. I have said that they need to comply with Wikipedia-wide notability standards. WP Tennis' current standard is: If a tennis player wins a single Grand Slam event once in his or her career, then that player is forever entitled to single-season articles for every individual season/year in the player's career, regardless of the notability of the individual season. That's goofy, and it doesn't work because it doesn't track the mainstream media coverage of the player's career. Significant coverage determines notability. By forking these players' careers into detailed single-season articles, the notability of many of these individual seasons cannot be substantiated. It's a problem, and it's unfortunate that no one was addressing the Wikipedia-wide notability issues when these articles were being created. BTW, to my knowledge, no other sports WikiProject has sanctioned anything like this level of detail for career coverage for individual athletes. There may be exceptional cases, but no other sport is pushing detailed single-season articles for individual athletes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this issue, and it occurred to me to look at how Wikipedia treats seasons, or comparable time periods within a career, for other kinds of notable persons, besides athletes. I decided to look, not necessarily as representative samples because I'm not sure what would really be "representative", at Pablo Picasso as someone in art, William Shakespeare as someone in literature (whose page is an FA), and Tip O'Neill as a politician with a long period of service (many Congressional sessions). In Picasso's case, we do indeed have standalone pages about some time periods of his career: Picasso's Blue Period, Picasso's Rose Period, and Picasso's African Period. In contrast, while we have pages about Shakespeare's life and Shakespeare's plays, both of which discuss time periods in detail, we do not break out pages about time periods in his career. (For instance, Shakespeare's early plays, in spite of being obviously notable, do not get a blue link.) Similarly, for O'Neill, we do not have Tip O'Neill's 1977–1978 speakership, even though the events during that Congressional session would likely pass GNG. It seems to me that Wikipedia does not, as a matter of general custom, create year-by-year standalone pages about notable people, even when the people are very notable. Instead, what makes Picasso's "periods" notable is the existence of very extensive critical commentary about each such period, individually, in a way that identifies those periods as notable as topics of their own. Similarly, for Albert Einstein, we have Annus Mirabilis papers, but not Einstein's Annus Mirabilis, because the work, not the year in the career, is what is truly notable. So, it seems to me that "season" pages for athletes should follow roughly the same practice: if there is a significant amount of independent secondary source commentary that the 1992 season of athlete X was an extraordinary season that stands out as a topic of its own within X's overall career, then a standalone page is probably called for, but having separate pages for every season in a notable athlete's career absent more than the typical coverage of any notable athlete is probably a bad idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Let me return to the "whistleblower" sport that started this. In tennis there are 17 seasons where a Grand Slam was completed and still none of them has a season article yet while all of them would truly deserve one and I guess they wouldn't raise so many concerns if they were the ones to be first created. Of course there could be some other important seasons (Olympics singels & doubles victories by e.g. the Williams sisters) but that would be enough. Of course I'm still okay with a wider allowance (One grand slam/season) but I understand that sometimes less is more. Lajbi Holla @ me CP 20:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What also needs to be looked at is page size and splitting requirements. Per WP:SIZERULE, articles over 60k of readable prose are frowned upon and Sharapova's main page is at 56k. When players start winning Majors and become popular the information in the press and sports sites go up exponentially, even in years they do poorly. These things get added to articles whether we like it or not. If Sharapova's 2013 season info gets pushed into her main article subsection, it gets larger in proportion to other sections and pushes it over 60k. And that could happen to others of her seasonal articles as well. They are natural splitting points off the main page that are easily followed by readers. I would think that most readers don't automatically go to Sharapova's 2013 season page... they want more so they follow the link provided. If they don't want more they read the quick summary and move to the next section of the main page. What could be done is if two or three seasons are sparser than others, they could be combined into "2009–2011 Jane Doe tennis seasons" with the main page link going to the proper section of the multi-season article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
A thing to consider here, looking at Maria Sharapova's page and the sections that track her career by years, is that it is basically one step away from WP:PROSELINE. "She played at (this tennis touney) and won. She then played at (that tennis tourney) and lost." This is poor writing and leading to a lot of size problems. A lot what is being said can be highlighted into a single paragraph with statements like "Sharapova's 2013 season was considered one of her best, having won X out of the Y major tourneys and..."
Single season articles for individual players may be frowned on, but I see no reason why a career stats article would fail, which is equivalent to a filmography or discography for others. (This would also apply to profession team players with long careers that would otherwise overwhelm their article). Noting that the major playoffs have formats like 2013 US Open – Women's Singles, the bulk of the tables on the current 2013 Sharapova page can be condensed, or even lopping off the table part that says who she played against and the match set results of each, and doing that in a simple sentence, letting the actual playoff page serve to have a reader who wants to track to that level of detail figure it out.
Between these two condensations of text (focusing the athlete's article on major highlights, and reducing the details needed per season knowing it's documented elsewhere on WP) you can achieve what should be a good balance here - a detailed article in mostly prose on the athlete's career, and a summary of their wins ala a filmography. This still keeps the option that rarely but not unheard of , one of these individual athletes will have a record-breaking year that could be treated as a separate article. However, that should be something that comes in time. I don't have any point of reference to give as example, but I would suspect one or more of Tiger Woods' earlier gold careers could fit that bill. No information is going anywhere, it's just refitted to better suit WP's approach. --MASEM (t) 23:17, 25 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)