Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

WP:BASE/N change suggestion

I believe any player who wins an MVP award in any American professional baseball league (except for in the independent leagues, perhaps), either major or minor, should be declared "inherently notable" and a stipulation to that nature should be added to WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to argue about that for the major leagues. I don't know about the minor leagues. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'd agree to that. The top baseball minor leagues have been around for a century, have had teams - and still has teams - in major cities and metropolitan areas, and assuredly meet the GNG. Ravenswing 18:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• I wholeheartedly disagree. Tell me, without looking it up, who won the 2011 MVP Award for the Pioneer Baseball League, or the New York - Penn League? Class-A leagues are plentiful, as are all the Class-D leagues prior to the reconfiguration. This opens up BASE/N to too many people. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I know Jake Lemmerman won the Pioneer League MVP in 2010, but no idea for 2011... In any event, I'd say anything below AA is a non starter here. AA & AAA MVPs I'd at least consider, but those guys probably would easy pass GNG anyway. Spanneraol (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Where, exactly, is the problem that the proposal seeks to address? In other words, at what level of the minors have there been disputes about whether an MVP is or isn't notable? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've always figured that SNGs should not determine "inherent notability", but rather represent what is assumed to be notable. In short, what passes Wikipedia's core policies? If there is enough evidence that winners of the Pioneer League's MVPs receive enough non-trivial coverage in reliable sources such that a biographical article can be written, then sure. But if you can't show that winners of these awards pass WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BIO, etc., then no, the criteria should not change. Resolute 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be demonstrated that the winners for a given league award have nearly always received notable coverage before all winners can be presumed notable. I made this comment regarding league award winners in a different sport, but it can be applied here, too. isaacl (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be made very clear, in case anyone misunderstands, that this guideline indicates "presumed notability", but never overrides GNG to confer "inherent notability". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is enough to presume notability upon, but it could be cited as an example of something that supports notability. As a primary reason for presuming notability? No, not at all. And as clarification for the above, the minor leagues are not considered to be "fully professional" anyway, so those leagues, the National and American Leagues, already have articles for those players. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I would need evidence that winning any of these awards is worthy of a presumption of meeting GNG. WP:NSPORTS says "This guideline provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." Also, there is enough dispute over existing sports guidelines that tag on the ambiguous "or similar" leagues catch-all, so I would not support a more careless description like "all leagues". Prove that a player winning a league's award should be presumed to meet GNG, and then explicitly itemize such leagues (if any). When in doubt, don't add to specific notability guidelines, editors can always demonstrate GNG. Many editors don't realize that NSPORTS is just guidance, and it explicitly says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline"—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is no need for a change for major league players, because they will pass long before becoming MVP, and we should not make any change here for minor league players. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason I suggested it is I often see people claiming "Was an All-Star x amount of times" as reasons for notability on AfDs, however that is a very tenuous argument that doesn't fit with any of the guidelines set forth in WP:BASE/N. I posit that league MVPs were also very like All-Stars, so by adding their notability to the list of "inherently notable" traits, it would eliminate the ambiguity of the "was a minor league All-Star" argument for at least a chunk of the minor leaguers. Alex (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a different approach. Unless we find a player characteristic for which multiple AfD are continuously voted "keep" based on meeting GNG, e.g. players who have played one game in MLB, there is no need to legislate yet another rule here in NSPORTS. Otherwise,we will spend more time discussing it here to get a change than any actually time that will be saved in AfDs.—Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Some fairly turgid thinking above. For openers, what kind of question is "Who won the 2011 MVP Award for the Pioneer Baseball League?" Back atcha, Muboshgu - without looking it up, who is the chief executive of Ulanbaatar? Of Canberra? Of Abuja? Who won the Van Cliburn competition the last time out? Can you name the winner of any Van Cliburn competition? The userboxes on your user page indicate that you're interested in politics and music, but it's unlikely you know these people, however much they're chief execs of national capitals or winners of the world's most noteworthy piano competition. That's why we don't base notability criteria on whether we've heard of subjects or not.

  For a second, the "fully professional" bit has been eliminated from WP:ATHLETE ... and given that WP:ATHLETE has always enshrined amateur athletes, it wasn't a useful distinction beforehand either. That being said, the notion that baseball's minor leagues are not "fully professional" is a crock, because they are each and every one of them exactly that - the players are paid for their services, and in many cases handsomely so.

  For a third, what does AfD have to do with this? AfD should, and usually does, follow the existing guidelines, and it isn't the proper venue to argue that they should be overturned.

  Finally, there is certainly a purpose to discussing this here - plainly there are those who feel that MVPs would, as a rule, pass the GNG and so ought to be considered presumptively notable. Ravenswing 01:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposal. Although I am less concerned about the presumptive notability of Rookie League MVPs than about players in top minor leagues before those leagues became development leagues (and represented the teams of such current Major League cities as LA, SF, Baltimore, Toronto, etc.). Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Triathlon standards

I'm a little fuzzy on the standards for triathlon. 1.Have competed in Triathlon at the Summer Olympics or have had a podium finish at the Pan American Games or Commonwealth Games. Since the generally accepted standards for sports in general states "1.have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics.", isn't this sort of redundant? Standards #2-4 say a podium finish at specified events. Is that an overall podium finish or age group? If it is overall, these are some pretty steep standards, especially compared to some of the other sports. If it is age group, that presents it's own issues. Can anyone clarify the intention? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe its overall podium. Reasoning being that triathlon winners compared to some of the other sports get very little coverage in the way of reliable sources. Remember these are just guidelines as to when they are likely to meet GNG. If you have sources that the person meets GNG already then what this page says is moot. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• If it is overall podium, then I'd argue that the standard is far too stringent. Look at the ones for Ironman events. It's only the world championship events. Every Ironman event has pro's competing in it. Since the pro should already pass notability, an amateur who gets an overall podium finish at any IM event has done something pretty notable (and it happened yesterday). Regardless, limiting the criteria To only the championships is overly restrictive. A guy could beat a bunch of pro's at a IM event and not be able to use that as an indicator of notability, but playing half an inning of pro baseball or one down of pro football would work. BTW, winning age groups at many IM events can lead to being a pro, but placing overall at an event won't get past this criteria. Does that sound right? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing on this page is an indicator of notability. This page only indicates when there is likely to be press coverage to pass GNG. GNG is what determines notability, so if that guy beats a bunch of pro's at an IM event and then has news articles about him, he is notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• you are missing the point. Forget GNG for a minute. Compared to the standards of other sports, the standard for triathlon is significantly more stringent and I see no good reason for it to be that steep. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• The whole point of this guideline is that different sports require different levels to reach notability. The old ATHLETE was a one size fits all solution. When this one was developed it was created so that some sports had higher levels on purpose. Those higher levels reflect how much news coverage those sports get, the less news coverage the higher the requirement. This isn't a failing of guideline but the main purpose of it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• And I'm saying the guideline for triathlon is very steep compared to other sports. What is it that you dispute about that? I've heard about GNG, which is not what I'm talking about. I've heard about the old WP:ATHLETE, which isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the specific standards for a specific sport in this guideline. Why do you think making it tougher than other sports is justified? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• The "toughness" is relative to the amount of coverage the sport gets in the news. A triathlete that doesn't meet these is not 99% likely to meet the GNG which is what the guidelines for each sport have attempted to be set at. These are meant to be as close to a guarantee as we can get that the subject will meet the GNG. In the triathlon anything below this level doesn't meet that level of sureness that it meets the GNG thus we defer to the GNG. Other sports athletes get written about much lower level so they aren't as tough so to speak. -DJSasso (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't even make sense. Less coverage means fewer opportunities to achieve notability. That should have no bearing on how difficult it is to pass notability standards. A football player need only play a single down in one of 6 different leagues and he is considered to pass this criteria. That is hundreds of opportunities each season. A triathlete winning the Ironman Texas would not pass notability, only those who make the podium in the world championships. That is only 6 chances for men and 6 for women. The fact that football gets more media coverage shouldn't make it easier. If anything, the standard should be harder since they should be passing GNG easier because football gets so much more coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly less coverage means fewer opportunities to achieve notability. This guideline doesn't confer notability it just tells you when there is likely enough coverage that a person will pass the GNG. The more coverage the easier it is to pass the GNG. So football players will pass the GNG sooner than a triathlete will. This guideline does not judge notability. I think that seems to be the issue you are having. This guideline only judges how much coverage someone is likely to have which in turn indicates how likely they are to meet the GNG. It is basically giving you the odds so to speak. In otherwords it is telling you that if they don't meet those criteria you are going to have to work harder to find sources for them to meet the GNG because we can't presume they are notable. 6 chances for men and 6 for women where we can almost guarantee there are sources out there, not that there are only those 12 that can have articles. -DJSasso (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• You're ignoring the practical, real-world use of guidelines like these. They are used over and over at AfD as "passes such and such" or "fails such and such". If you want to continue ignoring the reality or how these guidelines get used, that's fine for you, but it doesn't address my concern. Your comment about how I have to work harder is just insulting. I've never said anything like that, it's just an incorrect assumption on your part. Before I ask you any other specific questions, I have to ask if you know much about the sport? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't mean you specifically I meant you in the general sense when I said looking for sources. And yes I realize how people often try to use them. Its for those very reasons that sports with little coverage have such high requirements. Because if they had lower ones people would use these guidelines as a way to keep the articles even if there was no coverage of the athlete anywhere and likely would never be. As for specifics I know some but enough to be able to alter these guidelines with confidence I don't. That should be taken to the wikiproject that deals with these articles or better yet invite them to come here and comment. They are the ones who likely worked on creating them. That is how most of the sports ones came about. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's not a "try" to use them. They are successfully used every day. Simply put, the competition level is high enough that a podium finish at any Ironman event should suffice, particularly when some sports require simply participating. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That is because in some sports simply participating gets you in depth articles. In any given Ironman can you say that is the case? I am guessing not likely but I don't know the sport to say so for sure. As I said a discussion amongst people who know the sport should probably be had. As for try vs. successful, if the article has sources on it that meet the GNG usually the arguments at Afd that so and so doesn't meet it are not successful because any admin who is worth his salt closing knows the GNG trumps. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement to exclude Esports from this guideline

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Add text to guideline saying: "At this time there is no consensus that Esports participants are covered by the criteria of this guideline." Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

---

At this point it is clear there is:

1.A clear and established lack of consensus to consider "Esports" a sport. Thus there is no consensus it should be covered in this guideline.

2.It is clear that due to lack of notability of the majority of "Esports" players there will be no consensus that "Esports" players should be given special consideration afforded by a section in this SNG.

As result I make the proposal that the following be added to this guideline

"At this time there is no consensus that Esports participants are covered by the criteria of this guideline"

It is clear that while these individuals may have notability in the future and some of them may be notable now, there is no consensus at this time to allow this guideline to cover their inclusion in the project. Ridernyc (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the comments on Professional eSports section above before commenting on this. Redefining history (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Note Here Ridernyc just stopped me from posting related arguments above to here and considered it disruptive. If that isn't allowed, all I have to say is, all the comments Here should be seriously considered before deciding this. Redefining history (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Are you freaking serious? You wanted to cut and paste all that crap inot this section? Of course those should be removed. Your cut and paste antics made earlier discussions more difficult than needed. Just stop with the repeating already. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note I just had to undo a massive disruptive edit by Redefining history where he tried to copy a massive block of text from above [1] If you continue reediting comments, coping comments or re-factoring other peoples comment I will take you to AN/I. Ridernyc (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

he is also continuing to not follow proper etiquette and posting comments out of order. Hopefully we can keep the confusion to a minimum. Ridernyc (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Playing video games /= "sport," no matter how much their partisans hunger to be considered Real Athletes. Ravenswing 02:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• (Truth be told, the only change I'd make would be to use "so-called "E-sports"" in the text. I'd wager that "video games" remains by leaps and bounds the most widely used term for the things. Ravenswing 04:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support: The proposed guidelines read like a notabilty requirement for each sport here, didn't provide much main stream news coverage to highlight WP:GNG. It feels like a best fit would be in the video game category, or in the web content category, as those areas are better equipped to dealing with topic specific references to establish notability. (I might not know Cricket, but knowing other sources and how sport sources are evaluated, I know enough to say this type of source would qualify and that one would not. Can't do that for video games.) --LauraHale (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support: From the Wikipedia article Sport: "Sport is all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical fitness and provide entertainment to participants. Sport may be competitive, where a winner or winners can be identified by objective means, and may require a degree of skill, especially at higher levels. Hundreds of sports exist, including those for a single participant, through to those with hundreds of simultaneous participants, either in teams or competing as individuals. Some non-physical activities, such as board games and card games are sometimes referred to as sports, but a sport is generally recognised as being based in physical athleticism." All subsections of NSPORT currently fall under the "physical activity" realm of "sport" (and if you want to say motorsports aren't a physical activity, you've clearly never participated in them). Additionally (as has been heavily discussed elsewhere on this talk page) NSPORT is most useful in cases where it may be difficult to satisfy GNG at the time of article creation (as sources may not be readily available, especially in the case of older subjects). "E-sports" are modern enough that any sufficiently notable individuals or events should have no issue readily meeting the GNG. Notability issues pertaining to "e-sports" should be handled at WikiProject Video Games, not here.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly support: Playing video games is not a sport, despite trying to twist the definition of sport. Gamers may or may not become notable, but that guideline should be under video games, not sports. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support though not because it isn't a competive sport like most others, but just because of sheer lack of reliable coverage at this time. Maybe can be revisited in a few years, seeing how that wind blows. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why is such a statement even necessary? It's fairly obvious that video games do not fall within the confines of a sports article and thus I don't see the need for including a statement to that fact on this page. It just seems silly and serves no practical purpose. Spanneraol (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  since it has been used in a number of AFD's for gamers it is not fairly obvious to everyone. Ridernyc (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  example [2] Ridernyc (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  But the wp:athlete part is being ripped apart with no real merit. Antonov is probably notable as a world monopoly champion might be... but not as an athlete. And just because a few squeaky wheels say something is no reason to put a note in an article denying it. If twenty wikipedians say the sun is blue we aren't going to put a line in an article about the sun that says "consensus says the sun is not blue." I agree with Spanneraol, and putting in a silly line as asked for here actually gives esports more merit. Consensus shows it is not credible as a sport and is not notable as a sport. When this poll is over and done with so should the debate be. If someone then tries to add something to the guideline, delete it and refer them to this rfc. No need for anything more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  This recent flurry is by no means the first attempt to claim that video gamers are "athletes" and should be covered by WP:ATHLETE. It won't be the last. It shouldn't also be a surprise to anyone here that a guideline which doesn't specifically preclude something is cited by many as Not Forbidding It, and therefore it's okay. We demonstrably do need such a phrasing, and it needs to be far more visible than an archived discussion. Ravenswing 13:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the wording. As per Spanneraol and my own comments above. We don't need anything at all added about esports to the sports notability guidelines. Consensus says it's not a sport so that should be enough and we can refer editors here if needed. Maybe it should be in some subcategory or wikiproject of video games, but not here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Redefining history is haunting #wikipedia-en-help ^connect, asking people if his sources are verifiable and help with notability. He also wants video gamers to be like sports, and that is why they need to be included. (Implication: Help him so he can win this battle.) He's been aggressive with this, and as some one who occasionally helps new users, I'm finding him incredibly disruptive as he's been told these things on this thread and in the room. This behaviour is beginning to feel like canvassing. --LauraHale (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think it long ago passed beginning to feel and is full out canvassing and forum shopping at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• I have tried several times to firmly give him advice. In almost every case he ignores the advice asks about sources, and usually make all sorts of accusations about me. He also went back to Realible Sources board last night and made a series of strange inappropriate edits there. I think at this point a topic ban might be on the horizon. Ridernyc (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support if it keeps people from trying to argue that people who play esports fit under this guideline. Clearly there is no consensus that they do so it needs to be spelled out that they don't. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support while noting that the wording can be revised. Putting a lid on this silliness is what matters most now. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support, though no change in wording is necessary. Video game players are not athletes, and Starcraft is not a sport. People who gain notability through their skill at a video game fall under the general notability guidelines. Resolute 13:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We include golf, curling, figure skating, motor sports (!), and roller derby. With as wide a swath of competitive entertainment as this, it would be difficult to come up with a definition of "sport" that included every sport on this page and did not include competitive gaming. It has been suggested that e-sports don't qualify since they lack the physical aspect of other sports: we imagine nerds in computer chairs doing nothing but pounding keys and moving their mice around frantically, and think this hardly lives up to the arch-athlete archetype of the likes of Lance Armstrong. But this begs the question why we include motorsports, where the "athletes" have little more physical activity than sitting in a chair and turning a wheel.

As it happens, professional gamers share critical characteristics that make them a good fit with this policy from the standpoint of encyclopedic categorization; they are entertainers who entertain through engaging in competition in a public venue. This policy is better suited than any other to explain how and when they can be notable. As an aside, competitive gaming is a very important category of public entertainment and the lack of clear guidelines has led to a "wild west" scenario in the actual article space. causa sui (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not what this RFC is about we have already established there is no consensus to cover it in this guideline. This is simply to add a statement of no consensus to the guideline. Ridernyc (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to be snarky, but see WP:TALKEDABOUTIT. Consensus is allowed to change, and that prior discussions have occurred does not preclude me from sharing my opinions on them after the fact. causa sui (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case it is very there will be no consensus. Consensus will not change because there is none. There is a clear divide one 2 major points. If you feel you want to make your voice heard and try to establish a consensus take part in the massive conversation further up on the page. Ridernyc (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Clearly you aren't aware of the amount of physical strength and activity it takes to actually turn that wheel. While I agree that motor sports is at the very edge of acceptability. eSports don't even come close to motor sports so if motor sports is a stretch then eSports is light years away from being a sport. And it is quite a stretch claiming that competitive gaming is an important category of public entertainment when almost no one covers it. If it was important people would cover it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To the strength point, I could easily compare the strength required to turn a wheel to the extremes of reflexes and precision in small motor control exhibited by esports competitors. When we watch motorsports, we aren't entertained by the strength required to turn the wheel or think that we enjoy watching a race because we imagined the drivers straining in their chairs; rather, it's the excitement of public competition that makes it a sport. On importance, it is extremely important outside of the United States; in Europe it is quite significant, and in South Korea it is a national institution. English Wikipedia historically does not restrict itself to the "sum total of human knowledge (in the English speaking world)". WP:WORLDVIEW has some guidance informing my beliefs about this. causa sui (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If that were true the people supporting these e-athletes wouldn't have so much trouble finding sources which they currently have an extreme challenge doing. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This, to me, points to the fact that NSPORTS should be covering any organized competition that is covered in reliable sources, which would include things like poker, chess, esports, etc. I actually do think that's a better long-term result since there would no longer be arguments whether something actually is a sport - as long as there is some body that organizes the competition, it is what would fall under NSPORT. That said, to actually have a specialized call out section on NSPORTS, there would be required to have broad body of coverage of that "sport". In other words, I probably can argue that there's room for some poker players that win some of the major competitions given that poker is covered by ESPN and SI at times among other sources. But for eSports, nope. There is just not any type of broad coverage that even these more "thinking man's" sports get. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The physical aspect of motorsports goes far beyond "turning a wheel" (which also requires extreme reflexes and precision to maneuver a vehicle traveling at accelerated speeds). There's the endurance required simply to finish a race and the speed and efficiency of the pit crews. Not to mention (as with the majority of other physical sports) the risk to life and limb. If folks start getting hospitalized playing DotA (other than for carpal tunnel and diabetes from all-night energy drink benders), maybe I'll revisit this. Also consider that cheerleading (an extremely physical undertaking) has had and still has trouble gaining recognition and acceptance as a "sport." I find it highly unlikely that video gaming will achieve that distinction first. And before anyone jumps on the old "why do you hate nerds so much" train, I don't. I'm a nerd. I love video games. I just don't believe they fit under the definition of "sports" that is applied here.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're both very wrong about this. The derth of sources is not a result of their non-existence, but the fact that they are so rarely written in English. causa sui (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No one said they had to be English sources. No one has provided non-english sources either in any of the cases I have seen lately. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Djsasso's got it - there's no requirement that sources be in English. But they do have to be reliable. As I best understand the eSports case, I could probably find a lot of websites in Taiwanese or Chinese for these but most of them aren't reliable, being fan, team, or league blog-type sites. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how we'll compare credentials, but if you think Taiwanese and Chinese sources would be the best place to look, you might want to do some critical re-examination of your familiarity. ;) As it happens (I doubt you'll be surprised to learn this), I am one of several hundred thousands of non-Korean fans of Korean esports, where competitive games are marketed as a sport, players and teams are sponsored by enormous corporations including Samsung and Shinhan Bank, where the very best players receive lucrative endorsement contracts, games are nationally televised live and daily on dedicated gaming channels, etc. South Korea is a Valhalla of competitive video games and, if I read Hangul, I could provide you with an avalanche of reliable sources. Unfortunately, I don't, so all I could point you to would be forum posts on TeamLiquid.net where other fans who do read Hangul often post translations of newsprint articles about professional games (which appear in the sports page next to - or often ahead of - physical sports). It's a tricky situation from a policy standpoint since WP:BIAS suggests we should be covering this and taking it seriously, but (again because of WP:BIAS) we fail to execute on it, because most of our editors don't read Hangul. All the same, a quick Google search (I spent about 10 minutes on this) has turned up some indications that there is coverage for eSports events: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

I think the upshot of all this is that while we may think that very few competitive video game players are notable, some definitely are (Lim Yo-Hwan, Lee Yun-Yeol for example) and it would be helpful to have some guidance in policy governing where the bar is and how they should be handled. causa sui (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• (←) I couldn't help but notice a prior section where we are discussing "4000" people in attendance as a threshold for notability of a roller derby competition. Having watched the live broadcasts of multiple Shinhan Bank-sponsored team and individual leagues that literally filled stadiums with tens of thousands in attendance for live national broadcasts, it's amusing to have to defend the notability of e-sports. causa sui (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Reply: The 4,000 number for roller derby was not an issue regarding whether or not roller derby is a sport, but rather an issue of attendance as it pertains specifically to derby for bouts and whether there is an expectation of the league in question qualifying under WP:GNG. Leagues with bout attendance under a number like that seem unlikely to get media coverage and are unlikely to pass WP:GNG. Is there a similar situation where you think total number of in person spectators can lead to a reasonable assumption regarding coverage to meet WP:GNG? --LauraHale (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's probably a good idea to put new comments underneath older ones rather than above them so they don't get missed. (I almost missed your question.) That being said, my reply is pretty much the same as the one below to Ravenswing. A complete reading of the thread will make clear that both questions (are esports and their competitors notable, and are esports a "sport") are being discussed here, and that I've replied to both questions at different points. causa sui (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Reply: Did I miss the part where a certain number of people filling a stadium qualifies an event as "athletic?" If so, then there are many leading politicians and evangelists who would qualify as "athletes," having filled some very large stadia. In any event, you're setting up a straw man here. The notability of so-called "e-sports" is not the issue here. It is whether video game players should be treated as professional athletes for purposes of notability. Should the partisans of such players put together notability criteria of their own, and get the consensus vox populi at WP:N, WP:BIO and or WP:GNG, that's another matter. Ravenswing 20:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, both issues are being discussed simultaneously in response to my original comments. I know they're long posts but I hesitate to rehash what has already been said when I basically argued that esports count as a sport if motorsports do. Maybe you can respond to those points up there? causa sui (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per causa sui's arguments above. There is a bit of cultural bias here. In chinese/korean markets, esports is a big-money, high-exposure activity. The coverage is in-depth and regular. Here are some articles from The Dong-a Ilbo, a major Korean daily. (these appear in both the "Sports" section, and in regular current-affairs sections.) Won Hee-Ryong, a Member of the South Korean National Assembly (Conservative party), said "I believe that esports should be a part of KSC (Korean Sports Council)." Coverage of a Starcraft final. An interesting discussion. Jang Hwan-Su, sports editor of Donga Ilbo, said that Sports section was supposed to be a physical athlete section 10 years ago. (loose translation) In the column, he claims that Starcraft has been "loved and played for almost 20 years. It is assumed a kind of sport like billiards. Therefore, there is no reason that we couldn't call Starcraft sports. It is a sport." I think we avoid trying to come to conclusive definition of sport here, and look to what is happening in the real world. The Interior (Talk) 20:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment All the above is demonstrating is that there is no consensus for the guideline to cover Esports, which is all this RFC is trying to establish. Continuing to try to argue about consensus is in fact just making the statements made in the RFC even stronger. I still fail to see how any of this counters the statement "at this time there is no concensus theat E-sports is covered by this guideline". Ridernyc (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the point of this RfC. It is trying to find consensus that there is no consensus? The Interior (Talk) 20:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of this RFC is to stop people assuming there is consensus that this covers Esports. We should not have to rehash this argument in every AFD, there is plain and simple no consensus for this guideline to cover Esports. If we can't even agree that we don't agree it is a very sad day for the project. Ridernyc (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If that is your view, then you should !vote to support the new wording, by all means. causa sui (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to consider that there's two levels that this guideline can cover a "sport": The first is whether the sport should even fall under NSPORT; the second is whether we need specialized criteria for that sport within NSPORT. Most agree that eSports does not need the second within NSPORT, but are not outright dismissing that eSports may be coverable under NSPORT in the future through the first point. It's an organized competition, and thus should be within NSPORTS bounds. That doesn't mean we need to give it any specialized criteria. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a major point isn't whether or not this should be covered by NSPORT, but why this can't be covered by Wikiproject Video Games, where they are better equipped to deal with this? Was there any form of consensus regarding why that wikiproject has not created guidelines and why sports should be creating these guidelines instead? --LauraHale (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:VG has no notability guidelines outside of the GNG. This is not to say that a eSports player wouldn't be under the VG project should they be deemed notable, just that we don't have specialized guidelines for their inclusion. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the project go about creating their own set of guidelines? The project may also find it useful to help with the issue of whether specific games are notable, and include developers. WP:VG folks making the argument of "We don't have one/can't be bothered to create one for content that relates to us and where we have the subject mastery to determine whether video game specific industry sources meet the guidelines for WP:NOTE" appears to be a poor one for why it should be included here. In my opinion, this is a video game problem, not a sport one. That WP:VG has dropped the ball is not reason enough to include their topics on sport. --LauraHale (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

100% agree with LauraHale above. This is a waste of time here. They got tired of discussing this at WP:VG so it got dumped here. That is where it belongs and where the discussion should live or die, not here in sports. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not that we pushed it here. Sure, eSport players would fall within the VG project at the primary level. What's our project's notability guideline? The GNG. We don't have specialized guidelines for anything including players. We didn't drop the ball, nor was it us that pushed this argument here (That was Redefining History's actions). That said, I think there's a much larger picture that NSPORT needs to consider (that of any organized competitive "sport" being within its pervue, even if such guidelines don't presently exist at the moment) but that is clearly confusing the issue. The short answer is the eSport players are under the VG project, and the VG project's default notability guideline is the GNG. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of projects have added to the gng because their expertise in deciding things far outweighs the general wikipeida populous. If your project, since you said we, is using gng and you need things more specific to fit the requirements of video games then yes... you have dropped the ball on creating a guideline. Don't you talk about notability at your project talk page? Heck, I'd be bold, create a page on a player, give some really good english sourcing, throw a couple video game categories on the page bottom, and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Post the page link under your project talk page to make sure everyone there thinks it's ok. If they don't then you're out of luck. But getting this discussed more here where it doesn't belong, where it's been crushed by consensus, where this poll is not even about it being here but about putting a line in sports notability guidelines to the effect that esports are not sports (to stop newbies and spammers)... that is wearing very thin. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely missing the point of what sub-notability guidelines are supposed to do, and why NSPORT is by the far the most complex SNG that we have. We expect that by calling a topic notable that, in time, that topic will meet the GNG if it doesn't already. The SNG criteria are designed not say "we should include articles on these topics just because" but because by meeting one of the given criteria, there is a very strong likelihood that in the future, sources will have been generated and located to meet the GNG.

At the VG project, we have considered if we needed any specialized notability guidelines and determined that no; this is partially because much of the history of video gaming is readily accessible on the net, so its not a matter of locating sources, and unreleased games, subject to the idea of vaporware, would still require meeting the GNG. When it comes to specific people involved in video games, there's no reason to defer away from the GNG and general advice of BIO. And thus, the same with those who play eSports. It is not a competition that is regularly covered in reliable sources, to the point where individual players are very likely to be notable. Ergo, there is no need to call out anything beyond what's already established across all of WP.

The problem that the NSPORT guidelines are written to, and what you're arguing, is that you're working that you need to include specific classes of athletes because they have meet a certain mark. While most of these will lead to being able to be source by GNG standards, that is not how they were selected. The process, though can meet the end result of the GNG, is backwards from how notability guidelines should be written. Effectively, no project is required to have notability guidelines, so saying that we're here because the VG project doesn't have one is ridiculous. Again, the reason that this convo is here is because one user did not grasp the idea of how not to canvass. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Masem, the ball appears to be dropped because you have not created notability guidelines. redefininghistory showed your project needed to create guidelines. You said your project's notability policy is WP:GNG. If that's the case, then this discussion should easily be able to reach consensus that WP:NSPORT does not cover professional video game players. I've mad a bold edit to WP:VG to create your notability guidelines. This shouldn't be handled in sport where we don't have the expertise to deal with it.--LauraHale (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And related point for Masem: Sports does not have the knowledge base to deal with the sourcing issues for professional video game players. The only way we could get the knowledge would be to make WP:VG a task force of sports. The larger point is missed when you insist on calling them eAthletes. eathlete has 18,000 google results. Professional video game player has 958,000 results on google. (For me.) This suggests the concept of least surprise would again favour WP:VG being the home for such a notability guideline. --LauraHale (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is this even an issue? Playing video games is not an athletic endeavor. Simple as that. Let the Video Game Project handle it... wasting this much page space on this issue is silly. Spanneraol (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an issue because there are hundreds of thousands of (at least at one point in their lives) skinny geeks out there who were shunned and teased by the jocks in school, and the notion of being classified as "athletes" after all is intoxicating. Ravenswing 03:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I hope that the two most recent "oppose" commenters will understand that this RfC is not a proposal to declare that e-sports are not notable. Rather, it would declare that this particular guideline is the wrong place to be looking for guidance about the notability of e-sports. That's all! Maybe there are plenty of subjects who are clearly notable based simply on WP:GNG, no problem. Maybe other projects should, or should not, develop another guideline, but that question should be discussed there, not here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather use the term "professional video game players" to refer to these individuals... when i hear esports I think they are playing Madden... not sure how "starcraft" is considered a sport.. e or otherwise.. next thing you know professional Pokemon players will want to be included. Spanneraol (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Arguably, NSPORT should cover any player of an organized notable competition; this removes the barrier that is being brought up between sports that are 100% physical like baseball and soccer, part physical + part mental like golf and car racing, and 100% mental like poker and esports.
  • What that doesn't mean, at this time, is that this guideline immediately needs to have specific sections calling out to poker players or esports players, because at the present time, we would not be able to identify criteria that players may have (winning specific tourneys, etc.) that would assuredly lead to sourcing to meet the GNG in the future. But by starting from the presumption that this guideline is where more specific criteria for players of any organized competition (more specific than the GNG) should be given, that would make future growth of unorthodox sports have some home. There may never be a need for any of these specialized criteria, ever. I certainly wouldn't argue that we need one at this immediate time for esports players, but I do caution against shutting the door out to the possibility of having one in the future. Again, by considering any organized competition, you remove the arguments trying to qualify whether sometihng is a sport or not based on how much physical nature there needs to be involved. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  I agree with Masem. Though I do think it would be useful to have guidelines for esports, poker, chess, etc in this guideline since (1) it is best suited to cover all competitive public entertainers and since (2) the current lack of direction in policy has led to a "wild west" scenario in the article space, the important overlap in the opposition to this RFC is that putting the proposed text in the policy will lead to a severe WP:TALKEDABOUTIT problem that would serve to bar future evolution of the guidelines. causa sui (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not going to open the can of worms about the mental aspects of physical team sports. How about a WP:NCOMPETITION for all those orphans that don't fit the bright line definition of "sports" (poker, video games, spelling bees)? Or do we all envision a day when game show contestants fall under NSPORT?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see why not, though I would say that with the right definition we aren't going to be including game show players or the like. Such competitions are generally organized on a series of regular games and events that lead to a season conclusion finale to determine an ultimate winner for that season. Game show contestants are one-off. There's other means to make a distinction without having to evoke sports being a physical-vs-dexterity-vs-mental aspect. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  So are we looking to redefine the notion of "sport," or are we operating using the most widely accepted definition in English (since we are en-wiki)?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, were this approach to be accepted, I would consider that this should be changed to "Notability (competitive events)", of course, leaving all Sports redirects in place. Again, the reason I say this is that it is easier to make distinctions between the organized competitive events and those like game shows, than it is to determine what qualifies as "sport" in today's day and age. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Something like "Notability (competitive entertainment)" might do the job. For me, the abstract goal is to have some kind of policy guidance backed by considered discussion and clear consensus as to what the notability requirements are for competitive entertainers who aren't typically thought of as "athletes", and therefore have fallen through our conceptual cracks. It's not important to me to convince everyone to say "e-Athletes" or "e-Sports" or whatever. Mainly, I think this policy has enough conceptual overlap in the areas that are important to building the encyclopedia, which is why I'm pushing for inclusion here, and it sounds like Masem is thinking along the same lines. Another policy might be workable if people can't get over the cognitive dissonance, but from the standpoint of encyclopedic categorization, this really seems like a good home. :-) causa sui (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  I would disagree with changing this page to reflect something more than sports.. these guidelines are already quite long.. adding in poker, chess, video games, pokemon competitions, spelling bees, whatever else floats your boat really takes the focus off sports.. sports has a definitive definition as athletic competitions.. we should keep this page narrowly focused on it.. as to your above description of game shows being one off as opposed to winner of a season... well when you have things like survivor and amazing race... those are season long game shows... this page should stay as a sports page only... not muddy the waters. Spanneraol (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  Well, they can certainly have a page on "Notability (competitive events)" or "Notability (competitive entertainment)". And they can have their video game players locked in under it's guidelines. Just keeps sports out of those pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  All "organized competition" = sport? Really? Including, say, pie- or hot dog-eating contests? After all, you even have reliable sources, given that the winners of some of these competitions feature in national media, never mind Guinness citations. Political contests are certainly "organized competition," and many of them are likewise notable.

  But absurdities aside, may I ask a couple of questions of the "e-sport" proponents? Is there some reason why you are unwilling to establish your own notability criteria, and submit the same to the scrutiny of the throng, the same as has happened in other fields such as film, sport, academics and music? Is there some reason why you're unwilling to rest upon the GNG to govern the notability of players of these games? Ravenswing 04:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  Conclusion - I think we're just feeding the fire by continuing to banter back and forth on this issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Clarification The reason I think this shouldn't be covered by WP:VG is the fact that there is a difference.

The interests of people at VG is perhaps about the game itself. As shown by their sources and the pages they work on, the sources mostly report on stuff like these:

• Company X is going to release a sequel for Game Y.
• Company X releases a new Action-RTS game called Y.
• Company X released a fully new expansion pack for Game Y called Z.
• Video game producer X talks about his experience in creating Game Z.

Their sources are for the purposes of the games itself, and not all these games can be played competitively as a sport (or e-sport, in this case). The only games considered as e-sports are several qualified FPS shooter games and Action-RTS games (those that are in Electronic Sports World Cup and some other major competitions) which requires well, physicality (THIS IS ARGUED BEFORE). Pokemon is mentioned above, however, pokemon doesn't require ANY action per-minute and reaction time. Thus pokemon is never considered as an esport. (Do you see anyone playing pokemon at ESWC?) Look at poker and chess in comparison, they don't require any precision and real-time reaction skills.

And the sources from esports covers these:

• Competitive Team X wins the Finals in Competition Y.
• Competition X is going to offer a $1,000,000 prizepool for their 2011 event.
• Player X is transferred to Team Y from Team Z, transfer fee $60,000.
• Player X is the man of the match in Match Y due to wonderful performances in Certain Area of Match Y.
• Player X interviewed to give his insight about how his training goes and so on...

These sources are somewhat sports-like, if given permission to be considered reliable, would allow alot of players to satisfy the GNG and have their wikipedia page created. However, the problem with these sources is, they don't look like news media websites and look like blogs (although to me and other who have used these websites, it is obvious and stated that they are news websites maintained by journalists/editors employed by the company.) Other arguments I have heard are like they are made by obvious fans of the game etc. When i argued that football news reporting on the football scene are allowed, what i get back is "you can't compare it to sports". All i have to say is : "..." I have brought up the thing about sources in RS/N, and i don't wish it to be argued here. Only hope some established source checker to help out checking these sources.

With all due respect, that is the reason i would consider WP:NSPORTS more than WP:VG on this topic, hope that makes it clear. Redefining history (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Redefining history, you make a great argument for why this should be covered under WP:VG with your comment: The sources used would be video game sources, not sports one. One of the points of contention is that sports editors cannot fairly evaluate your sources to determine notability. Your inability to find source checkers here confirms why this is not the right venue for professional video game players. If however, WP:VG wants to become a task force of sports and Sports will accept them as a task force of Sports, then we would have the editors who could evaluate sources.--LauraHale (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

My point is WP:VG also can't evaluate the sources, not everyone there knows much about esports (VG does not cover esports, instead it only covers games). Create a WP:ESPORTS maybe? Redefining history (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If that is your point, why do you think sports can? Professional video gamers =/= athletes. I can't honestly see cricket, baseball, gridiron football, Aussie rules, roller derby, netball, [[softball], korfball, field hockey, basketball, ice hockey, association football people as being able to evaluate these sources. The overlap in sources is non-existent. I know video games DOES cover professional video gamers. G4 covers both video games and professional video game players. I've yet to see them report on the Chicago Cubs Convention or the Chicago Blackhawks Convention, or talk about the impact regarding Australia's poker laws will have on professional video gamers. Do you have any evidence that, source wise, say ESPN would cover your players more than G4 ? Don't play the semantics game of "I say they are an athlete! so sport people can judge!" as this for me is an issue of evaluating sources, and none of the sport people have been able to help you to justify the fact that we should be put into the position that we would be forced to. --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never even heard of G4 before. With a google search, I found that G4 reports next to nothing on esports but rather reports on the video games itself. Video games' relation to esports is rather like the relation of Football (ball) to football. So if http://www.soccerballworld.com/ doesn't report on football players that doesn't mean football players are not notable. The content of esports news are very sport-like. So if i'm not coming here, could you please suggest somewhere I can find experienced source checkers on this area? Redefining history (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And in my very very very very humble opinion, the fact that the term Electronic sports is coined out points to that it is a sport. Redefining history (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If video games relationship with professional video game players is similar to footballers relationship to football, it is all the more reason that your guidelines belong to WP:VG and signals the complete inappropriateness of it here. We don't have the people in the project to evaluate professional video gamer related sources like WP:VG does. And for the record? http://www.soccerballworld.com/ is not a WP:V source because it is primarily about selling you stuff. "electronic sports" does not have IOC or IPC recognition. And in English, the more used phrase is "professional video game player." 918 results to 1,418,000 results. Your usage is not common. If you want experienced editors, WP:VG. You've been told this repeatedly.--LauraHale (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not football, i mean the ball itself. You don't get my point. If video games editors are experienced enough on esports I wouldn't have ended the argument on WP:VG. Its like telling a professional in making balls tell me the roster of Manchester United. Get it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

On another point, ESPN partner-up with MLG for eSports coverage and eSports featured on ESPN and ESPN to cover eSports: Teams up with MLG. It is apparent to me that ESPN has more coverage on eSports than G4. Redefining history (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The most used term? The two terms are not even comparable. After looking at the results found, most of them are talking about pokemon and other RPG games. Redefining history (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

To User:Cjmclark about injuries, [12] [13] [14] [15] And recently DotA player WE.Mofi retired due to a back injury. Redefining history (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that playing video games, whether in an organised event or in bedrooms and basements over the Internet, is not a sport - even if it were playing a sports-simulation game. There shouldn't be a reason to have any reference to them on this page, though given the amount of discussion here about it, there now is one if only to avoid having this discussion again at some point down the track.

A number of other users have suggested that this should be handled by WP:VG, which I wholeheartedly agree. I thought that I'd check to see what if any guidelines they have that might apply here, and I discovered that they have a Pro gaming task force. It doesn't appear to be active at the moment, but surely that's the place for this to be handled.  Afaber012  (talk)  12:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Redefining history - the last link you provided is a forum repost of material from the first one, which describes itself as a "tongue-in-cheek gaming medical guide, complete with "reported" symptoms, diagnoses, causes, and treatments." In other words, a joke. The second link is a blog (not a medical journal or even a news story documenting injuries) that post some admittedly shocking photos - none of which can be definitively linked to gaming behavior. Just because they're holding video game controllers doesn't mean their injuries came from video games. The third one talks about the most likely injury (and one I already dismissed) - carpal tunnel. Injuries of that nature are both foreseeable and preventable. Getting a race car wrapped around you is not. Neither is having your spinal cord severed in a collision during a football game.

At any rate, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty clear that consensus here is definitely leaning towards excluding "e-sports" from NSPORT at this time. I think the energy expended here by proponents of "e-sports" might be better used collaborating on a "competitive events" SNG as mentioned above.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: After skimming through the comments on this page related to the discussion, I feel that I should point out that the definition of sports should not come from the Wikipedia article. About the only time I would ever consider taking a definition from one of our articles is if it was a Featured article, and even then the sources referenced in the article is what should be cited. The sports article is currently rated C-class, and any argument based on Wikipedia's definition of sports should be reevaluated based on a different source of the definition. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC))

Very well - from dictionary.com - Sport is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc." Merriam-Webster lists sport as "a source of diversion," but also (and more in the context of this guideline) as "a physical activity engaged in for pleasure; a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in." The Cambridge dictionary describes sport as "a game, competition or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job." Oxford Dictionaries define sport as "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."

The advantage of using the Wikipedia article's definition (which is shockingly similar to all the ones listed here) is that it is based on the one thing that truly rules this place - consensus.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the additional sources.

While gaining a consensus is one of the five pillars, using reliable sources is one as well. Per WP:USERG, wikis don't qualify as reliable sources. The fact that our article on sports has a good definition is a fine example of the work we do on this site. However, caution should still be taken when citing our content as I'm sure much of our almost 4 million articles aren't up to par. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC))

The problems with NSPORT as currently built

The issue about eSports is tied to a much larger problem with regards to how NSPORTS and even its predecessor ATH have been approached.

First, there's a fundamental aspect about notability that is being lost here. We use notability in WP to assure that we can write good encyclopedic articles on topics; providing more than just a data dump but being able to summarize why this topic is relevant to the whole of human knowledge. This relies on the existence of secondary sources on the topic to analyze and evaluate the primary sources (in the case of sportsfigures, their raw performance data), which we can summarize and build on. Hence why the GNG is the core notability guideline that we ultimately expect all articles to met.

The reason we have the SNGs is two-fold. First, in some fields, the SNGs may actually be more restrictive than the GNG, due to the large volume of sources that could exist for mundane topics. NSPORTS does address this, in the fact that coverage of players of local and regional teams are generally not included. The second reason for SNGs is that we have recognized that there are articles from special classes, typically defined by a simple criteria, that are highly likely to be notable by the GNG but either collecting the sources to show that will take time and legwork, or that the reason for that notability is relatively new and sources will eventually be written for it but it will take time for these to appear. As described farther up this current discussion, the timeframe for these sources to appear is very long and foregiving, but is ultimately something that has to be done or else deletion is possible.

So, understanding that, the first key point to the immediate discussion is that no field requires an SNG. If the editors in that field feel that the GNG can be readily met for all the topics within its purview, there's no point in creating an SNG. SNGs have to be vetted by the entire WP community (not just interested editors) since they do have the weight of a global guideline, and that itself may be more work than necessary for no end result. An SNG should only be created if there is a regular occurrence of articles of a specific topic class being targetted for deletion that are later shown to be clearly notable when given time to locate sources. This is the second point: SNGs should only be defining criteria by need, not by want. This is how I read both ATH and NSPORT - the criteria given for specific sports all feel like these are topics that editors believe should be in WP but haven't demonstrated that they are always notable. However, as I've explained earlier and not to tip the boat, I can accept that as long as its understood these are temporary allowances and that in the future, editors can expect to see that a 5-yr old article on an retired athlete that played exactly one unremarkable game in their career being sent to AFD and end up being deleted; that is, the SNGs are "presumed" notability and thus only as good as consensus allows for them. What I do challenge more is the need to have a distinct set of characteristics for each separate sport; this makes it feel like for the less popular sports (golf, tennis, gymnastics, etc.) as well as for addressing national differences in coverage, that the editors behind those are guidelines are trying to assert their sport has as much coverage as the more vastly-covered sports like football, soccer, and baseball. Not necessarily in the same number of articles/athletes covered, but that because, presumably, we can have an article on a third-string football player with 5 minutes of gametime under their belt, we should have articles for the equivalent of amateur players in these less popular sports that have played in pro-am tourneys or the like. The depth that we can cover any one sport is limited by the coverage of that sport in reliable sources. If there are 100x times more articles on football than tennis, then I can reasonable expect the article count to be much higher.

So stepping back to the eSports thing, what this all means is this: Though some may argue that eSports should be covered by the VG project and that we have "dropped the ball" in not creating a notability guideline, we're arging the first point: sure, these players may be under the VG project, but we believe that they are not regularly notable as to require a deviation from the GNG. In other words, they do fall under our notability guidelines for the VG project, which is to refer to the GNG. Again, there is no point to make an SNG if the class of articles cannot regularly be shown to be notable, and with eSports, it certainly isn't a matter of finding print articles, since the bulk is covered via the Internet.

And then stepping to the issue of whether NSPORT should cover the unorthodox sports, I again point out that while I believe it should that doesn't mean that we immediately need to create sections for each of these sports, by the first point, SNGs are not a requirement. If one considers how NSPORT could be normalized to remove any specific callouts for specific sports, you'd likely be left with 3 to 5 high level criteria, such as "winning the sport's major competition", "achieving the sport's highest honor", etc. I would argue that you can have a table for each sport (defined by projects and tasks forces for that sport) that explicitly defines what are the acceptable major competitions, etc. for that purpose (to avoid editors trying to convince that some minor trivial award is a "major competition". This is completely possible to normalize without reducing what articles are covered by the SNG, but at the same time, you can see how this then immediately alludes to the inclusion of all organized competitions played, in part, at a professional level. This removes the complex issue of how a "sport" is defined (as long as ESPN covers poker, you're going to have this problem) so that we include any competition regardless of how much physical strength, ability, or mental capacity comes into play. It doesn't break what's there, and, arguably, would likely be more favorable to a global consensus approval since its a handful of rules with project-specific clarifications rather than a mashup of several radically different assertions of notability, and looking ahead to any competitive event. Remember, this SNG does not exist in a vacuum or walled garden of sports coverage on WP; it has to maintain its global acceptance among all WP editors.

One last point to remember: just because our notability guidelines say we can't have an article on a player does not mean that we cannot cover that player. List articles for notable professional team members is completely acceptable ways of providing player information in context of a larger notable topic. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree with this, but from a different side. I'm wondering what is really being argued here. As someone who is not a contributor to either WP:VG or WP:S, it seems there's a lot of "not in my backyard" going on that is unrelated to what is the best way to handle it for the encyclopedia. causa sui (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much not a NIMBY thing, but understanding that SNGs are global processes, not owned by any project through likely projects are going to want to have some say in them. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know but I have told this alot alot of times. There are reliable sources. They are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", I would "Never use posts left by readers as sources. For blogs that are not reliable sources". It doesn't "include any website whose content is largely user-generated". Seriously, we need some source checker, GosuGamers does look like a blog, probably due to the engine they use to run the website. But through the editorial control : you can see they aren't some personal and group blogs. The websites are hosted by media companies, and their content are covered by the most notable journalists/editors in their area who are employed by the company. Redefining history (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

But if they are simply reporting on the results, they are not secondary, no matter how reliable they are. If all you can say about a player is what their stats are, that doesn't contribute anything encyclopedic. You need to be able to provide relevancy beyond that they play the sport to make them notable. --MASEM (t) 03:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Play what sport? Video gaming isn't a sport. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Niteshift36, wording is the last issue we will talk about, stop complaining about it until its over. Masem, "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad" Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. And how bout features and interviews of the articles? For why interviews can be used, refer to Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 05:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, you fail to grasp the incredibly obvious. All this time-wasting about what source is primary or reliable is COMPLETELY POINTLESS if video gaming isn't a sport. This is the discussion about the SPORTS notability guideline, not the guidelines about primary sources or about GNG. If video game playing isn't a sport (and the concensus sure looks that way), then this discussion needs to go somewhere else. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as i'm concerned, they aren't self-published and has quite high a traffic (check traffic sites). I think their sources are reliable and could be used to establish notability. Redefining history (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources do not establish notability. Interviews with players about themselves do not establish notability. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Check the link Wikipedia talk:Notability#Interviews count as primary, but it says for GNG you need secondary sources. please, they are notable enough to be interviewed and blablabla read the argument yourself. Well, for a sports website, they can report results, latest transfers, some rumors, features on players, interviews with players. Is there anything else they can do? Thats all you need to establish notability. Redefining history (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, wording is not the last issue that should be considered. If there hasn't at least been a consensus to exclude something that isn't actually a sport from the Sports notability guideline, surely there's a lack of consensus to exclude criteria for playing video games here. Its not a sport. If there should be a guideline that specifically discusses criteria for what to include and/or exclude on this topic, it should come from WikiProject Video games not from WikiProject Sports.  Afaber012  (talk)  06:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, strongly, the relation between video games and esports are like balls and football. You can't ask a professional ball designer to tell me the roster of Manchester United. That is the reason i think WP:VG would not cover and is not suitable to cover esports. Redefining history (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is a WikiProject on sticks and balls do you think sports should be a child project of it? The same goes for video games. Redefining history (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

On another point, ESPN partner-up with MLG for eSports coverage and eSports featured on ESPN and ESPN to cover eSports: Teams up with MLG. Redefining history (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Except that comparison you make is misleading and of little relevance. The manufacturer or designer of a ball may or may not know much about the players or the teams that make use of the ball, but how much are the coders, graphic artists, story designers, and producers of a video game expected to know about the people who play them, even in competitions? The reality is that they probably do know something about them. In both cases the makers - as part of their job - would need to know about who uses their products, how they use them, and what they think of them. Yes, they don't need to know about every competition that their products are involved in, but they likely are aware of the big ones. Regardless, what does that have to do with this discussion?

And why wouldn't WP:VG want to cover it? Assuming the games involved are notable enough to have an article, there would presumably be some mention of the competitions they're used in as part of a complete article. That last part assumes that the competition is notable enough to warrant the mention, let alone its own article. From what I'm hearing, you haven't been able to establish that. How can it not fall under WP:VG. The fact that this argument even started, let alone has gone for as long as it has, tells me that esports don't meet WP:GNG. To be considered notable, they'd have to come under a notablility guideline of their own, established under WP:VG.

By the way, the comparison that might be closer to the mark would be video games are to esports as association football is to the Premier League. The second is a specific example of the first. Now before you jump in and say "There! You proved my point! The Premier League is notable so why isn't esports?" I could have also compared it with association football and the local suburban under-10s competition I played in many years ago, which though possibly mentioned in my autobiography if I ever do anything worthy enough to warrant such a book being written, is clearly not notable. And just because I can compare it a sport doesn't mean it is a sport. I could have also compared it to politics and the US Presidential election process. That doesn't fall under the purview of WP:SPORT either.  Afaber012  (talk)  10:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You're falling into what I warned about: WikiProjects cannot have their own notability guidelines. Notability guidelines require global consensus; this is a problem with NSPORT as individual projects are trying to feed into something that needs to be broad and global. --MASEM (t) 12:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

My comparison is not misleading. Graphic designers and coders might know something about the public's reaction etc. about their product, but about the professional scene? no. And people inside WP:VG are mostly "fans" of those designers/coders or "Fans" of the game. In most cases, playing the game doesn't guarantee knowledge on the professional scene, it happens 90% of the time. @Masem, i'm talking about GNG to you. Thanks. Redefining history (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't get you all, i am talking about GNG ..... Redefining history (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The point we've been trying to make to you , Redefining, is that you can attempt to justify the notability of eSports players through the GNG. You just need to have independent, secondary sources to show that, and the problem is that the sources you keep citing aren't really being seen as that based on the AFDs that have occurred. What we are telling you is that because of the general lack of coverage is otherwise mainstream sources, there is no way to develop sub-notability guidelines (eg, "A player is presumed notable if they won an eSports tourney") for eSports because it is not an assurance that there will be secondary sources on that player. Thus there is no automatic notability for eSports players due to this. They can still be notable per the GNG, but also keep in mind: if all they have done is won one event, that is a failing of WP:BLP1E. --MASEM (t) 12:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And for my comparison, the difference between the game starcraft and dota are probably as different as the soccer ball and the american football (ball). The difference between mario and dota are probably like javelins and soccer ball. They are so different. So if you are a fan of javelin you can tell me the roster of AC Milan? No. Most people in VG, as i have noticed, are focused on the game itself, much less the games that can be played competitively as a sport (only action real time strategy and first person shooter can be played as a sport, check Electronic Sports). Trust me, it has less connection on VG. Redefining history (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

@Masem, there is nothing about "mainstream" on the policy, they just need to be "third party" not "self-published". And i'm very sure these websites are third party, they aren't involved in the competitions/teams/players. Redefining history (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Masem, I think it should work like this. Forget the fact that i'm comparing it to sports. I'm comparing it to other "competitive events". A golf magazine doing a feature on a player would be considered notable.... So an esports website doing a feature of an esport player? Redefining history (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And don't tell me esports isn't a competitive event. Redefining history (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You are missing my point. If there are reliable sources going in depth about an eSports player, they can meet the GNG and have an article. That provision always stands regardless of the topic. Of course, should the article be up for deletion, you will need to convince the editors that the sources are showing that notability, but that's not a point here or there. What I am trying to say is that because of the general overall lack of eSports, we cannot make a sub-notability guideline that states "A eSports players that wins a major competition is presumed notable." because there is no guarantee that there will be secondary coverage of that player in the sources. Yes, their win will be documented, but that's not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 12:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources going in depth about an eSports player, they can meet the GNG and have an article. Thanks, that's all I needed. Cause not everyone understands that. They think because the sources are from Gosugamers its not reliable and lalalalala and thats why we're in so long an argument here. We need to establish consensus on that statement so I can go to the deletion review and have the articles recreated. Redefining history (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC) According to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, Interviews are allowed. Thanks. Redefining history (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me start on this, Bu Yanjun, more commonly known as PIS or YaphetS. Here are sources going in depth about him :

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]
• [24]
• [25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 13:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong about how deletion review works. You cannot use it to open a review to ask to re-evaluate notability (Deletion review is not AFD#2); it is only if there was a procederual problem when closing. What I've said doesn't change what the consensus on the quality of sources determined in those AFDs, they're using the same metrics I've just stated.

Second, of the articles above, using Google Translate, none of them are in depth coverage of Bu Yanjun. They talk about him being at an event and how he performed, but that's not secondary coverage, that's just the equivalent of a box score and not sufficient for notability. I'm not saying that the site is unreliable or anything like that, but just being name-dropped in an article is not sufficient for notability. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The first and the last are features on him, the second last in an interview with him. Redefining history (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

More interviews on him : http://dota.sgamer.com/201106/news-detail-91502.html

News on him : http://dota.sgamer.com/201107/news-detail-93277.html http://dota.sgamer.com/201109/news-detail-100777.html http://dota.sgamer.com/201107/news-detail-94301.html

FEATURES that go in depth about him : http://dota.sgamer.com/201008/news-detail-55988.html

Redefining history (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You need not worry about what i'm going to do at deletion review. I have my ideas. Redefining history (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And i just realized, sgamer covers about 100 games, gosugamers covers POKER, 178.com also covers about 70 games while phcome.net isnt even for games. I hope that will be "disinterested" now. Redefining history (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And you won't get articles about him winning anything, cos he is in a team. Just like when Spain wins the world cup, you get "Spain wins World Cup" and not "Iker Casillas wins the World Cup"+"Sergio Ramos wins the World Cup"+"David Villa wins the World Cup"+"Jose Manuel Riena wins the World Cup"+and so on.. Redefining history (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I google translated these sources, and none of them are as you say they are, at least for purposes of WP. The "interviews" are not in-depth interviews, and inside just some comments on a current match/tourney going on. That's not giving us any in-depth coverage of the player. The last one you claim is in-depth, isn't - it's going into how specific matches were played out, but nothing about him as a player beyond some name-dropping.

You need to stop and understand what we are looking for in sources. We need more than just what they are playing and doing at any time. We need to understand what impact they have on the larger field of eSports or at best their league that they are in. Just being a winner doesn't mean anything since these sources aren't going into depth about it.

That's likely why these sources are being rejected at AFD. They're just covering the games but not doing any analysis or the like, thus leaving them looking like blogs than reliable sources. I'm sorry if you feel different, but that's how we interpret sources here, by consensus, and if consensus rejects them, you have to accpet that.

I'll even point out that video game players like Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell (electronic sports player) are notable because of their appearance in a documentary about their rivalry, and not just because they hold the record for the game. That's the type of source we need for any other eSports players (and sports in general).

I note that you've been told all this before (a result of the ANI thread on you). We appreciate your passion for trying to get these articles to WP, but if consensus rejects them, you can't fight that indefinitely. Try working on one in userspace and bring it up to the sourcing level we need to instead of trying to fight an in-grained system that has worked for several years. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

We need someone who understands chinese. End of story. Redefining history (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For your understanding, this is the only english documentary i can find http://www.gosugamers.net/dota/news.php?id=15687 . Redefining history (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Google translate is sufficient to give me the gist of these articles to know they are not in depth about the player.

You need to step back and realize you are fighting against the current here, and its becoming a dead horse. Many people have told you that these articles are just not going to work now on WP. Maybe if eSports takes off in a few years, then it could be the case, but not now. If you fight that too much, you may possibly be blocked from the project. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

More interviews http://gs2010.pcgames.com.cn/news/1012/2090245.html http://dota.tgbus.com/news/201103/730653.shtml http://dota.178.com/201011/83744570833.html http://dota.178.com/201011/83712935043.html http://dota.178.com/201010/81839113549.html http://dota.178.com/201101/88240238673.html now? Some of them are about his life-story. Redefining history (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You tell me what's wrong with my sources, and I come back to you with better ones. It's not that I don't listen. This time its in-depth. How? Redefining history (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, until we agree that video gaming is a sport, why is this conversation happening here? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Comment I think the above discussion has gone far beyond the scope of this RfC (and this talk page) and is more appropriate at WP:RSN or Wikipedia talk:Notability. It seems fairly clear that the current consensus is that "e-sports" should be excluded from NSPORTS. The majority of those who !voted "oppose" to the proposed wording did so on the basis that "e-sports" shouldn't be mentioned here at all. Can we please get the discussion back on track?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 18:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support and comment - There's a distressing trend in the above discussion for some editors to be pedantically focused on conflating physical exertion/athletics with sports without ever discussing the basis for that assumption. However, I do think that in this instance that assumption is correct. Every NSPORTS guideline example is focused on an athletic competition (including some that maybe less strenuous but have always been considered sports by their inclusion in the Olympics, etc.). Moreover, the guideline would seem to fit more comfortably under the ENTERTAINER guidelines or some sub-guideline that should be developed.
  But I am disturbed by the dismissive and conclusory tone about what a "sport" is without discussion of the real issue. We need a specific esports guideline that's independent of this guideline for all the same reasons we have SNGs. There is certainly acrimony in AfD on this topic and this proposal speaks to that. Shadowjams (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

College sports team

There are a number of articles about college sports teams ( see Concordia Tornados men's soccer, Saint Louis Billikens men's soccer, Drake Bulldogs men's soccer, Navy Midshipmen men's soccer, Syracuse Orange men's soccer, St. Francis College Terriers men's basketball ) none of those that I have seen so far have any claims to conventional notability as currently defined. They generally lack any references to establish notability - references that are included are usually internal college sites , directory listings or score sheets. I have searched for notability references for these sites but found none. My reaction is that these are potential AfD nominations but I would welcome other views before committing any precipitate action.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Much as I like to clean up dreck (and these sound like it), chances are good that the result of an AfD would be redirecting.....so maybe that would be a good way to go first. Then, if fanboys fight it with little more than WP:ILIKEIT as their reason, AfD would be the next step. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes - tried that one and it was immediately reverted back with challenges as to "What is your agenda?" . I suspect AfD might be the only route with the expected outcome of a forced re-direct rather than one agreed by consensus. Ho hum !  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Teams would fall under WP:ORG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

For comparable teams that can get outside notability, would you have a problem with keeping the articles? Beyond495 (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Arena Football League makes a player inherently notable?

I have an issue with WP:NGRIDIRON which states that any player that takes a snap in the Arena Football League is inherently notable and does not have to pass WP:GNG. Am I correct in that statement? To me, it seems the AFL is not a high-enough quality league for inherent notability to be granted. Was there ever a discussion about this that I may have missed? Thanks. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No you are incorrect. NGRIDIRON gives the presumption of notability. Articles still have to meet the GNG. However it was designed so that as close to all players as possible (there are always exceptions in both directions) would meet the GNG if they pass in this case GRIDIRON. Quality of the league has nothing to do with notability, in some sports very very low leagues will still produce notable players. It all comes down to how much press coverage the sport gets. The AFL gets a fair amount of coverage, and that isn't even taking into account that players who make it into the AFL probably had some coverage as college players etc. -DJSasso (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I guess I've always misunderstood the purpose of WP:ATHLETE then. I agree the low-quality leagues can produce notable people, but I misunderstood that they aren't inherently notable. Thanks. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Common mistake. Take a read of the first few paragraphs at the beginning of the WP:NSPORTS page and it will give an idea of the purpose of the these guidelines. :) -DJSasso (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BASE/N Suggestion

I suggest that we add players who spent time in the "Open" designation, which existed from 1952 to 1957, to the list of "inherently notable" traits put forth in WP:BASE/N, including players who played in Open but not Major League Baseball. Open was, according to Baseball Reference Bullpen, "to help the Pacific Coast League build itself into a major league...[i]t was considered to be a notch above AAA." While it perhaps was not the top level of professional baseball in the United States, it was the top level of professional baseball on the West Coast until the transition of the New York teams to California in the late 1950s. In addition, it did make an attempt to rival Major League Baseball, much as the Federal League, Players' League et al did. In addition, it featured many notable baseball figures and dozens, if not hundreds, of future major leaguers. Alex (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"According to Baseball Reference Bullpen"? That's another wiki, not a reliable source. That's like saying that players who play in the Pioneer or Northwest Leagues are all inherently notable because they play in the highest-level league in the Northern Mountain West. In the United States, Major League Baseball and its predecessor leagues should be the only leagues that presume any notability. Players in any other U.S. league must meet GNG. — KV5 • Talk • 11:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words: Alexsautographs made the suggestion, so I am going to be unnecessarily hostile and say "no," despite the validity of his argument. Alex (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it seems more like "in other words: the argument is based at least in part on an as yet unsupported comment from a wiki who's material is of unknown quality." Speaking only for myself, if there are other reliable and objective sources that back up the claim of being above AAA and a rival to MLB, then that would seem to be a legitimate reason to consider the suggestion. However, a more complete version of the quote would be "... to help the Pacific Coast League build itself into a major league. It was considered to be a notch above AAA but in assessing talent level, it does not appear to have been any higher."

Though it may have "made an attempt" to rival MLB, that doesn't actually make it a rival, or notable. (Otherwise I suspect a few of us editors would have articles, at least those of us who've made an attempt to be MLB players but have only succeeded in playing local park ball.) To my knowledge, no source recognises it as an alternate, competitor or otherwise belonging to a grouping with MLB, beyond being a baseball competition. And as much as a proportion of its players may have become Major Leaguers after playing in Open, I would imagine the proportion is similar to that today of the AAA leagues. Open would seem no more or less notable than other minor leagues.  Afaber012  (talk)  22:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In my view, players in the PCL prior to 1958, and especially prior to WWII, were at least as notable as the players in non-US top leagues (today or ever). It is silly that the top league that existed in California and over 2/3 of the US at a time when baseball truly was the national passtime is considered somehow less notable than the top Venezuela league or really any other country's top league possibly excepting Japan. And prior to WWII, the PCL (and the AA and IL) were not inherently development leagues - the structure was very different, so although they were a notch below the Major Leagues, they were still full fledged professional leagues were good players could spend their entire careers, unless a Major League team was willing to pay their owner's price to release them. Analogizing to today's AAA is just not relevant. The proof is simply looking at the IL Baltimore Orioles' 1924 pitching staff - led by Lefty Grove (arguably the best left-handed pitcher ever), Tommy Thomas (arguably the 2nd best pitcher in the American League after Grove for the 2nd half of the 1920s), George Earnshaw (easily one of the top 10 pitchers in the AL for a few years once he finally was allowed to play in the Majors at age 28) and Jack Ogden (an effective pitcher for a year when he finally got back to the Majors at age 30), all in their mid-20s. There aren't a whole lot of leagues outside the US that can boast such a staff in their primes. Heck, few Major League teams have ever had such a talented and effective pitching staff in their primes. And that's not mentioning the pitchers on the staff who never made the Major Leagues, but were more effective that year than some of those who did, such as Clifford Jackson and Ed Tomlin. Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Top baseball prospects

Might it be a good idea to expand BASE/N to include top prospects? By including them in this guideline, we would have time to find coverage for them that might satisfy GNG. By "top prospects", I'm referring to players included on a Top 50 or Top 100 list by MLB.com or Baseball America. I'd also include participation in the All-Star Futures Game. A problem with this idea is that these methods of acknowledging prospects doesn't go back all that far. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)