Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:28, 28 July 2022 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53→Archive 55

Bolded sentence, now in RfC form

What should be done with the bolded sentence, that is:

The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, I now realise, discussion about this might also affect FAQ no. 5 (which is specifically about this sentence). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion/brainstorming

The previous discussion on this seems to have died out without a clear consensus for anything. So, despite misgivings about this whole series of events, given nothing else seems to work, hopefully this exercise in brain-storming will attract a bit more attention. As it stands (and as it previously stood, before the larger RfC), the second sentence is at odds with the rest of the guideline, since it seems to imply that subjects do not need to meet GNG if they "meet the sport specific criteria set forth below". The fact it is bolded also brings a lot of attention to this somewhat misleading statement. Previous discussion on this does not seem to have yielded any positive consensus (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_48#Bolded_sentence_again). There are multiple possible courses of action, and I'm not quite sure which to pick. I think, at the minimal, that the sentence should be unbolded, no matter what else is done (to remove the extra emphasis this gives on it). After that, there are multiple possible choices, which include: removing it entirely (it is somewhat redundant with the next two paragraphs, in particular the third one, which mentions the necessity for articles to still meet basic policies such as WP:V - i.e., the need to be based on reliable sources); rewriting it, either partially or entirely from scratch; or even moving it elsewhere on the page (for example, to that Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8#Applicable policies and guidelines section). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm of the "remove it entirely" camp. Shorter is better for PAGs and this is no exception, and the sentence has generated more confusion than clarity in AFDs. Levivich 01:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I too would prefer to see removed a sentence that requires its own FAQ (#5) to clarify and which is at odds with several other parts of the guideline. If it needs to stay in some form, then it should summarize the kind of sourcing required by SPORTCRIT, given that it already starts with 'The article should provide reliable sources' (probably something like 'The article should provide significant coverage in multiple and independent reliable sources'). Avilich (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Suggest removing it. It tries to tackle the impossible job (and in the wrong place) of codifying & summarizing wp:notability, the relation of SNG's to it and wp:GNG and inevitably fails, and conflicts. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It should stay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    Why? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I feel it would be best to remove it as it mostly just generates confusion in AFD's. Alvaldi (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove it. Redundant and only serves to facilitate gaming by confusing matters. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Surely it would be prudent to change it to

    The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline .

    ? Either that or remove it. GiantSnowman 18:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with GS, this change would be more preferable than removing it. Alvaldi (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    +1 Levivich 18:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    +1 Hhkohh (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I'd oppose that version. It conflicts with the beginning of wp:notability and / or completely cancels / negates the Sports GNG.North8000 (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
      no it doesn't. The point of a SNG is not to confer any kind of automatic notability, but to give a guide as to what kind of articles might be notable (by meeting GNG). GiantSnowman 19:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
      Great intention and philosophy (which I agree with) but I stand by what I wrote. The proposed statement in essence makes the SNG say "make sure it meets GNG" North8000 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
      What is the problem with that? Levivich 19:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
      My comments follow the reality of the structure of wikipedia notability whereas my preferences align with yours and GiantSnowman's. So you are asking me to debate against myself!  :-)
      6/12 the SNGs listed at WP:N ultimately require GNG or equivalent (i.e. restate SIGCOV in multiple SIRS). The function of an SNG is therefore not, and never has been, necessarily inherently notability-granting. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed with this. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    As noted in the following section, I don't understand why SPORTBASIC could not be made sufficiently specific/contextualized that it would take the place of this rather inelegant (and possibly policy-defying) reference to the GNG at the top of the guideline. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep some semblance, reword as needed. Unless I'm missing something, a majority citing NSPORTS being met at an AfD should be sufficient to keep. Otherwise, one dissenter saying GNG is not demonstrated overrules it all, and the SNG is worthless. At the same time, a majority can demand GNG be met now (e.g. it's one of the, say, 5% of cases where the SNG "fails" for a given bio), and that would be OK too. Participants should have the flexibility to use common sense to apply SNG or GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, exactly, that's WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES for you, if people claim that sources exist but can't be bothered to find them, then their arguments are essentially a proof by assertion, which is no proof at all. There's a clear community consensus (as evidenced by the changes introduced by the latest RfC) that notability is not automatic and that sources must be presented (not assumed to exist) when challenged at AfD, and that this SNG does not override GNG (and that does not make it "worthless"). The guideline should reflect that, not muddy the waters with a confusing and bolded second sentence which seems to imply that merely meeting the criteria but not having acceptable sourcing is OK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, exactly...: Sorry, I'm not sure if your response is in agreement with what I posted or not. Are you referring to THEREMUSTBESOURCES when a subject meets NSPORTS, or when they don't even meet an SNG? —Bagumba (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an argument to avoid (if you clicked through), hence, yes, exactly, people claiming that "NSPORTS" is met but which do not show any source to substantiate this should have their !votes pretty heavily discounted at an AfD. One person merely "saying" GNG is not met wouldn't necessarily be enough, but if there is evidence of a proper source search, and a lack of results, then, yes, I'd be inclined to give that one !vote far much weight than the others. Otherwise the AfD problem which was identified and was one of the root causes for the recent RfC (namely the no-effort "Keep passes N[insert sport here]" spam) hasn't actually been resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    We've removed all the one-game thresholds from questionable leagues (and unfortunately a few truly notable ones). Meeting NSPORTS is no longer flimsy as before. The gray area is what level of presumption of notability should meeting NSPORTS now buy? If an SNG is met, THEREMUSTBESOURCES should be a plausible argument, more often than not. Otherwise, what is the benefit of an SNG over an essay? —Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    The point of SNGs is providing guidance on what kind of article should or shouldn't be created, so as the prevent the waste of everyone's time (both the creator's, but also that of everybody else on the encyclopedia). An SNG doesn't need to override GNG to be useful; see the example of WP:NASTRO (which, while providing a few [and note, only a few, not a boatload] bright-line criteria, repeats the fact that notability is not inherent or inherited and that it must essentially still be confirmed by reliable sources) or WP:NORG (whose "primary criteria" is a restatement of GNG, with the rest of the guideline giving help on how to apply that and identify proper sources in its specific topic area). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    Based on your proposed direction for NSPORTS, should it ever be suitable to !vote by simply stating "meets NSPORTS" at an AfD? —Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    That would be a typical WP:VAGUEWAVE and would not be acceptable, no. In the same way, "fails NSPORTS" would not be a valid argument at an AfD either. The AfD should focus on the existence of suitable sources and on whether the topic under discussion does not otherwise warrant not being included (for example, if it fails NOT): both of these aspects require a bit more effort than simply waving arbitrary criteria around. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    I trust that "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" !votes are equally waving arbitrary criteria around and VAGUEWAVES. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    If no evidence has been presented to support either, yes (although I have seen the latter one used as a nomination rationale: the outcome tends not to depend too much on the nominator's !vote, in those cases). With the caveat that at least GNG is a criteria directly related to writing the encyclopedia (we need sources from which to write an encyclopedia...), so it isn't quite as arbitrary as some others/previous ones. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  • The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline .

    or remove per GiantSnowman. This reflects the current state of the guideline and RfC outcome. –dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Same as above for me, either the requirement for GNG gets mentioned or the sentence removed. Avilich (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

GNG vs NBASIC

Comment - since the relevant Notability guideline for athletes, in the absence of an SNG os NBASIC rather than the GNG, I wonder if we could avoid replacing one inaccurate statement with another? If people really can't bear to reference NBASIC for some reason, there is a readily available alternative, which is to bolster SPORTBASIC with sufficient precision that nobody feels the need to reference a standard external to NSPORTS. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You are the only editor I know of who makes this "GNG doesn't apply to biographies" argument... JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
That isn't technically true; "everyone knows" that some biographies, like NPROF ones, are notable independent of GNG. But anyway, since NBASIC is stricter than GNG, I don't see why you see this as a problem. Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me juxtapose two things, the first is a quote from the top of WP:Notability, the second is my condensed paraphrasing of what's included in the current and proposed version of the sentence:

  1. "If it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)..."
  2. And the SNG says "Must meet GNG"

See my point? North8000 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Guidelines are created by editors for their convenience, and not editors for the convenience of guidelines. If there's a consensus that the best way to provide guidance for a specific subject is to have criteria that predict if the general notability guideline is met, while still deferring to it, so be it. The guidelines should be adjusted as needed to match consensus. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, if any biographies sneak into Notability on the basis of the small differences between GNG and ANYBIO NBASIC (which mostly deal with a stricter reading of IND for biographies), I think that is the opposite of convenience for editors. There is nothing about sports biographies that means that the adjudication rules that apply to all other biographies should not aly to them, and WP:CONLEVEL suggests that any LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary is, from a policy standpoint, null and void. Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC) fixed by Newimpartial (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The point is that just because the notability guideline refers generically to subject-specific guidelines, each specific subject-specific guideline is not compelled to be an independent guideline. Editors can still reach a consensus that a given subject-specific guideline can defer to another guideline. isaacl (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Right, they can absolutely defer to a higher-level guideline. But athletes are a subset of biographies, and LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't give NSPORTS the "right" to default to a more permissive higher-level guideline than the one that applies already at a higher CONLEVEL than NSPORTS. I mean, I would rather that the same were true of sports teams as well - but sports teams are explicitly carved out of NORG. Nothing comparable was ever done for athletes, though, so ANYBIO applies.
Obviously, one way to resolve the current glitch would be for NBIO to exclude sports biographies from NBASIC, but I haven't ever heard a plausible argument why that would be a good idea - and it would require that consensus be reached at NBIO's Talk page, not here, again per CONLEVEL. Newimpartial (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I do see it, North8000, but your reading of (1), if followed through, would suggest that corporations need only meet either NCORP or GNG, but "everyone knows" that NCORP must be met without exception. Therefore your reading cannot be followed rigidly without producing conclusions known to be false.
My own reading of that sentence is that each topic must meet either SNG or GNG, depending on the subject matter domain. Some topics are either/or, others (NNUMBER and NCORP come to mind) are "SNG required", and others (notably the residual) are "GNG required". They all meet either SNG or GNG (or both), but which one they have to meet...well, that depends. And the rest of WP:N backs me up on that.
For biographies, I don't see any part of NBIO that suggests that GNG ever applies to them where it differs from ANYBIO NBASIC; rules like BLP1E reinforce my conclusion that within NBIO, GNG is set aside (with ANYBIO NBASIC taking its place for practical purposes).
So I get that the status quo text of NSPORTS makes reference to GNG for athletes, to whom ANYBIO NBASIC applies instead, but I regard this simply as a long-lasting error (of little practical consequence, since the guidelines on question are so similar, but one that I find profoundly irritating nevertheless). Newimpartial (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC) corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The way that I reconcile it is that Ncorp calibrates the sourcing criteria for GNG. Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works What you said would directly and explicitly conflict with the lead in WP:Notability Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
There was a time, years ago, when I believed in this "calibration" notion, but it is like the sanity clause: the evidence for it just isn't there; it seems to be a largely ineffective post-hoc rationalization. I find it much more plausible that the phrase (depending on the subject matter domain) is missing from but presupposed by the opening of WP:N - a belief that happens to fit seamlessly with the rest of the Notability ecosystem - than to believe in "calibration", which doesn't have explicit policy support anywhere and which is directly contradicted by the way a good deal of policy language around Notability actually works. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
About a year and some ago, I introduced language at WP:N to try to explain that the SNGs have various functions and that led to a big mess of a discussion of what the relationship of the SNGs were to the GNG, ultimately leading to this change which tried to capture the complex relationship of SNGs with the GNG. It is not as simple as the one statement above "If it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)..." (which never should be taken and read in isolation of the rest of WP:N, as this new change identifies that close reading of the other SNGs can lead to cases like NPROF or NCORP where the GNG is overriden. --Masem (t) 01:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
My essay and "calibration" concept were not based on finding some (non-existent) structure in the fuzzy herd of cats of the Wikipedia notability ecosystem, it is based on how the fuzzy herd actually functions. On the point at hand, it's quite common to pass a corp under GNG, except with applying the tougher nature-of-source standard from NCorp. And I don't think it ever happens that if a corp passes GNG while applying that tougher source standard that somebody says "no go.....the GNG route in is not available". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
What difference do you see between passing under GNG, except with applying the tougher nature-of-source standard from NCorp, and passing NCORP? More precisely, what element of NCORP do you think these corps might be failing? TBH, this sounds like a semantic rather than a real difference. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
My statement didn't argue that, it was basically to say that your statement that in essence said "corporations can't get under GNG" was incorrect.North8000 (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
But that wasn't my argument. My argument was (in essence) that a corp that passes generic GNG but not NCORP isn't to be (correctly) presumed notable. So are we in agreement? Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Summary/continued discussion

In short, in the initial section above, there seem to be two options which have garnered significant support (with some being ambivalent about which one exactly should be preferred):

  1. Remove the sentence entirely
  2. Keep the sentence, but remove the last bit, so that it reads The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

It would be good if we good iron out which one is best. I think, in either case, FAQ no. 5 will be rendered obsolete: whether the number should be kept (to preserve historical links) and how exactly to implement that will also require a bit of tinkering. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  • If this is now an RfC to reverse the outcome of the prior RfC (where similar changes to this very same clause were not adopted), it needs to be widely publicized to the various sports projects and allowed to run for an appropriate length of time (i.e., a month), just as was done with the prior mega-RfC. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    There was no consensus on that specific subproposal (which was to remove the sentence altogether): that clearly can't be used to imply this is attempting to "reverse" its outcome when it didn't reach any consensus. A follow-up RfC on it (given the other changes to the guidelines, and given the fact many editors complained about the previous RfC because it tried to do everything at once) seems entirely warranted, and as already linked there have been multiple other discussions on it since. This RfC has already been running for over a week, and there has been mostly support for the general idea, from editors on both sides of the previous one (there is only very slight opposition). Now, @Cbl62:, the point of implementing the change at this stage was to spur on further debate. I see your objections are very much more about stuff which I'd describe as something falling under WP:NOTBURO than about the merits of the topic under discussion, so that doesn't help reach a new consensus on this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    The proposal to eliminate the sentence altogether was plainly directed at the clause you now seek to remove. That clause was the focal point of the prior debate. After a month of voting, and notice to the impacted projects, that proposal failed to reach consensus. My point is this: If the issue is to be reconsidered, it should be done transparently, with notice to the impacted projects, and after a period of not less than 30 days to allow time for full participation and debate. Closing it after one week and with minimal participation is not appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    I will say this as well: The closure of the massive RfC struck me as giving something to both sides. Many of the mere participation criteria were grossly overbroad. The measure to eliminate those passed and has now been implemented. Based on a narrow margin, the closer also found consensus to strike the presumption of notability and replace it with weaker language. On the other hand, the closer pointed to the bolded sentence at issue here (and to the use of or) as a central part of their closing rationale -- thus giving some balance to the overall close. To try to take away the one element that the closer gave to the pro-sports camp strikes me as unwise and unnecessary at this point. Far better IMO to allow time to see how the already dramatically revised NSPORTS plays out rather than seeking further drastic changes. So put me in the camp of "no more changes for now, let the dust settle for a while." Cbl62 (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Expanding Notability for Equestrians

I just made these edits to provide more balance to our Equestrian sports. They were reverted by User:JoelleJay who then proceeded to add their own changes, which I reverted and began this discussion. As a content creator, NPP reviewer/participant at WP:NPPSCHOOL, member of the WP:WikiProject Equine, among other projects, I do believe the Equestrian notability requirements are outdated and need quite a bit of work. I am a former NCHA Judge and at expert level relative to stock horse competition, horse racing and I also am quite familiar with rodeo. The material I added is relative to stock horse exhibitors, and stock horse competition (western-style horsemanship events)'s j at the professional, non-pro and collegiate levels. There is more to the equestrian topic than Hunter-Jumper competitions, and Olympic events, which is very narrow view of equestrian sports. If there is an objection to what I've added, then please provide your comments below. Atsme 💬 📧 19:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Before you comment in this discussion, please see the Important notice below. The majority of the opposes are discussing the topic above this one, not what I've proposed. Atsme 💬 📧 23:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support inclusion, as it helps to guide editors who are unfamiliar with stock horse/western horse competitions, including events such as NCHA cutting, AQHA performance events, and the National Collegiate Equestrian Association which is part of the Big 12 Conference, and the widespread coverage those events receive on a global scale. Atsme 💬 📧 19:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose since no evidence has been produced that the new guideline provides a better match to notability than the old one. Nigej (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for not providing evidence, so please allow me to do that now. As I stated above, editors who are not familiar with horses need this information to help guide them. We encounter similar issues at Project Dogs, and based on my decade of experience on WP, both projects tend to have limited participation. Hopefully, the following will put all doubt to rest relative to the notability of equestrians per the following:
  1. National Collegiate Equestrian Association, also see this article, and WP:NCOLLATH along with Big 12 Conference – see this article and there is widespread media attention.
  2. American Quarter Horse Association - Oklahoma names Quarter Horse state horse, Texas state symbol, All American Quarter Horse Congress but also see All American Quarter Horse Congress about: the world's largest single-breed horse show, with 25,000 entries in 2019. Held at the Ohio Expo Center in Columbus, the show attracts 650,000 people and generates $409 million in the central Ohio economy. More info, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. The number of notable equestrians competing in AQHA competition is off the charts, yet we barely have any of them mentioned in WP because too few editors are familiar with equestrian activities, or their notability, and the opposes support my position. There are numerous magazines/publications/news media publishing material about notable equestrians and their accomplishments including the Equine Chronicle, Quarter Horse News, Horse & Rider, Western Horseman, and even The New York Times.
  3. National Cutting Horse Association - historic photographs in universities, Texas history, NCHA - Australian cutting horse association showing global reach, televised events, media attention, › local › article247703295 "This cutting horse sold for over $1 million in Fort Worth" – The previous record was set in 1996 when NCHA Open Horse of the Year Meradas Little Sue sold for $875,000 in the NCHA Futurity Sale, NY Times, NYTimes again, - do I need to provide more media coverage? What I added should be included the same way other notable sports include their team players, and this guideline should not be limited only to Hunter-Jumpers and the Olympics. Hope that helps. Atsme 💬 📧 21:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Notice of this discussion was posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine, WP:WikiProject Dogs, and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Atsme 💬 📧 21:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Beyond Nigej's statement, simple participation criteria have been deprecated NSPORTS-wide. You will have to come up with different criteria. (And quite aside from anything else, what the heck? You don't just unilaterally change notability criteria based on your personal preferences, before attempting to seek consensus for the changes.)

    As far as the various supports here and below, it'd help if people paid better attention as to what's being discussed. Permit me to clarify this for those who seem unclear on the concept: Atsme's proposal is NOT TALKING ABOUT EVENTS. The proposal addresses individuals. Whether or not the events in which the equestrians compete are notable is utterly irrelevant. Ravenswing 21:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's a poor argument to make, that your hobby deserves more inclusion. I expect every editor with a horse on their user page would support your proposal. However, the wider editing community has been deprecating SNGs for the past decade and would more likely abolish NSPORTS than give you more room to write about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose winning any collegiate competition should not be grounds for default notability, and these other addtions are not good either. These blanket all competitiors get notability guidelines have lead to way too many substub articles. What people need to do is spend the work developing aritcles on individuals that are built on reliable sources and stop trying to mass flood Wikipedia with under researched articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This discussion is not about changing what has already long since been approved, and it is certainly not about default notability - where did that come from? See the top of the Project page, and what is written in the top banner - in a nutshell. I also explained this to Buidhe below - I don't understand where this misunderstanding originated unless my proposal is being conflated with the section above. For Pete's sake, nothing is notable without significant coverage or at least presumed to have significant coverage. Atsme 💬 📧 00:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Buidhe and hopefully others who have made similar comments: at the top of the Project page itself it states: This page in a nutshell: An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page. I am surprised that some of the oppose votes were not aware of that notice, or else they conflated my proposal with the section above. Atsme 💬 📧 23:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    Correct, I oppose all specialized guidelines that don't require significant coverage to be demonstrated before creating an article. That includes notability guidelines based on citations, winning an award, and/or participation in an event. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your response because my proposal already assumes these athletes have received the citations per "in a nutshell". Where in my proposal did i say anything about not needing citations? My proposal aligns with all the other sports on the page and they don't mention citations because it is already assumed at the top of the page. So what exactly are you opposing? Atsme 💬 📧 00:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Important notice - the opposes above are responding to the discussion in the section above, not what I have proposed which is this diff. This discussion has strayed off topic relative to what I've proposed - I am against inclusion for simply participating. See the section above, and my comment there. As for the hobby comment in this discussion, see. Phil Rapp, a cutting horse competitor who has earned over $9 million dollars in NCHA competition - not quite a hobby. And there are many more that have millions - this is exactly why we need what I've proposed. Atsme 💬 📧 23:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose The proposal under discussion (whether that was what the OP intended or not) seems to be this. As others before, without clear evidence that winners of collegiate competitions are likely to meet GNG (for example, if one can produce a list of them and show how many have and do not have articles at this time, and what the articles of those who do have them look like), these criteria shouldn't be included. Without such evidence, it also strikes me as a particularly non-subtle case of good ol' US-centric WP:BIAS. I'll note that this would also probably be overed by WP:NCOLLATH. There is more to the equestrian topic There is also far more to cricket than international matches between Test-playing nations, and similarly for other sports. Not a reason to add more stuff simply because it exists and might appear important to people involved in it. OP might have too much of a (both literal and figurative) horse in this race... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I understand it, the proposal is attempting to update the existing criteria with tournaments that are likely to confer GNG coverage to their winners, which would be in line with the nutshell. However, the material provided to support this assessment is the coverage of, and involvement and investment in, the tournaments rather than evidence that 95% of individuals who would meet the proposed criteria would also meet GNG. The latter is what is now expected for new NSPORT criteria and must achieve consensus here before being added. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Your interpretation while good intentioned is incorrect, as are several other opposes, which appear to have lost sight of the primary purpose of this project, which is basically ...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 multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. It also states: 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. If editors somehow believe equestrian sports revolve around tournaments in Olympic amateur events, such as jumping and eventing, then we've failed. Olympic competition with its 3 equestrian sports (dressage, three-day eventing and show jumping), is minuscule in comparison to the professional & non-professional competitions sponsored by the American Quarter Horse Association and its World Championship Show, or the National Cutting Horse Association and the NCHA World Championship Futurity, not to mention the National Snaffle Bit Association, National Reining Horse Association, and National Reined Cowhorse Association. It's like comparing collegiate football to the NFL Superbowl and its professional leagues. Stock horse competitions, aka western equestrian sports, are highly notable on a global scale. Editors who are not familiar with western equestrian sports, (in much the same way non-sports enthusiasts know nothing about soccer, football, baseball, ice hockey, tennis, etc.) should be able to use these guidelines to help locate RS for adding and citing content, and establishing GNG. What other purpose does it serve? The misunderstandings and lack of knowledge about these highly notable equestrian sports are why we need these additions. I doubt that I'll be able to get this discussion back on track - it's like dawnleelynn stated below - it got lost behind other arguments - so it's probably best to just hat it and move on. It's quite sad because I actually did provide examples above, yet some editors are still unable to recognize the level of notability in these events despite the RS I provided above. I don't know what else to do. It's our readers who get slighted because of the lack of information in our Encyclopedia. At least we tried. Atsme 💬 📧 19:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that such an interpretation of how guidelines on this page work is at best naive. While it says 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, the practical effect is that the criteria here have long been too loose for many sports and encouraged the creation of articles which don't meet the notability guidelines and by the same token also fail other policies such as WP:NOT or WP:NPOV. Thus the push to make sure criteria actually reliably predict GNG and not be participation awards. If editors somehow believe equestrian sports revolve around tournaments in Olympic amateur events That seems as dubious a strawman as any I've seen. Most of the objections here have nothing to do with the nature of the events but with the lack of examples and evidence how people meeting such criteria actually meet GNG. "It seems important to people involved in it" has never been a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is a general encyclopedia intended for a general audience. There are a lot of other things in other sports or other fields of human activity which seem to those involved in it but which are not encyclopedically notable, or tend not to always be. As I was saying above, you appear to have too much of both a literal and figurative horse in this race. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The issue is getting lost behind other arguments. But I do support inclusion of stock horse/western horse competitons such as Atsme has listed. They are widespread events with large followings. In fact, there could be other events that should be included. But this is a good starting point. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There has not even been a vague assurance (let alone evidence) that those meeting the additional criteria are likely to meet GNG, only that the events themselves get coverage. Further, and as per the noms intro to this section, the equestrian guidelines as a whole need an overhaul and I'd support removing them until new guidelines are produced. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per the evidence provided. This seems like a perfectly reasonable addition to the guideline. BD2412 T 03:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
    Which evidence? I only see evidence that the events themselves get covered, but not that their winners (the ones that would be covered by the proposed guideline) are. Stuff like this is hardly even SIGCOV of the event in question (it is not independent of the organizers of the event); much less of the winners (coverage of whom, even more importantly, is essentially limited to trivial name-checks). Other stuff like this is less ambiguously coverage of the events, but not of their participants. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Retaining my oppose. We still don't have any names here, let alone any indication that they're notable. And we're lacking any historical perspective. How long a period is covered? Who are the people from 100 years ago covered by these changes and what's the evidence that they're notable. Nigej (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suggested to Atsme that she workshop the proposal at a relevant sports project and then bring it back here for an RfC once it's been ironed out. I don't think this current proposal is going anywhere now. JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for largely the reasons others have laid out above. Proof that the tournaments themselves get SIGCOV is not the same as the winners typically meeting GNG. It would be much more helpful to have specific articles that profile individual horse people as examples rather than a link to a website that overall covers horse-riding competitions. I also suggest that the OP workshop the proposal and demonstrate how winning a tournament generates coverage such that if one wins one of these tournaments they are very, very likely to get SIGCOV in RS and meet GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support for NCAA actually being large enough to have media coverage. – 333-blue at 11:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yet another support vote which tries to convince us that the events are notable (and they probably are) when the proposed changes relate to people. It's the notability of the people that is the issue at hand. Nigej (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comment Just because a tournment gets coverage does not mean the winner gets coverage. We need a strong indication that basically all winners get good coverage to even think about creating a criteria that will lead to them basically all getting articles, even if the articles sit for decades without adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't believe anyone can seriously dispute that a person entered into a sport's Hall of Fame, or who wins a major international or national championship, is likely to receive significant coverage. It already says this at NSPORTS, multiple times (some quoted above). This is true for any major sport; for equestrian sports, it's true for the rider and the horse. I challenge anyone to show me a Hall of Fame inductee who doesn't have two GNG sources about them, in any major sport. Levivich 17:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    Except the proposal under consideration is not just hall of famers; but also
    1. Winners of US collegiate competitions (no evidence has been provided that those are the frequent subject of SIGCOV + WP:BIAS issues as usual)
    2. Replacing "winners of some national championships (with consideration of whether the discipline in question has a major international level competition or not)" with "winners of all national championships" (again, no evidence presented that this is the case everywhere) is not as obvious as you suggest. Some sports (most sports) are not as popular and practiced to the same level everywhere; so I'd be very surprised if coverage was the same everywhere (coverage of men's football is very much less prevalent, for example, in North America than it is in Europe; and conversely coverage of hockey is very much more prevalent in North America - I wouldn't be at all surprised if equestrianism similarly had such wide disparities).
    3. Extending notability of horse breeders to include breeders of hall of famers; despite the fact notability is not inherited and that no evidence has been presented to support this expansion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    Except
    1. You don't seriously dispute that the winner of a national collegiate championship in a major sport would likely receive SIGCOV?
    2. I don't see this in the edit linked in the OP; maybe in misreading it but I don't see where "some" is replaced by "all"
    3. I don't see this in the edit either. Horse breeders were already listed (and still are listed). Even if what you say is true, if any horse breeders were likely to receive SIGCOV, it's horse breeders of hall of fame horses. I don't even think "not inherited" applies for breeders and horses; this is more like an artist and her works (WP:NARTIST), which is basically an exception to "not inherited". Levivich 20:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    1. Since when are equestrian events considered "major sports"?? And we already have guidance on presumption of SIGCOV for college athletes: Have won multiple NCAA Division I national championships as an individual in an individual sport. Why should we undercut this to include all winners in all event categories of a collegiate nationals (not to mention a non-notable conference championship) for a sport with under 30 participating universities across DI to DIII?
    2. The linked edit in the OP added An equestrian that has won a major National Championship, or World Championship Top Ten title in their respective equestrian sport and removed Some but not all winners of national-level championships, particularly those considered the highest honor within a particular discipline or horse breed competition (especially where there is no significant international championship level).
    3. This edit also replaced A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses including the mounts of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship competitor. with A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses, such as AQHA Hall of Fame Horse, NCHA Hall of Fame Horse, the mounts of at least one Olympic medal, World Equestrian Games championship competitor, and NCHA Triple Crown Winner. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    (@Levicich) "an artist and their works" is not an exception to NINHERITED. There are plenty of works by notable artists which are not themselves notable (a look at stuff like List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart will show a fair few of them which are covered neither on their own neither amongst a group of other similar ones - and I personally doubt that there exists encyclopedic material for all of these; heck even the same applies for List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach - Bach being probably the most played, studied and analysed musician in the whole organ repertoire - and yet there's a few rare exceptions which simply haven't attracted much analytic interest). If that is true for two of the most well known musicians of the classical repertoire, I can only figure that it's even more true for individual figures in what is definitively not a "major sport". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    WP:NCREATIVE is what I was thinking of. If NCREATIVE can say that authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals are likely to receive sigcov (or, what it actually says, "likely to be notable") based on their body of works, and WP:NACADEMIC says the same thing about academics, there's no reason WP:NEQUESTRIAN can't say the same thing about breeders (and, in fact, it does say that, both before and after the edit in question). Levivich 15:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    creative professionals are likely to receive sigcov based on their body of works, - not "individual works of creative professionals are likely to receive SIGCOV based on the notability of the creator". This is a classic case of "A implies (or at least, tends to,) B, but B does not imply A"; as trivially shown to be inaccurate even with examples where the "creative professionals" are otherwise very notable persons who have had coverage in reliable sources for over a century, but where some of their works are not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    No one here is arguing that a work is notable based on its creator. A breeder is likely to receive SIGCOV if they've bred hall of fame horses. It's a simple proposition. You can just make one comment agreeing or disagreeing, you know, and leave it at that. Levivich 14:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    1. In my view, a "major" sport is one that has a dedicated media, such that we can be reasonably assured that the sport will receive independent coverage. All major sports have "sports writers" and "sports magazines" in that sport; equestrian, even college equestrian, meets that definition. For any "major" sport, we can be sure that the relevant sports media will cover the largest annual competition. The World Cup, the World Series, the Superbowl, etc., are sure to be covered. For individual sports, the individuals "winning it all" in any given year are sure to be covered. The individuals entered into the sport's Hall of Fame are sure to be covered. If there is a national media, then the national champion is sure to be covered. Equestrian fits this bill.
    As I understand it, the National Collegiate Equestrian Association and the Big 12 are both NCAA Division I. And equestrian is an NCAA Emerging Women's Sport. (Yes, my anti-systemic-bias thumb is on the scales on this one.)
    Just as a real quick gutcheck, I went to big12sports.com, clicked on "Sports," then "Equestrian," then clicked on the the article about the 2022 championship in April, and then clicked on the first player's name in that article, JoJo Roberson, and got to this official bio. Now I've seen a thousand articles about soccer players where their official bio is shorter than that, or they don't have one at all. But does that mean JoJo Roberson has received sigcov? Yes. And while these next two may not count for notability due to being non-independent (arguably), there is more material from which we can write a biography here and here. That's in five minutes of Googling.
    My favorite example for these situations: Cody Claver, male soccer player, played two professional games, has zero biographies written about him, and is kept at AFD--twice!--once a no-consensus "per NFOOTY" (three years ago), and now "meets GNG" based on 3 links, nevermind that two of them are a couple sentences long and the third is a straight Q&A interview. What's my point? If Cody Claver and 100,000 soccer players like him qualify for an article, so should JoJo Roberson. If our notability guidelines say otherwise, our guidelines need to be changed.
    Now, if we want to say that the SNG should say multiple wins instead of one win--ok, that's a tweak I can get behind. But winning the national collegiate championship in Equestrian seems like a good rule-of-thumb for whether someone is likely to receive sigcov, because equestrian has enough of a dedicated sports media around it.
    We can write a policy-compliant article about equestrians like JoJo Roberson.
    2. "a major National Championship, or World Championship Top Ten title", to me, sounds like specific examples of "national-level championships, particularly those considered the highest honor within a particular discipline or horse breed competition". I'm not perceiving the difference here; this seems like a straight improvement by replacing a vague guideline with a more specific one.
    3. "breeder of record for many notable horses including [example]" reads the same to me as "breeder of record for many notable horses, such as [examples]". I don't get how this is a difference, except that the [example]s are different. If the examples need to be tweaked (some added, some removed, etc.), that would be fine with me, but I don't see the problem. If a breeder--any breeder--were to be listed in the SNG, a breeder of a hall of fame horse certainly should count. That's the highest level of achievement for a breeder, is it not? Levivich 15:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    If we are going to change the equestrian guideline such that it overrides existing consensus on various other parts of NSPORT, the proposal needs to be much clearer about what these changes are, why they are needed, and how they've been shown to predict GNG in 95% of cases. I get you're friends with Atsme, but you know this is a malformed and confusing proposal that needs to be incubated at a relevant NSPORT-savvy project before being introduced here.
    1. We don't need to add the collegiate nationals to NEQUESTRIAN because that is already covered by NCOLLATH, just as it is for every other sport. But we would need to establish that winning a conference championship should qualify under NCOLLATH and that it's important enough to WP that presumption of SIGCOV be explicit for winners of THIS competition in THIS sport when tournaments at the same level in far more popular and more global sports are not so deserving.
    2. Comparing the proposed An equestrian that has won a major National Championship to the original Some but not all winners of national-level championships, particularly those considered the highest honor within a particular discipline or horse breed competition (especially where there is no significant international championship level: The latter indicates there is no consensus on which competitions are eligible, but that those considered the "highest honor" in their discipline probably do confer SIGCOV to winners. The introduced clause only asks for "major" national championships without retaining the constraints or clarification: are we to understand that "major" is sufficiently specific to exclude whichever competitions were implied in the original? Or has coverage changed such that we can now generalize SIGCOV presumption to a larger set of national winners? The addition of World Championship Top Ten title in their respective equestrian sport is not given any justification.
    3. Replacing A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses including the mounts of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship competitor with A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses, such as AQHA Hall of Fame Horse, NCHA Hall of Fame Horse, the mounts of at least one Olympic medal, World Equestrian Games championship competitor, and NCHA Triple Crown Winner dramatically expands the qualifying pool to include two US-specific Halls of Fame and a distinction afforded by another US organization, with no rationale for how these are equivalent to the original two international achievements.
    4. Also assessing this other change: Individual inductees into a major equestrian-oriented national hall of fame dedicated to sports with international-level competition, such as the United States Show Jumping Hall of Fame vs the proposed Individual inductees into a national equestrian Hall of Fame for the respective national or global organization, such as the United States Show Jumping Hall of Fame, American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame, and National Cutting Horse Association#Hall of Fame. The latter gives more examples of acceptable Halls of Fame, but it is not clear whether they all meet the prior qualification of sports with international-level competition. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    Idk where the hell you got "friends" from but fyi that's where I stopped reading. Levivich 14:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    So because I assumed you guys were friendly from your general interactions on each other's talk pages, you're refusing to engage further with my good-faith critique of the proposal? Such dismissiveness and condescension isn't what I've come to expect from you. JoelleJay (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Obsolete Criteria, and Dangling Redirects

At the end of April 2022, a section on Obsolete Criteria was added. That section was then deleted, with a comment that it didn't provide any useful information. However, there were redirects to that section, including from WP:NAFL and WP:NGRIDIRON. These redirects still exist, but point to a non-existent section in the guideline, and so direct to the whole guideline with no information for the reader. The section was useful in that it provides an anchor for old redirects, and the removal of the section was a good-faith error. Either the section should be restored, or a search-and-destroy operation to locate and remove the redirects is needed, or something else should be done. The dangling redirects are not a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Request from NPP'er that apparent conflict in "seasons" section be clarified

There's no dispute case or anything like that, I just see a large amount of these.

This section says:

  1. Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.
  2. Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.

I see a lot of "stats only" professional team season articles with only a pablum token sentence or two of prose. If one interprets #2 as an SNG criteria, then it conflicts with #1. Or if one interprets #2 as merely advice on building an article (not a part of the SNG criteria), then it is not in conflict with #1 but really doesn't belong in a SNG. Also #2 contains what could be interpreted as an impossible-to-judge hypothetical "can be" Could y'all tweak that section to clarify? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think someone creating an article about a season should include sufficient independent sourcing to demonstrate that WP:NEVENT is met, without any guesswork for those of us who do patrolling. (t · c) buidhe 03:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd interpret no. 2 as being an explicit reminder that "the article can still be unsuitable for inclusion if it fails WP:NOTSTATS". I wouldn't be opposed to removing the "It is strongly recommended that" and simply having "Such articles should be redirected [...]", to remove the unnecessary degree of uncertainty this creates. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Not sure what sports this is referring to -- or perhaps all in general. In the cases of NFL football, MLB baseball, NHL hockey, NBA basketball, and major college football, it's clear that seasons are notable and that season articles are encyclopedically appropriate. If such articles are under-developed and/or under-sourced, the solution is to improve the article rather than redirecting or deleting. In the college football world, there is a major effort underway to substantially improve season articles, but it's a time-consuming and incremental process. If there is an intention to engage in mass redirecting of such articles, it is something that should first be discussed with notice to the impacted projects. Perhaps such a discussion would even help spur folks to dig in and improve the articles. Cbl62 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I should distill it to an example. As a NPP'er I look at a brand new article for a season for a top level professional soccer team in a medium sized country. It's a "stats only" article with one "stats only" source. Does it pass the SNG for existence as a stand alone article? North8000 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  • IMO the key issue is whether or not the season passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. If so, the article creator/proponent should be able to demonstrate that, and in that case, it should be kept (or allowed at new page patrol). If not, it should be deleted (or rejected at new page patrol). What we should not be doing, however, is redirectng articles on clearly-notable seasons simply because the "prose" section amounts to < 50% of the total bytes contained in the article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • We could probably also could use clarity on what constitutes "top professional leagues". Some sports have applied an overly broad view, which was part of what led to the concerns in the VP discussion over simple participation standards. Frankly, I think NSEASONS is outdated and that we'd be best served by eliminating it and letting GNG by the guiding principle. Cbl62 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The language at issue was aded in 2007 per this diff. It was controversial at the time and resulted in some reverting back and forth (here and here). The discussion surrounding it is here at subpart 11. Cbl62 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response. I'd like to explore that a bit more to force/clarify the issue. WP:notability says that if it passes either GNG or the SNG it's a pass. While SNG's nearly all say (in the non-operative wording) they they are mere predictors of GNG compliance, the operative parts of SNG's give an alternate criteria that bypasses a GNG evaluation. As an answer to my question about a SNG you basically said "do a GNG evaluation". So what about my question about what the SNG says about my example? Or fixing the apparent conflict in the SNG? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
    I frankly think the best way to reconcile the apparent conflict is to "ditch" WP:NSEASONS and rely on GNG. Per the 2007 discussion of the topic, the original insertion of the passage on "prose majority" was dubious (and pushed by an editor who has been inactive for 15 years). And as noted by Bagumba below, the "prose majority" provision conflicts with WP:ATD and the core notion that deletion is not to be decided on the current stubby state of an article. Cbl62 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    I never considered the current version of NSEASONS to be objective enough, but it'd be good to get more feedback from NPPers about this recent trend to gut NSPORTS and lean almost exclusively on GNG. Does this made their job easier, harder, no impact, etc, especially for those who might not be sports experts. —Bagumba (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    redirecting articles on clearly-notable seasons simply because the "prose" section amounts to < 50% of the total bytes contained in the article. The guideline doesn't provide such a clear, nearly mathematical criteria. It doesn't even use "mostly". Maybe rewriting it as Team season articles should contain substantial and well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. would avoid such confusion? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Judging an article by the current state of its prose conflicts with WP:ATD:

    If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.

    For a new page, I'd expect some indication that the season has coverage beyond a stats database. One indication would be citing a few sources of coverage by independent, reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm an active NPP'er. I was an advocate for getting rid of the "participation only" SNG. The result of which makes our job harder but IMO was a good move. A self-conflicting SNG also makes our job harder (actually makes it impossible regarding implementing the SNG properly) Which is why I'm here.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes so far

  1. Rewrite "mainly well-sourced prose" as "substantial and well-sourced prose"; to avoid giving off the impression of a mathematical criteria (although, IMHO, articles should still usually be more prose than stats).
  2. Remove "it is strongly recommended" from the second sentence to make this less of a mere suggestion and more of a practical guide how to deal with these
Example diff: [1]
RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
There's also the proposed change of just removing NSEASON altogether (or stating that GNG must be followed). JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What if you combined the two provisions into: "Season articles for top level professional teams are usually notable if they consist mostly of well-sourced prose." North8000 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Season articles for top level professional teams are usually notable if they consist mostly of well-sourced prose. The quality of the article isn't what determines notability. Its whether or not it has received significant coverage that determines if we should have an article on it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Articles should be able to have substantial (not routine) and well-sourced (not random databases) prose - i.e. article quality tends to correlate with the level of coverage it has received. If a given season does not have sufficient sources to back up proper prose, then yes, it probably isn't notable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that there is a correlation between quality and the level of coverage. The real issue under GNG is the level of coverage -- let's focus on that and not apply some strained and dubious correlation that we don't apply anywhere else. Cbl62 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, as BeanieFan11 suggests (I think) this is difficult. "Mainly" would mean that if, say, a list of matches, players, and a few stats were included that I would need to at least match that with well sourced prose. That's difficult at best, potentially impossible. And we'd end up deleting a tonne of perfectly decent, well sourced articles with some half decent prose bits. And we'd keep over-bloated prose articles that were difficult to read (and I'm a big fan of prose).
I have no problem saying that there needs to be at least a prose summary of the season as well as an introduction - so long as there's a grace period when articles are first identified (say, six months) for people to add that - it takes time, after all. But "mainly" is too far. Fwiw I'm struggling to think of a sports season article that couldn't have that - which is what we should be aiming for I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
While I do believe prose is important, Blue Square Thing has hit the nail on the head. The "primarily prose" provision of sentence 2 creates a moving target for how much prose is appropriate. If one adds a 5,000-byte schedule of games or roster of players, does that then mean that a previously-adequate prose summary must then be increased by another 5,001 bytes so as to continue to be a mathematical majority of the overall bytes? Such a requirement is absurd and arbitrary and further shows that the "primarily prose" provision is fundamentally misguided. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

BeanieFan11, when I wrote it I already understood that per the strict logical parsing, such as yours, the only thing that matters is GNG and this provision and all SNGs have no reason to exist. But, unless you want to eliminate all SNG's I think that a proposal like mine is consistent with what SNG's defacto are...a way for bypassing GNG and conditions on using that way. Also it may be in line with the original intent of those two apparently conflicting provisions....that you can use the "season for top level professional team" bypass if the article is mostly well sourced prose. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

.a way for bypassing GNG Such use of SNGs is, at best, deprecated; particularly given the recent NSPORTS RfC. NSEASONS should be a guide which prevents excessive-stats-and-routine-local-coverage articles. That's why I think we need to emphasise that articles should contain substantial prose (i.e. both "large in size" [without fixing a mathematical and absurd percentage] and "worthwhile; important" [to prevent having articles about the run-of-the-mill "season of the local Littletown high school team which gets a trivial mention in the Sunday newspaper"]); while similarly giving a good recommendation what to do with articles which fail to achieve this). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
What about asking that these articles contain multiple sources that each devote a substantial amount of prose to analyzing a season, such that a comprehensive summary can be written beyond simple results tables? And NPPers can just check the sources for SIGCOV if they come across an article that only contains tables. That's basically restating GNG, but if we're going to have guidance on seasons at all we should be upfront about the sourcing needs and our expectation that it be possible to write a prose-heavy article on the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Having further considered the matter, here are my thoughts:
  • First sentence. NSEASONS' unlimited allowance of season articles for any "top level professional team" (regardless of sport, country, and time period) is grossly overbroad. It reminds me of the long list of top level professional football/soccer leagues (here) that was at the heart of the prior Village Pump discussion on "mere participation". It is an invitation to the creation of season articles on every season of every "top level" association football, baseball, rugby, cricket, basketball, softball, handball, field hockey, lacrosse, volleyball, roller derby, etc. team in every nation from Uruguay to Estonia and from Chad to Chile and from the 1800s to the 2000s. I don't think we need an SNG on season articles, but if we do have one, it should actually focus with precision on the particular sports and leagues (and time periods) where it is actually appropriate to presume notability. Clearly, season articles on the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and Premier League are notable, but beyond that, it would be a monumental task to try to identify the particular leagues (and time periods) where season articles are always notable. IMO the GNG works fine, and we really don't need an overarching SNG on sports seasons.
  • Second sentence. I am not a fan of the season articles that consist of one sentence of prose along the lines of "The 19xx _____ team was a football team that competed in the ____ league during the 19xx season." Such articles can and should be tagged for improvement. That said, the notion that articles must consist primarily of prose (or that prose must be "large in size") imposes a requirement that is absent in any other realm of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is premised on the fundamental notions that: stubs are OK so long as the topic is notable and the content is verifiable are reliably sourced; incremental growth is an accepted model for development of the encyclopedia; and there is no deadline.
My bottom line: NSEASONS should be repealed. It provides no useful guidance on which seasons are actually notable, and the "majority prose" clause is utterly inconsistent with WP:ATD and other core concepts. Nothing useful + inconsistent with core values ==> get rid of it. Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
That said, the notion that articles must consist primarily of prose (or that prose must be "large in size") imposes a requirement that is absent in any other realm of Wikipedia. I think having an end-goal (i.e. "featured-article status", if one likes) which might be different from the present state of some - or most - articles within a topic isn't that problematic. Notability guidelines are also more concerned with what "could" be written given existing (or assumed) sourcing than what "currently is" (per WP:NEXIST). If a season article - let's suppose it is one of the stereotypical season articles with one introductory sentence and some stats table - is brought to AfD, and there are sources found which provide enough coverage from which one could write substantial prose [I don't know, the season was a stand-out performance or otherwise stands out from the rest of the WP:ROTM bunch), then it should be kept. Conversely, if the same article is brought to AfD, and in this counter-example the sources are only local news or routine match play-by-play reports (even if such reports exist for the whole season), then it should be deleted or redirected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "routine play-by-play match reports". Are you talking about a standard newspaper report? Or just a stats report?
It's important to note, of course, that there are some pretty short Featured Articles out there: 1994–95 Gillingham F.C. season for example. I wonder if that article is, perhaps, a basis to work from as an exemplar of what's absolutely fine? Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
"local news": AFAIK, there's WP:LOCALCOVERAGE, but that specifically is a standard for companies and organizations, and WP:NORG specifically says it didn't apply to sports anyways (which I never understood, but here we are). At any rate, GNG's requirement for multiple sources adequately serves to rule out subjects from small towns that are only covered by their local news. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Then again, FA and GA assessments apparently don't take notability into consideration (which is absurd...), so saying season articles should aim for FA status could lead to excessively-detailed summaries of individual matches with little actual coverage of the season as a singular topic. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, proseless stubs full of tables is not unique with sports, e.g. 2008 Stockton, California, mayoral election, Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack. New guidance, if any, should be dealt with generically across all domains.—Bagumba (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The "stats only" articles that I see are mostly sports and elections. And "sports only" ones seem to (like list articles) seem to have infinite possibilities. (e.g. "highest scoring players in the 2012 season in the xxxx league" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Or the ridiculous Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, which survived AfD despite almost no coverage actually being directly on that intersection and it mostly being proseified stats. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I do have other concerns about some sports articles, but my mission in this thread (with my NPP hat on) is narrower.....to get this apparent self-conflict in the SNG tweaked so that the apparent self-conflict is fixed so that we will know how to to implement the SNG. And, the result should answer this question: Whether or not the SNG gives a temporary bypass to GNG for a stats-only season article on a top level professional team in a medium sized country. North8000 (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  • IMO, NSEASONS is not a bypass to GNG, temporary or otherwise, and regardless of whether the article is 90% prose or 90% stats. Cbl62 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Whatever we think about it, in reality it is a bypass of GNG. The "either or" statement says this explicitly. And the practice of saying that if meets the SNG it's in also says thisNorth8000 (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed revision

If there is not consensus to dump NSEASONS altogether, then we really ought to resolve the issues raised above by (a) specifying which leagues warrant stand-alone season articles, and (b) getting rid of the "majority prose" clause. Here is a first shot at doing that:

Stand-alone articles should only be created on individual seasons of sports teams where significant coverage exists in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Significant coverage is likely to exist for individual seasons of teams in the following leagues:

Association football: Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1, Serie A, Eredivisie, Argentine Primera División, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Major League Soccer, Primeira Liga, Liga MX, Russian Premier League, Austrian Football Bundesliga, Belgian First Division A, Swiss Super League, Ukrainian Premier League, Super League Greece, Süper Lig, Danish Superliga, Belgian First Division A, Scottish Premiership, Israeli Premier League, Croatian First Football League, Czech First League, FA Women's Super League, National Women's Soccer League, Frauen-Bundesliga, and Primera División (women)

Gridiron football: National Football League, Canadian Football League, American Football League, All-America Football Conference, and NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision

Basketball: National Basketball Association, American Basketball Association, Women's National Basketball Association, EuroLeague, Liga ACB, National Basketball League (Australia), Lega Basket Serie A, Greek Basket League, and Israeli Basketball Premier League

Ice hockey: National Hockey League, Kontinental Hockey League, Swedish Hockey League, Liiga, and Czech Extraliga

Baseball: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, and Negro Major Leagues

Cricket: Indian Premier League, Big Bash League, Pakistan Super League, T20 Blast, Caribbean Premier League, Mzansi Super League, Bangladesh Premier League, and Lanka Premier League

Rugby Union: Premiership Rugby, Top 14, Japan Rugby League One, and Super Rugby

Teams in other sports and other leagues (including collegiate teams) may also qualify for stand-alone season articles depending on the depth and extent of significant coverage received.

Team season articles should include substantial and well-sourced prose. They should not be bare lists of players or statistics. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.

Cbl62 (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you're probably better off just saying that significant coverage needs to exist - the list doesn't really work for me in the sports I follow I'm afraid. Given that the BBC covers every day of every County Championship fixture - and Wisden will have an article for each match and CricInfo will also have a daily article, for example, that would clearly need to be added to your list (by contrast, the BBC doesn't have an article for each T20Blast match - but it will have one for every match in The Hundred(tm), which isn't on the list). And then there's historic seasons which pre-date T20 cricket.
In North American baseball I'd think that certainly AAA and AA teams get plenty of coverage. I don't know enough about Spanish language media in places such as Venezuela or the Dominican Republic, but given how popular the sport is there I'd be surprised if there wasn't coverage.
Similarly in association football, every match Ipswich Town plays will be covered by the BBC and the East Anglian Daily Times (a regional newspaper) as well as more local coverage and, probably, dedicated football coverage elsewhere. And they're in the third tier of English football. The coverage would very clearly meet GNG, and will do every single season - and I would be very, very surprised if such coverage didn't exist for at least the top four tiers of English football, possibly the top six. I'd be surprised if other leagues in other countries didn't have similarly decent coverage - for example, both mens and women Swedish leagues. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that we're starting to get into deeper topics which I think would get huge. In short, Wikipedia uses coverage as a gauge in two ways, one of the being that the sources choosing to cover is an indication. But this is an area where coverage is itself is primarily a form of entertainment and thus less indicative. But back to the narrower topic which is my request to resolve the apparent conflict in the SNG. My proposal (above) was basically to combine the two provisions (which was probably the original intent anyway) in essence that both conditions must be met if one wants to use this particular "way in". North8000 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Way too many leagues and way too large listing for this to be useful. If the choice is between having the current NSEASONS (which at least says that substantial prose should be present) and a large listing like this (which also buries the mention about substantial prose at the bottom of it, where it's even more likely to be ignored - as if SNG requirements for SIGCOV were not already ignored too much), I'm voting for the current NSEASONS. If the idea is to highlight the requirement for significant coverage; this should be done without having to make an attempted exhaustive but incomplete listing of which leagues may or may not be the source of SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree on your opinion on the proposal. My reason is that proposal doesn't address the main narrow issue which is an apparent self-conflict in the SNG. But, to disagree with you, the current SNG doesn't require significant coverage. Of the two conflicting requirements, one requires that (to use the SNG bypass of GNG) it just needs to be a top level professional team and the other requires that it be majority prose. My proposal is that in order to use the bypass, it needs to meet both conditions. Te recap and tweak that, it would be to replace the current wording with:
If an individual season article is for a top level professional team and it consists substantially of well-sourced prose, it is highly likely that it meets Wikipedia notability requirements.
And replace the first phrase of the next paragraph with: "For teams that are not top level professional teams (such as college teams)"...
North8000 (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, my proposal is a half-way measure. I'll boldly try it to see if it puts this to bed and resolves the self-conflict. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove prose requirement, at a minimum. Per the guideline WP:NEXIST, we don't even delete over current level of sourcing, so it makes no sense to do so with prose. Per the policy WP:ATD:

    If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases.

    Notability is independent of WP:GACR compliance.—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think there is any such "requirement" to be removed. There is a strong recommendation, and IMHO, we do want to strongly encourage the presence of prose one way or another. WP:NOTSTATS is policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    You are confounding a topic's notability with its current content. A page patroller can incubate a page, or any other WP:ATD, if it doesnt demonstrate that it is notable, but do not mislead them that notability is related to the existence of stats tables or not.—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think the notability guideline should solely mention notability and ignore everything else - particularly in a topic like sports where stats and statistical trivia are so easy to find and generate. Providing helpful indications as to what kind of content is suitable or not for an article seems perfectly in line with this and other guidelines (for example, WP:NASTRO - another topic where anybody with even a little spare time could start going through databases - provides a guide on where to find sources and what to do with article subjects for which no suitable content exists). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    Although I appreciate the desire to throw in some guidance on what's expected in an article of type X, I'm not fond of having this guidance centralized on a single page, and I don't think it should be conflated with guidance on Wikipedia's standards for having an article. There can of course be topics that do meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article, and yet editorial judgement can determine the content is better included on another page. I think topic-specific style advice pages are a better approach to help guide editors on these aspects of content and subject hierarchy. isaacl (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    We could have guidance on sources that don't establish notability e.g. WP:PRIMARY source stats databases, non-independent coverage from a player's team, league, etc. —Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    I support the type of guidance that Bagumba suggests. We can probably all agree that the following sources would not contribute to the notability of season articles: statistical databases (e.g., Sports Reference LLC databases, College Football Data Warehouse); press releases, yearbooks, game programs, media guides, and other materials published by the team itself or by the league in which the team is a member; and rosters, box scores, passing mentions, etc. Independence and depth of coverage are key for a source to contribute to notability under WP:GNG Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again the list of association football leagues is too narrow. GiantSnowman 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I assumed we'd established that the lists above were utterly useless. If we didn't then, well, they are. The cricket ones alone are an utter joke and make the assumption that no notable cricket whatsoever was played prior to 2003. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Square Thing: Instead of simply bashing my first cut as "utterly useless", you could propose an alternative list of cricket leagues where notability might be appropriately presumed. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, there's WP:OFFCRIC as a guide. I mean, I'd go with the GNG (which would, btw, be far wider than that and would allow for changes that happen in terms of notability over time). But that list's been there for a while and would probably be the starting point if anyone were to ask the wikiproject. Which would probably be a good general starting point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Trying to determine the "notability" of a sports season is a fool's errand. Articles about seasons are spin-offs of the articles about the teams (for team seasons) or leagues (for league seasons). A season is not a separate topic from the team/league that played it; it's a part of the larger topic. Season articles shouldn't need to be independently notable: they should be separate sub-articles whenever combining them in the parent article would make the parent article unwieldy or too long. If they are separated out, they should follow whatever organization makes sense: one sub-article per season, or maybe per decade or per era, whatever the length of content requires. It's even possible that some teams/leagues might only have sub-articles about one or a few significant seasons. It's not possible to determine a rule that applies across multiple sports, leagues, and teams. WP:SPINOFF should govern season articles, not WP:N. (And I'm a GNG purist.) Levivich 21:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    Mind blown. Interesting perspective. Seriously. Cbl62 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    I think to be more specific, season articles are spinouts from the history of the entity in question. I agree that how to organize this info should be subject to editorial judgement. As per the notability guideline, Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Separate articles for each league or team season might not the best way to cover the corresponding history. isaacl (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Swimming notability

I met someone at a party this weekend who seemed somewhat dismayed not to have a WP article once I started talking about my WP experience. I asked her was she an All-American (she said honorable mention), I asked was she an Olympian (no), I asked did she make the finals in her event at the US Olympic trial (no). She said her records stood for a long time and such. After some digging I determined that she was the winningest female swimmer in Big East Conference (1979–2013) history (as of 2005) with 5 individual championships and 14 relay championships, plus she was a member of 4 team championships. It does not seem that she was ever Big East female swimmer of the year. In her best year she was the 100 meter backstroke and 200 meter backstroke champion and was on four Big East Champion relay teams. When she was hitting 1:58 in the 200 Natalie Coughlin was doing 1:51s and she does not seem to have made the finals in any NCAA or U.S. Olympic trials event. Is she notable?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is whether she has received significant coverage in multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources. This has been the standard for athletes for a long time now. JoelleJay (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
She wouldn't have been notable in any recent version of NCOLLATH. If she never was a national champion, never won a national award, never won a NCAA national event or was never elected to a national hall of fame, then her notability would stand or fall on the GNG. The bar was always set fairly high on college athletes. Ravenswing 11:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
People are notoriously bad judges of their own notability. This is why we do not allow people to create articles on themselves. There is nothing to suggest this person meets any notability standards, but if you can find coverage that is adequate you can create an article, although I would suggest against doing so for a person you personally know, but there is no rule against such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I have started Kelly Hecking. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
      • sources from the university someone competed at are not independent. We need indepdent sources on all articles. None of the sources there qualify as such. A university publishing about the success of its own athletes is not a case of indepdent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
O.K. I'll try to dig deeper.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: I was able to find this (p2) through a brief Newspapers.com search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
There's also this, this, and this I was able to find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Please also note that multiple articles from the same paper only count as one independent source, and local sources are given very little weight for high school athletes. If the only material we can find is announcements that she is going to swim for Notre Dame, then she does not meet our notability guidelines.
I'm honestly a little concerned that an editor with almost 400,000 edits and autopatrolled status would need this guidance... JoelleJay (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC
WP:ATHLETE has notability guidelines by sport without giving guidance on swimmers. I have hardly done any WP:SWIMMING work and wanted some guidance on what things to point out. This is a very unusual biographical subject. She has a solid case for being a GOAT for her conference, but was never Swimmer of the Year for the conference, never an All-American and never even her own team captain. I was reminded just to go for WP:GNG, which was also helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
And now I see that not only did you go forward with creating a BLP on a subject you have a COI for, despite editors discouraging this and good indications that she is not notable, you've put it directly into mainspace! JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't interpret any commentary above as saying she is not notable period. It is that based on basic lack of accomplishment she is presumed not notable unless you can achieve WP:GNG. Swimmers basically are either Olympians, All-Americans (1st team, but not honorable mentions) or scrubs to be considered for deletion in general, unless they go on to be a major D1 head coach, in which case they may be able to vie for notability. I am still working toward WP:GNG and have a lot of experienc3e achieving GNG. Feel free to nom at AFD if you think that is appropriate. I will contest a PROD so don't waste your time. As User:Smartyllama has stated, this is not COI. I was invited to a party by a friend of Ms. Hecking. She was there. I was there. We were introduced. I have not accepted any compensation for my efforts and since she is a Golden Domer and I am a Wolverine alum/fan, if anything my interest would be contest her notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
But why start an article in mainspace, where she could and will likely see it, before actually determining that she meets GNG? All this is doing is setting her up for an uncomfortable AfD -- which I do think will be warranted since the sources so far are almost exclusively local reports on her committing to Notre Dame (the majority of local reporting is excluded per YOUNGATH, and even if it were acceptable it's all focused on one achievement, so fails BLP1E). Plenty of athletes have their high school stats mentioned in RS, but the community has repeatedly concluded that going into any detail on such information is not encyclopedic, and if that's the only material that can be independently sourced then a biography is not appropriate.
Additionally, I think explicitly discussing with her whether she merits an article does enter COI territory, especially since you have an existing mutual personal connection. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I am being transparent, but in my experience communication with subjects has not impaired my relationship with the furtherance of unbiased knowledge. This is the case here. I have created all kinds of marginally notable articles about athletes. Usually, they are towards the beginning of their career, but not always. Regardless, I am here to be pointed in the direction of the pursuit of notability for this subject. I am working on it and hopefully, heading in the right direction. As for our mutual personal connection she is a classy people person who collects friends of the ilk of Ms. Hecking and Mr. Roberts. I have nothing but the highest regards for her.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I hardly think meeting someone once at a party qualifies as a COI. My friend's girlfriend once sat next to Bryce Harper at a bar in DC and briefly struck up a conversation with him. This was two minutes some years ago and she hasn't seem him since except on the baseball field, yet alone spoken with him. Does that forever give her a COI if she edits Wikipedia (which AFAIK she doesn't)? Smartyllama (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
P.S. there was a 2nd Golden Domer who I met at the party who I may also create a page for. OLB Ryan Roberts who is a bit miffed to look at Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football_statistical_leaders#Sacks and see his name in black.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Every other blue link in there except one(*) is someone who had an NFL career. That should be a pretty good indication that they are NOT notable for their Notre Dame stats but rather for their coverage as pro football players. Did Ryan Roberts ever play for the NFL?
(*)The one exception is IMO far TOOSOON but nevertheless the subject does have some coverage across multiple years of his COLLEGE career. JoelleJay (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I will take a look at Mr. Roberts in a few weeks after I get through with Hecking.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: On Roberts, I was able to find coverage here (probably SIGCOV) here (maybe SIGCOV?), here (maybe?), here (definitely SIGCOV), here (probably SIGCOV) and here (p2) (SIGCOV). So I'd say he passes GNG, although it is a bit weak. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Thx. I'll have a look when I get finished with Hecking.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I can't see source #1, but #2 is local coverage (Courier-Post) on his HS career (excluded by YOUNGATH), #3 is another Courier-Post article on his HS career (fails independent and YOUNGATH), #4 is good college coverage from Al Lesar of the South Bend Tribune except for being exceedingly local, #5 is mostly quoting him and is from the Courier-Post again (fails independent), and #6 is another article by Al Lesar from SBT (fails independent). Certainly more promising than Hecking, but still doesn't meet GNG, and I would argue just isn't particularly encyclopedic per this precedent. JoelleJay (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • O.K. guys. I created a page for Emma Reaney who has 1 national championship and minor Team USA experience. Would she be about the minimum accomplishment to be deemed notable based solely on swimming accomplishment regardless of the press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not exactly sure, but I can guarantee you that she passes GNG. For coverage on Reaney, see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (p2) [10] and many other results on proquest. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
      1 is college coverage in a local paper (Lawrence Daily Journal World), which holds much less weight than something nonlocal but is still ok; 2 is another article from LDJW by "anonymous" (not an independent source anyway); 3 is another LDJW article (not independent); 4 is literally a press release; 5, from the Indianapolis Star, is probably fine, but still of the "local interest" type so less weight; 6 ditto for the South Bend Tribune article; 7 is definitely local and somewhat routine non-SIGCOV reporting from the Kansas City Star; 8 is another SBT article with pretty good coverage; 9 is more non-SIGCOV from SBT. Overall I think she likely meets GNG, but the encyclopedic value of a standalone article is definitely blunted by the lack of non-local commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    Would she be about the minimum accomplishment to be deemed notable based solely on swimming accomplishment regardless of the press. Where are you getting the idea that this is a notability criterion?? There is NO automatic notability from any athletic achievement "regardless of the press"; per NSPORT a subject must meet GNG and this must be demonstrated in the article with at least one independent secondary RS containing SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been trying to get feedback related to this topic in a couple of places (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Medals_sections_of_infoboxes, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Swimming#Medals_in_the_infobox) to no avail. Since the topic of this post was notability and one of the quickest ways for a reader to determine notability of a subject is to scan the infobox, maybe I can get some feedback here. The issue is medals in the infobox. I am trying to understand what is Kosher. I have seen and used age-limited events such as Youth Olympic Games, Universiade, FIBA Under-17 Basketball World Cup and regional championships such as FIBA Under-16 Americas Championship, NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships. After seeing Olivia Smoliga's infobox with NCAA championships, I added that content to Emma Reaney's and Randall Cunningham II's infoboxes. I am wondering about the pre-collegiate National YMCA (LC & SC) aquatics events (see here). These are for YMCA competitors who are between the age of 12 and 21 who have not represented any post high school institutions. Hecking has 3 career 1sts (LC), 4 2nds (SC) and 2 3rds (SC). Is it Kosher to include this in a medals element of an infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)}}

  • @Ravenswing: please address the YMCA Nationals as related to your comments regarding your national level accomplishment comments above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Further thoughts are as follows. Since this is not an open national championship (age limited, pre-collegiate limited and YMCA history limited since you have to have swam in 4 prior YMCA events including a (presumably regional) championship), how much does it count. Can I stub out some related competitors who were YMCA Nationals champions. I am thinking about Lisa Dolansky (who otherwise is limited in relevance to Big Ten Swimmer of the Week and Purdue Athlete of the Month significance), Tashy Bohm (High School American record holder, 3-time Big Ten Champion, 3peat 200 y backstroke, and 2-time NCAA All-American honorable mention and Heckings contemporary), and Jennifer Crisman (I think 4-time Big Ten Champion, including 4peat 100 y backstroke, 7-time All-American, Multitime YMCA Nationals record holder, USA National Swim and Water Polo teams and Hecking contemporary).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    I would say not. We are (happily) getting more conservative when it comes to presumptive notability, and I'm thinking less by way of "stubbing out" such competitors as not according them articles in the first place unless they independently satisfy the GNG. Ravenswing 19:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
    • User:Ravenswing, I have about 4 issues here so I am not sure what "I would say not" means: 1. Is YMCA nationals a form of national level competition like you were referring to above, 2. Should YMCA nationals be presented as a medals element of the infobox, 3. Should I stub out some of the other YMCA nationals champions, 4. Is it appropriate to use medals elements in an infobox to present NCAA championship content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
      • This seems to have nothing to do with notability: please discuss what should go in an infobox in a more appropriate place. Spike 'em (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
        • 3 of the 4 points are directly related to notability. Above User:Ravenswing mentions that national level accomplishments is in some way related to notability. To me YMCA national aquatics competition is on par with AAU Junior Olympics aquatic competition. I am trying to determine 1. if YMCA nationals is something that is relevant to that issue, 2. if the connection is strong enough that it should be in an infobox, 3. If the connection is strong enough to bring encyclopedic merit to other champions, 4. is maybe unrelated to this topic, but not very different from 2.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Any advice on the propriety of NCAA medals elements in infoboxes will impact many articles that I have primary editorial roles in, including Tora Harris, Thomas Wilcher, Donn Cabral, Matthew Busbee, Marie Roethlisberger and maybe Augie Wolf.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_51&oldid=1100875473"