Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

Proposal to clarify Olympic Medalling as an indicator of notability

This RFC has two questions that can be answered separately, asking whether:

1. Winning a medal in a competition with less than four competitors or teams (ie, when all participants receive a medal) is not an indicator of presumed notability
2. Winning a medal as part of a team is not an indicator of presumed notability

04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Low participation competitions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should NOLYMPICS be clarified to state that winning a medal in a competition with less than four competitors or teams is not an indicator of presumed notability?

Survey

Please place !votes here

• Support. If everyone receives a medal, then it is a participation award, not an indicator of success or the coverage required for notability that often comes with success. BilledMammal (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support The recently discussed Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics is a prime example. There were only two teams and Britain was represented by the Cornish county side who had won the previous season's 1907–08 Rugby Union County Championship. In this instance too there was only 1 silver medal so from a pedantic point of view, only 1 of the 15 Cornish players actually got a medal. The idea that playing in this game represents the pinnacle of sporting achievement is clearly nonsense. Nigej (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Olympics games are highly recognized games in the world with the number of participants are participated. Fade258 (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support as common sense. GiantSnowman 14:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This should be obvious. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Such medalists may still be notable under GNG, but a presumption of such seems unwise. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - no idea what the numbers look like for this situation (so not sure the impact is worth making the guideline longer) but makes sense to not presume notability here. Rikster2 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support If you are going to win a medal by default, winning a medal is not a sign of notability at all. That we even have to say this is crazy. We also need to make it clearer that even if someone won a medal we still need to actually find examples of significant coverage to create an article, not just claim that they exist somewhere but we cannot access them. The burden needs to be put on people to find signficant coverage sources before they are allowed to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• SNOW support - Obviously, notability should not be based on a participation award. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - The whole point of using medals as a mark of notability is to employ their function as awards handed out to remarkable individuals and teams. When medals don't work that way, but more like a certificate of participation, they can't be solely relied upon to establish a subject's notability. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support As long as it is explicit that participation in events with four or more competitors is not enough for presumption of notability (i.e. that coming fourth of ten =/= necessary notable). If that is not explicit, then we are creating a scenario where the achievement of only representing your nation at the Olympics (which is a fairly notable achievement, at least now) can be assumed to be notable, and winning a medal in a high-participation event is obviously notable, but getting a medal in a low-participation event explicitly is not assumed to be notable, even though the achievement is equal (bronze) or greater (gold) than just competing. Perhaps there could also be some exception on winning gold: you still had to come first, even if only against one competitor. Kingsif (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. MER-C 14:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- too many instances of this in early Olympics, and our policy needs to account for that. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Please place general comments here

• I am curious how many instances of this exist - anyone know? Rikster2 (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Rikster2: Cricket and Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics are prime examples. Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics shows this wasn't limited to one year only. It is likely that most examples are from early on, but I wouldn't be surprised if this also maybe touched some events of the 1980 Summer Olympics (due to the boycott of the games that year). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, it was an honest question. Rikster2 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• I am reading a book on Amateurism in the Olympics, and that book says that the medals were not given out until the 1904 Olympics. A lot of pre-World War I informaiton on Olympics is later re-writers to try and make them look like more noted and international competitions they really were to create a mythos that the Olympics sprung fully forned out of the head of a Frenchman in 1896, sort of like how Athena sprung fully formed out of the head of Zeus. We need to hold every article to passing GNG on its own. At least in the 1920s and 1930s it does not seem that we regularly get GNG level coverage even on medalists, so I am beginning to question if the presumption of medalist notability makes any sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is time to SNOW-close this. BilledMammal (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Team competitions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should NOLYMPICS be clarified to state that winning a medal as part of a team with more than two members is not an indicator of presumed notability? Note that this would not apply to relay events in athletics and swimming, or team gymnastics after 1952.

Survey

Please place !votes here

• Support. Team sports differ from individual sports in that the coverage is often focused on the team, not the individuals, and so winning a team event is not an effective indicator of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. Generally for team events, Olympic coverage is focused around the team. While individual members can get some coverage, this is rarely at an in-depth level. Also the argument that they must have been notable to get into a team that won a medal, is much weaker for team events than for individual/pairs events. Nigej (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose unless refined. I generally like this concept, but it needs some refinement. It makes no sense to presume notability for every member of teams (including backup players) in field hockey, volleyball, football, softball, hockey, etc. But there are exceptions. For example, medaling in the team gymnastics competition likely warrants a presumption of notability for all five or six team members. Also, does this proposal cover relay races such as the 4x100 track relay or 4x100 swimming medley relay? Those are glamour events where winning a medal would likely warrant the presumption of notability. If we could refine this a bit, I'd be a supporter. Cbl62 (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of which teams to continue to presume notability

In more recent years I would agree, but for the majority of the Olympics I don't believe that has been the case - I note Gymnastics in particular has had more than six members in the past, with the most being forty (Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team, Gymnastics at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic team all-around, Gymnastics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's team, Gymnastics at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic team all-around, for example) BilledMammal (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Artistic gymnastics is a different animal. I was referring to the team gymnastics events which draws massive attention (use a 1920 start date if that helps). And what about the major relay events in track and swimming??? This needs to be thought through more carefully. I think you will find broad support if it is appropriately tailored but I can't support it if it strips the presumption of notability from athletes who won medals in major events like the 4x100 sprint. Cbl62 (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC) 1920 for the team gymnastics isn't much better; 78 medallists. Given how many medals were award for team gymnastics in the early years a significant percentage of medalling gymnasts won't be notable (In the four Olympics between 1904 and 1920, 248 gymnasts won medals in the standard team event alone - in 1912 and 1920 there were two more team events, free system and Swedish system, that granted approximately 200 medals, though I am not certain how much overlap there was). However, regarding the relay events in Athletics and Swimming, I think you are right; adjusted. BilledMammal (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC) It looks like the team competition in gymnastics has been at six participants for each medaling squad since 1956. That may be the right cutoff date. Does it make sense to restart this with appropriate carve-outs for team gymnastics post-1956, track and swimming relays, etc.? Cbl62 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC) @Cbl62: I've added the 1956 date for gymnastics; I don't believe this needs a restart, though I've hatted this discussion; if you are convinced restart is required, feel free to expand the hat to the entire survey, and if you disagree with the hat of this discussion please remove it. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as drafted, needs far more careful consideration and crafting. GiantSnowman 14:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. Also without the individuals in the team, the team would not be able to compete, and therefore unable to win. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. In general, team members should not be granted the presumption of notability. Any concerns with specific sports, such as those identified above, are not relevant to the general Olympic guideline and can be easily addressed by amendments/additions to the relevant sport specific guidelines; there is no need for exceptions to be listed in the general guideline. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support with the clarification regarding relay events (track/swimming) and gymnastics. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - the wording is too clumsy I'm afraid. Too many caveats or exclusions. I can see the general idea, but there's rather too much "except for..." stuff here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • As long as the wording that goes into the guideline matches the details of the proposal, there is no reason we need need to use my clumsy wording - and while there are benefits to a simple proposal, it seems that a few exclusions are needed to make a consensus likely. BilledMammal (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I think part of the problem is the way in which the exclusions seem to be culturally specific. For example, Norwegians in team biathlon events or Germans in bobsleighs are both likely to generate more than enough coverage to suggest notability. The same is probably true of Canadian curlers, whereas I'm much less certain what we'd find for the Finnish 4x200m freestyle relay team from 1960, for example. It seems like we're just saying athletics and swimming because we think they're important. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
      • As part of agreeing to Cbl62's request, I reviewed our articles on those who won medals in relay events in athletics and swimming, and found that even when we consider the earliest Olympics almost all medallists are already demonstrated to meet WP:GNG, regardless of country - based on that, it appears likely that the rest are also notable. I also note that this exception would only applies to medallists; Finland's 4x200m freestyle team in the 1960 Olympics won't receive presumed notability, because they didn't medal. BilledMammal (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - but I could maybe be convinced if some actual data were presented. The Olympic guideline has already been scaled back immensely. Rikster2 (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Since I think one of the original NPORTS subproposals were improperly closed I am going to be even more specific in my objections to this for the benefit of the closer. We had a very well attended RFC for WP:NOLYMPICS in October that cut that guideline from all competitors being presumed notable to just medalists, which probably reduced the guideline by 80%. There have been zero (ZERO) facts or data presented that show team competitors should be treated differently than the new general guidance, or if they should be where that bar should be distinct from other competitors. I would like to ensure that the closer does not take an action based on the "gut feelings" of a few folks being presented as if they were facts. That would not be good or unbiased administration. Rikster2 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral, open to more refined criteria While this should probably be done for the larger team sports (those like football or rugby), it is more dubious for the smaller ones. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Data is needed to show whether most athletes who medal in a team sport do not receive significant coverage, rather than a blanket statement. --Enos733 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  On the contrary. We should be requiring data to support retention of team/squad members for all Olympic sports. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, the editor is suggesting a further change to a guideline that was reduced by probably 70-80% only recently. It seems a fair request to see some data that shows this is a problem that actually needs to be solved with further caveats in what is a fairly simple and easy to follow guideline as it is. And we are not talking about all team members of all Olympic sports - we are talking about medalists Rikster2 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Oddly-specific exclusions will add to confusion. NemesisAT (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle. Specific exclusions can be hammered out later. JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is an attempt at scope creep, the RFC on this had consensus that Olympic medallists are presumed notable, abd I see no evidence that in general, they are not (the only example given above is for some widely specific competition 100 years ago). Joseph2302 (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per NemesisAT. Too specific. We can look at athletes case-by-case if they meet the letter of the law but do not appear to have sufficient sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Note that I would support an alternative proposal to include a warning that "Winning a medal while participating in some Olympic team sports (such as football or rugby) is not as likely to be a trustworthy indicator of significant coverage as for others." This would get the message across that more caution is advised when dealing with such events (thus pleasing those who wish for the guidelines to be more true to fact), without formally disqualifying anybody (thus pleasing those who are afraid of a hypothetical mass-deletion). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support In many cases team members are only a little subbed, and they will often get almost no coverage. Obviously if significant source coverage exists we will have an article, but too many of these people get no coverage. Also, in some team sports, especially before 1990, those in the Olympics got very little coverage and were not really considered to be at the top of the game. There is no general indication that being on a medaling team changes this situation from the general status of such team memebers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose if something has that many caveats then it's not a very useful rule of thumb. It might make more sense if the limit on the number of members was raised. I can understand that for a team of 10 members individual members might not get much coverage, but I would expect members of a team of 3 to get much more. Hut 8.5 12:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose no evidence given that the newly developed rules are too lax and too many caveats to make a sensible rule from. Spike 'em (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Spike 'em. A Simple Cricket Fan (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC) — A Simple Cricket Fan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Discussion

Please place general comments here

• I think I need some clarification as to what a "team" is, before voting. Tennis doubles, rowing four, rowing eight? Also some team events are just individual events where the team score is the sum of the individual competitors' scores, while others are genuine team events. Nigej (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Updated; most dual events should not be considered as team for the purpose of this question. I've left events that sum individual competitors' scores in, as they normally share the same issues as the other team sports. BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Adjusted per Cbl62; pinging all !voters so far: @Nigej, Cbl62, GiantSnowman, and Lugnuts:. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think it may be worth increasing the 3 to 10, say. There may be more consensus at that level and it would cover the gymnast teams noted above, for instance, and the team sports (I assume were talking about a squad size rather than players on the pitch). I know that this covers a lot less athletes than the current proposal but given how much NOLY has been tightened already I think a combination of the two proposals would provide useful clarity. An alternative would be to restrict this proposal it to silver+bronze only. Nigej (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think there isn't much point at that level; it wouldn't even cover the tug of war teams. I think this level should be able to find a consensus, with the two exclusions provided for the relay events. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• In the 2020 Olympics it would cover Baseball, Basketball, Field hockey, Football, Handball, team Judo, Rugby sevens, Softball, Volleyball and Water polo (assuming were talking squad sizes) which I think is a fair chunk of medal winners. Nigej (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I feel like this really needs to be considered further before it’s implemented. I focus mainly on a team sport that competes in the Olympics (basketball). I come from a country that has medaled in the sport every competition except 1980. I’ve done pretty extensive work on US Olympic articles and what I have found is that every one of those athletes very clearly meets the GNG bar, including the 1936 team that came before a national professional league existed (helps that at least two books have been written about that team in addition to significant chapters in at least one other). The teams that medal in the sport are generally the ones where it is popular so those players either get coverage for the Olympics itself or their amateur and/or professional careers. I’d be particularly surprised if medalists from the 1970s or later don’t meet the GNG threshold. These players typically come from the top club teams in their regions (or in the case of North American athletes, college). Not saying (for example) water polo players necessarily get that same coverage, just giving my perspective and why I am skeptical of this proposal unless it is specifically tested. In fact, if this were inserted into WP:NOLYMPIC, I feel like I’d have to push to add an Olympic medalist criteria into WP:NBASKETBALL - even though I generally think the sports should be subservient to the Olympic guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• I would also point out that if the Olympic guideline is changed to remove medalists from teams that the proposal about removing the Olympics from the sport-specific guidelines must be revisited. I know my input was made assuming the current Olympics guideline and assume most others’ input is the same. This sub proposal would change the assumptions Rikster2 (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Wouldn't the vast majority of Olympic medalling basketball players meet NBASKETBALL individually without needing to meet NOLY anyway? And in the countries where club basketball is not as popular it's reasonable not to presume GNG exists for each Olympic player. So this wouldn't really change anything for athletes from either group, other than I guess the pre-pro league US players who would now need to show GNG is met if they don't meet any other NSPORT criterion -- which seems pretty easy to work with. JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• They would. But I would like to see a compelling argument why team sportspeople who win medals should have a different standard than individual medalists. So far, none has been put forth. Why the carve-out - is there data that shows this is an issue that would lead us to going a different direction than the overall WP:NOLYMPICS guideline? If not, keep it simple and don’t add a bunch of caveats. But I would say, countries where club basketball is not as popular generally don’t medal. That’s the point. The countries that medal in team sports tend to support those sports. That’s why their top athletes play them. Rikster2 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Why 2 or 4 team members? What about sports like rowing where there are singles, pairs and doubles, quads and fours, and eights? Would you include all medalists but the last, which is generally seen as the blue riband event? Spike 'em (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If there is a consensus against this, it might be appropriate to go sport-by-sport. In particular, gymnastics needs to be removed due to the situation in the early years. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General Discussion

• I feel that any changes to NSPORT should wait until the conclusion of the larger discussion of the guideline. I still do not understand the overall push that will lead to the deletion of many biographies of athletes WP:NOTPAPER. As a volunteer project, the editors lead the way in its development, and while there are reasons to make sure that what is written is verifiable, we should start with the presumption that an Olympic medal is a "well-known and significant award or honor" (see WP:ANYBIO). --Enos733 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• It would probably be wise for User:BilledMammal to stop making new recommendations and let some things get resolved. It is contributing to a WP:TRAINWRECK Rikster2 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• There won't be a mass deletion, that's missing the point. What we're trying to get to is a definition of notability in the sports area that will discourage (or at least, not encourage) the creation of new articles for non-notable people. Nigej (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Clearly there will not be mass deletions. In October we decided non-medalists were at the Olympics were not notable, no one even tried to create an Olympic participant AfD until late December, and even though there are probably in excess of 150,000 articles in Wikipedia on Olympians who did not medal, some of whom do pass other notability guidelines but a very large number of them do not, I suspect we currently have less than 20 deletion discussions on Olympic competitors, maybe even less than 10. I can pretty much at random find hundreds if not thousands of those articles sourced only to the sportsreference.com database. For the 1936 Egyptian men's basketball team I figured out that 6 of the 7 articles were all created by the same user, and creating those 6 articles took a total of 10 minutes combined. Nor is there much evidence those articles have been improved since. Nor is that an isolated incident.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass destruction of SNGs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why is BilledMammal destroying NSPORT?? Govvy (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Not destroying, implementing consensus per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3. BilledMammal (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

So, I read that top bit, but it says consensus, but the writing has no precision, it has three spelling mistakes. My reading into that is that it is suggestive, however what you're doing is not helpful what so ever. To abolish those SNGs fails to cover what is an acceptable in allowing stub articles of each subject. This is no improvement, this is going backwards. With no SNGs variants, it's going to just end up as a shit show of what notability is. Clearly no thought has gone into this. Govvy (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I take it you don't care for SNGs, I might have to retire from editing wikipedia all-together, I needed those SNGs, I am not sure I can be of help now. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As noted in the close of the RFC, (pending interested contributors formulating acceptable replacements for the removed participation-based criteria) the replacement guideline for determining suitability for an article is GNG – which ultimately needed to be met previously anyway. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake. Are you incapable of using the GNG? (For which I'd call bullshit in any event, seeing as you created a couple dozen articles before NSPORTS was implemented.) Or are you expecting us to swallow that you're incapable of editing Wikipedia if this means of new article creation is lost to you? (For which I'd also call bullshit, seeing as you've created fewer than fifty new articles in four and a half years, a timeframe in which you've made over -- wait for it -- sixteen thousand edits.)

The simple fact is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have shifted quite a few times over the years, sometimes dramatically. People incapable of accepting that sometimes they're going to be on the losing side of consensus, and that in consequence they need to lose gracefully and soldier on, are poor fits for this encyclopedia. Now you're the best judge of what your time's worth. If you are unable to accept these changes, then good fortune in your next endeavors. Ravenswing 23:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well done, @Ravenswing: that's one of the nastiest premature grave dances Ive seen. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No idea whether it's a grave dance, premature or not; I'm no more a soothsayer than the next editor. But if you're suggesting that I have no use for hyperbole-choked wailing about How! Wikipedia! Will! Be! Destroyed!, combined with threats of ragequitting, because not every editor finds value in two-sentence sub-stubs? You'd be dead on there. Ravenswing 01:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Whether fortunately or unfortunately, subproposal 3 passed -- eliminating participation-based parts of NSPORTS. This means the complete repeal of NGRIDIRON and NFOOTY, among others. It is now incumbent on sports editors to come up with tighter standards and seek consensus for those tighter standards. Cbl62 (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a complete clusterfuck. Removing the appearance-based ones without considering what will replace them has left so many anomalies and random fragments of explanations of now missing guidelines. I can't see how this is determined to be consensus either, it seems a no-consensus and hence should not have led to removal of the SNGs.Spike 'em (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Over time it became clear what a problem huge numbers of single-sentence database scrape microstub "biographies" had become. There were thousands and thousands and thousands of them. As the scale of the problem became more evident these articles started routinely being taken to AfD and getting deleted or merged/redirected to lists. It was necessary and inevitable that our guidelines change to reflect these changes in our procedures. As pointed out by Cbl62 it is now up to the various sports wikiprojects to come up with SNGs more balanced than the previous "everything is notable" bilge. Reyk _YO! 23:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that the participation-based guidelines were too lax and have resulted in too many one-line articles with no hope of expansion, the changes made by BilledMammal to this page are mindless and destructive. Some sports have had their guidelines deleted entirely, others have been left in a nonsensical and unusable state. For example, it appears that the only rugby union players deemed notable are ones who have played at the women's World Cup. I have appealed to the rugby union Wikiproject to come up with some guidance for editors on how to apply GNG specifically to rugby players and coaches, what kind of sources can and can't be used to establish notability etc, but it can't be left as it currently stands. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to point out here that, in spite of all the RfC noise to the contrary, WP:NBASIC (not the GNG) is the relevant guideline to apply here. These sports figures are, after all, people. There isn't any policy-compliant way to apply the GNG to people: NBASIC takes its place. Newimpartial (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll note that if the replacement is suitable, I will support it. My goal is to make NSPORT a reliable predictor of notability, and while the current situation is a significant improvement over the previous situation, it needs further improvements, both in terms of tightening criteria that was untouched by #3, and by adding criteria to replace the criteria removed by #3. BilledMammal (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of them should be reasonably uncontroversial e.g. men at the Rugby World Cup who meet the same criteria as the women listed (and were simply dropped because they used "participate" rather than "finished in top 4"- when replacing with "finished in top 4" would have been a much more sensible change over removing it outright). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I just did something very similar - See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Player notability guidelines deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And the upshot isn't, as some editors are obviously doing, to tear at their hair and bay at the moon in anguish. The answer is for editors in the affected projects to get off their backsides and get to work making new criteria, if they just cannot stand the concept of creating new articles for sportspeople solely on the GNG. Because seriously, Nicknack009 -- why would you possibly need "guidance" on how to apply the GNG to rugby figures, as opposed to doing so for any other biographical article on Wikipedia? Can you demonstrate that the player has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources? Then there you go.

Basically, people need to get a grip. BilledMammal is not a malign destructive natural disaster that just sprang up out of nowhere. Many hundreds of editors have been pissed off for a long time now about the excesses of sports bios, and the response of the rejectionists chasing Game High Score through two-sentence sub-stubs off of databases has been to collectively flip them the bird, instead of addressing their entirely legitimate concerns. We should have all seen this was coming, we should have all made shift to tighten the criteria well before now, and we frankly should have all been in agreement with the premise that a full one-seventh of important humans throughout the span of recorded history have been soccer players is an absurd travesty. Ravenswing 15:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Ravenswing: "why would you possibly need "guidance" on how to apply the GNG to rugby figures"? Seriously? The whole reason this discussion is happening is editors don't know how to apply the guidelines and keep making articles for people who aren't notable. The more guidance we can give people, the better, surely? --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Seriously. Because someone who can't figure out how to apply the GNG to rugby figures should not be involved in article creation at all. They should be over at the Teahouse or on any of the other efforts on Wikipedia which teach basic editing skills. Or, heck, if the rugby project editors want to take teaching Basic Wikipedia 101 on as well, blessings be upon them. Ravenswing 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in the NSPORTS SNGs in particular, but Wikipedia 101 would start with the fact that it is WP:NBASIC, not the WP:GNG, that applies to biographical subjects. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

NBASIC and GNG are the same thing. Levivich 17:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No, they're not. As one example, the the requirements that the sources be intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject are specified differently (more precisely, for biographical subjects) in NBASIC than in the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

My thanks to the editors who are implementing the RFC result. Levivich 17:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears to be dominated by editors who (a) think the purpose of rules is to enforce obedience to rules, rather than achieve an objective (which in the case of an encyclopedia, is to be informative), and (b) don't understand sport. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rewriting the lead

Per the close of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #8, there is a consensus to rewrite the lead to make it clearer; we need to work out how to do this. The specific instructions are as follows:

With that said, editors are generally in favor of rewriting to make the lead clearer. The second part of the proposal complements that and has a clearer consensus. The purpose of a SNG is to give editors guidance on when significant coverage is likely to exist, and clarifying that requirement in the prose will help avoid misuse at AFD (a major concern brought up in the main discussion).

BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That isn't the purpose of an SNG at all, the purpose of SNGs is to provide an alternative to WP:GNG as laid out at WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; (emphasis mine). NemesisAT (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And per this very article, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. The closer is clearly mistaken. NemesisAT (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:N: The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, per that quote, my statement still stands and they're equal to WP:GNG. "Keep, meets GNG" is a frequently used and respected argument in an AfD and thus "Keep per SNG" ought to be too. NemesisAT (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

But it isn't in the case of NSPORT. Community consensus has reaffirmed that many times over, and again at this RFC. Rehashing that argument is not going to help in moving this discussion forward, so please don't persist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The close also says:

To the extent that the first part of this proposal would create a requirement that a sports biography meet the GNG (i.e., must), there is no consensus.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Any rewrite should focus on the following important clarification from the closer (found here):

At the top of WP:NSPORTS as of March 6, in bold letters, the guideline said "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" (emphasis original). The word "or" means that either the first, second, or both criteria may be met. Editors may wish that it said "and", some even argued the equivalent of that, but the guideline is clear that meeting an NSPORTS criterion and not the GNG is sufficient. Later, under the heading "Applicable policies and guidelines", NSPORTS says "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline". This line was brought up by a supporter which is why I referenced it. Like "or", the word "should" has a meaning. The proposal used "must" which is not the same word and has a different meaning. The supporters arguments claimed to be the correct interpretation, but the interpretation is not consistent with the wording of the guideline. The next question is whether there is sufficient support for it to change the guideline to reflect the obligation ("must") as outlined in the proposal. Obviously not. Supporters generally failed to convince other editors that their interpretation is correct or desirable, with roughly half disagreeing based on the actual guideline. In general, your objections here suffer from the same problem that support arguments had. You may believe this is how NSPORT operates already, and you may have explanations for why "or" and "should" don't have their usual meanings here, but after two months nearly half of participants disagreed with you (your numbers only work if I but your interpretation of the guideline). That's not a consensus, and even if there were a rough consensus it wouldn't be strong enough to make a binding, policy-like requirement. I believe my close for that proposal was an adequate summary of that conflict and the ultimate outcome was no consensus.

Cbl62 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that rather than fighting a dogged rearguard on changes to NSPORT (wasn't a supermajority-style consensus, don't like it, let's cling to the parts of the wording we each like best, etc), it'd ultimately be better to reconstruct a version of the 'presumption of notability' that works operationally differently from either "you have until the end of this AfD, get cracking" on the one hand, or "should doesn't mean must, therefore it means languish forever". Maybe that looks like a grace period; maybe it looks like notability-tagging; maybe it looks like draftification. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to see clarity it two areas. Firstly: What is the purpose of NSPORT? I used to think that's its purpose was to enable people without a detailed knowledge of the subject to assess whether an article that had been created was likely to be notable or not. However, it has more recently taken on another role, of defining a list of articles that can (or perhaps "should") be created. Personally I'm not averse to this second use, but perhaps it needs spelling out. The second item is the sentence "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I think there's been a consensus in recent discussions that this has actually not been the case. It should have been true if the criteria were well defined but they haven't been. So I'd like to see a more theoretical sentence like "The intension of the criteria set forth below, is that if an article passes these criteria, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist for an article. However creators of articles should still make substantial efforts to find such sources before creating articles." Nigej (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, something good can come from the close. The removal of the parts of NSPORTS that were the most bloated with low-level leagues will likely force participants in those projects to come up with more realistic guidelines that are truer predictors of GNG compliance. If we accomplish that, it's a good thing, but we should at the same time restore the presumption of notability. The language in the closure regarding sub-proposal 8 that has led to the striking of the presumption of notability is IMO completely unwarranted and unsupported by consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally I don't find the term "presumed" that useful. Presumed - "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability" seems to me to be pretty much the same as "very likely". However, the fundamental point is that if the criteria are reasonably well defined then no one's going to worry about a few cases at the margins. The problem has been that some criteria were so loose that tens of thousands of articles were created for non-notable people on the basis of criteria here. Nigej (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I would rather focus on the value and purpose of the SNG rather than get quickly lost in the details. I believe the question should be "which sets" (if any) does our community think ought to be complete (recognizing that this is a global project)? And secondly, if a set is worthy to be complete, are there significant sources to justify all people within the set (recognizing there will be people at the margins)? It is my believe that the SNGs help editors decide when an article could be created and (to a lesser extent) when an article could be brought to AFD. I think it is better to have clear(er) lines than spend energy at AFD trying to determine whether the coverage of a subject is sufficient. Enos733 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there's consensus for that approach. Clearly the lead is not going to go into the detail of which "sets" "ought" to be complete and if the criteria are well-defined then no one's going to have an issue with them. However, one issue for me is that the lead currently says that the criteria ARE well-defined ("If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.") when consensus is that that's not been the case. Nigej (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Nigej that it had not been the case, but with the problematic guidelines having been removed, we can hopefully now rebuild those guidelines in a way that more closely predicts GNG compliance. Cbl62 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement describes the original intent for the criteria to be predictors of suitable coverage satisfying the general notability guideline. The key question is whether or not there continues to be consensus support for using criteria based on their predictive value (and thus any inadequate criteria should be dropped), or if there is consensus for a different approach, such as an achievement-based standard. An achievement-based standard is typically easier to check, but as it is unmoored from the existence of suitable sources upon which a biography can be based, I suspect there will be many who push for a relatively high standard. This could be an issue if editors also prefer that the achievement-based standard set a minimum standard for a sports figure having an article. (My instinctive feeling is that consensus would still consider the general notability guideline applicable for sports figures, but I'm not certain.) isaacl (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The challenge with an achievement-based standard (which I am thinking is like winning the US Open or becoming an All-Star or Hall of Famer), is that those individuals are far from the margin of who the community considers notable (and would pass GNG without a second look). What the SNG can do is help provide advice on the marginal subjects (in both directions). The real question is how should we advise editors about someone like John Christensen (baseball) or someone like La Schelle Tarver? Enos733 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

More broadly speaking, an achievement-based standard is a criterion of "has done X", where X could be something like "has made at least Y plate appearances with a minimum on-base percentage of Z or a minimum slugging percentage of W". To my mind, it's in essence the same idea as saying everyone in a given set meets the standard of having an article. I agree with you, though, that it's likely that a general consensus on achievement-based standards would set them quite high and thus be of limited value. At present, I still think a predictor approach is a better match for what the English Wikipedia community can agree upon. (It's different than, say, the guidelines for academics, as there is generally a lot of available suitable coverage for sports figures.) I think there is a possible way forward with the idea that some have proposed of having lists of sports figures that meet a certain lower standard (though I'm not sure about how to manage the logistics). isaacl (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

A question I have with moving toward a statistical-based achievement criteria is that there is no logical connection between the statistical achievement and the subject receiving reliable, independent, published coverage (WP:Source). What I appreciated about the participation criteria was that it was a nice clear line. The problem with the criteria was that athletes in some leagues may not actually have coverage. I think the adoption of proposal 5, by itself, would solve many of the problems (as would have been a closer look at which leagues a presumption of coverage does exist). Enos733 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, regarding a lack of connection, that's exactly what I said. I appreciate that some editors aren't bothered by this, as they think covering everyone who has done X should be the goal. My instinct, though, is that the overall community still holds a consensus view that the general notability guideline must be met for sports figures. isaacl (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, Nigej. The 'presumption' was (and is, in the lead-section wording that remains) so vague as to cause or allow wildly divergent interpretations. Until we bell the cat of "OK, we presumed them notable (but they 'should' have non-trivial sources), so now what?" we're in danger of endlessly re-fighting over effectively the same small area between the entrenched positions of "so good enough indefinitely", "so where are these 'likely' sources, then?". I know people die a little inside when they hear "it's going to need some sort of additional process", but... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally I don't find the term 'presumed' that useful: FWIW, presumed reflects the same wording at Wikipedia:Notability itself:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...

Also WP:GNG:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Those usages of "presumed" are also not helpful to me. I suppose they mean "highly likely" but still could be challenged via AfD. Personally I'm no fan of GNG - too vague for my liking. For NSPORT I'd prefer a different style of definition, otherwise we're no further forward. Probably I'd be happy going along the lines of saying someone who passes NSPORT can have an article (without having to strictly pass GNG) as long as we had a much better system by which the actual criteria could be challenged. Currently once a criteria is in place it has proved to be exceptionally difficult to get it changed. Perhaps we need a system whereby those wanting to keep a criteria need to justify it, rather than the other way round (which seems to be the current system), although I'm not sure how practical that would be. Nigej (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if presumed at WP:N and WP:GNG refers to:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

Or is presumed because of other occasional WP:IAR exceptions.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it's related to the "stand-alone" aspect, which wouldn't be relevant at NSPORT. It would be better if the wording was clearer. I don't think the IAR is relevant because even if we say something is black-and-white, the IAR could overrule it. It seems to me that NSPORT could simply say "A sports competitor passes NSPORT if they satisfy the criteria below." The "buck" then passes from arguing about whether someone passes NSPORT to arguing about whether the criteria are fit-for-purpose. Nigej (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think new criteria will undergo a great deal of scrutiny now, so they will have to have strong justification. The key question is how should proposed criteria be evaluated, and what can gain consensus approval? Criteria that are linked to sources have had a lot of support, since sports figures have a lot of suitable coverage, and because there is a general consensus that Wikipedia biographies should be more that stats tables (though a sporting career biography could be written for some players in some sports based on routine coverage). There are some who would like a much higher standard (on a "had a historical impact" level), but I don't think that has consensus support. Some standard that aimed at capping the number of biographies to a certain percentage of high-level competitive athletes in a given sport would directly address the concern of some editors that sports figures have too large a percentage of all English Wikipedia biographies. This would probably work better for individual sports, or for some team sports where teams are not solely competing within fixed league schedules. For league sports, although it does have historical inequities, perhaps the simplest compromise is to do the groundwork on a stricter participation criterion, and demonstrate that (insert some high percentage here) of players who have competed in league W with X appearances during years Y to Z, for example, are sufficiently significant to have an individual article. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In my understanding, "presumed" is not related to whether or not the subject in question is better covered within another article—that's an editorial judgement issue, as per the sentences immediately following the one you quoted. (It's more common to come into play for non-biographies, but it could be a factor for relatives of other (real-world) notable people.) It's accommodating for the fact that each individual case can still be discussed and evaluated on the basis of consensus. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: needs to propose some wording. Those who have been heavily involved in the discussion should not be editing. GiantSnowman 19:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: As you surely must know, it usually is not a duty of the RfC closer (nor would it make sense for it to be, as then closers would be very much discouraged from attempting to bring an end to any hotly contested discussion) to have to implement the results, at least not in cases where the outcome is more complex than adding or removing a simple sentence. If there was not a specific proposed new lead, but there was a consensus to rewrite a portion of it, then one should try to figure out a new version which is consistent with that consensus - this might be solvable through the usual method of collaborative, incremental editing, or it might need a more thorough discussion here, but I don't think that we should be forcing the closer (who, presumably, was someone who did not participate in the discussion until now and certainly didn't nor was expected to read through all of the finer nuances and the little print of what has transpired) to implement this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Participation

@Cbl62: I think Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in Major League Baseball and Served as a full-time (as opposed to interim) head coach for NCAA Division I/University Division football (since the establishment of divisions in 1957), men’s basketball (since 1957) or women’s basketball (since 1982). Other college coaches in other divisions and/or other sports may also meet notability guidelines via WP:GNG are participation; how they participate is different from a goalkeeper or a quarterback, but it is still participation rather than a more specific criteria. Compare to A coach or choreographer who has worked with many notable skaters, including at least one Olympic medalist or senior World Champion (for example, Pam Gregory and David Wilson) which is not participation. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #3 was directed specifically about athletes (and specifically described in the close). I would suggest a new discussion is warranted if the proposal was to expand to include other subjects. Enos733 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The proposal appears to be more general, but you are correct that the close appears to be focused on athletes. I will ask the closer for clarification. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And aside from what Enos said, commissioners in baseball serve for multiple years. This is not like athletes where there a player who played for a game or two. The same is likewise true with managers who are not generally given that role for short "cups of coffee". Interim managers would be different, of course. Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a total of 10 people who have held the title of Commissioner of Baseball. Generally very long terms. All clearly notable. Cbl62 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, although given how few there are I believe GNG is sufficient; when a new one is appointed they will easily receive enough coverage that no one will need to refer to NSPORT to decide whether an article is warranted. However, commissioners aren't the only participants covered by that line. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Coaches/managers/presidents similarly are not appointed for a game or two. These categories are fundamentally different from the the one, two or handful of games of short-term participation that was the subject of the subproposal. Cbl62 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there was no discussion on coaches and managers, so they shouldn't have been removed. Added them back for football managers, you'd need a separate consensus/RFC to remove them. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

On another note, I still see participation based criteria listed in Badminton, Figure Skating, and Mixed Martial Arts. Enos733 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed MMA. I believe figure skating and badminton need separate consensuses; there is currently a discussion underway for figure skating, and one needs to be opened for badminton. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

We have an anomalous sentence at WP:NHOCKEY. "For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines." which makes no sense now. It either needs deleting or modifying to eg "Coached or managed a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year (Note: coaching or managing in lower pools that do not actually contest for the World Champion title is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements)." based on the now-deleted wording. Nigej (talk)

• Being a coach or a manager is not “participation,” it is a job that garners ongoing coverage, similar to a political officeholder and was NOT addressed in the RfC. The “participation” discussion was all about the whole one game thing Rikster2 (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Isn't being a goalkeeper or a quarterback also a job that (might) garner ongoing coverage? I don't see the difference between participation as a quarterback and participation as a coach. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    • No, it is not the same thing and you are letting your biases get in the way of clear judgment. Isn’t being a state legislator a “participation” that may not yield any meaningful results, yet it falls under the Politics SNG. Managers and coaches are hired for years and are typically focal points of the news, which is why for certain levels and sports they pretty much ALWAYS meet GNG, for which SNGs are meant to approximate. The entire RfC was keying in on one-game thresholds for various sports. You are overstepping the bounds of the RfC and probably should take a break. Rikster2 (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
      • The RFC was about NSPORT, not NPOL - although it looks like there will soon be an NPOL RFC. And while the SNG should approximate GNG, I'm not convinced it does for all the coaches supported by NSPORT. I'm not going to remove coaches again unless the closer clarifies their close to support such removal. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
        • As someone who was involved with crafting the college coach SNG guideline, it came after many frivolous AfDs. We were careful to cap what was covered - only top division NCAA coaches in modern times (since 1957 at the earliest), only for sports that pretty much have their own media ecosystem they are so popular (football and basketball), and purposefully omitting interim coaches who may only coach a handful of games. Thousands of coaches even in those sports don’t meet that criteria. There is a huge difference between that and somebody who appears in one professional game. Rikster2 (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

      I suppose it depends on whether you think "competing" (which seems to me to be restricted to the players) is synonymous with "participating" (which might be construed to have a somewhat wider aspect). In discussions above the two have often been taken to have identical meanings, which does support your argument. Probably does need a further discussion. Nigej (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've changed the NHOCKEY wording based on the now-deleted criteria. Nigej (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I get that there was a problem with a few sports having one-game player permastub factories. I don't think there's such an issue for coaches or executives, where there's no hiring carousel. Channel the energy.—Bagumba (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing all the participations means that some sports have no guidelines, whereas others have kept most of theirs. How do you expect team sports such as football, cricket, rugby which don't award loads of trophies to have an outcome-based notability guideline? Whereas e.g. triathlon can still keep most of it's assumed notability, because it has a named tournament that it can just have an easy "top 10" of. Makes no sense, as it's biased WP:NSPORTS towards individual-participation sports, rather than team-based sports which get way more coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• In particular, I have concerns about the restoration of notability of the participation of managers in WP:NFOOTY - while some of the other coach/manager criteria are more selective and I would support their restoration in a formal or informal discussion, that criteria is extremely broad and considers anyone who has managed a competitive game between two fully professional team to be notable. This covers hundreds of leagues and thousands of teams, and is not a reliable predictor of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If you have an issue with WP:NFOOTY then focus on trying to address that specifically rather than trying to sneak blanket changes in that were never explicitly under the scope of the RfC. Frankly, focusing on the problem areas instead of generalizing would have been a better solution to the whole RfC. Editors were getting frustrated largely with about 3-4 sports with lax guidelines but the entire SNG was nuked because no one seemed to have the stomach to take on the real issues Rikster2 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

    I disagree. For one thing its not just 3-4, its been many more than that: soccer, american football, baseball, basketball, cricket, rugby, volleyball, aussie rules, and "individual sports" too. The other point is that there have been many attempts to tighten individual sports and pretty much all have failed. The recent changes have only been achieved by discussing NSPORT as a whole. Nigej (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

    • • As a basketball editor mainly (though that far from my only interest in real life) I can say there would have been openness to paring down the 7-8 leagues that were in that guideline. But every person who has played in the NBA, for example, WOULD meet GNG (probably 90% of them before they play an NBA game if you want to be real - because of their college, other pro or in some cases high school careers). The question is where that bar is set, there are a finite number of leagues for which that is true. Footy had hundreds of leagues and many of us knew and had been saying that was WAY too many. And the majority of examples people brought up were footy, cricket, Olympics or some turn of the century baseball players Rikster2 (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
        • And of those, cricket already changed/tightened its notable matches list last year, and football was already working on the assumption that playing a couple of games but having no coverage wasn't enough to keep an articles (hundreds of footballers who met WP:NFOOTY but not WP:GNG have been deleted in the last year). Things needed slightly tightening, not smashed to oblivion in a way that can never be fixed (as team sports have lots of participations and not many events with trophies, so how the hell can we base a guideline on anything else)? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Cricket changed its guidelines in a manner which did not really address or truly resolve the issue [the sentence has appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. was present before, and is the source of the issue, in that no, there are plenty of instances of players at the highest level - usually domestic, since international cricket was for a long time and still is mostly limited to only a handful of countries - not having significant coverage] (although they seem to be less dogmatic than other people and there are plenty of examples of articles which were deleted or redirected to a list due to failing GNG - something which some other sports projects seem entirely unable to contemplate). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

      @Nigej:Please point me to any discussions that you have seen where folks tried to narrow the WP:NBASKETBALL guideline and were stymied. It would have been unusual for me to have missed a discussion of that importance. I do know we have cut leagues from the standard and have said no to adding more leagues. Rikster2 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

      My point was really related to the sports which have an excessively high number of biographies, and that includes Basketball, although it's certainly not the worst in this regards. My own issue is that sports competitors make up half of all biographies of living people, a ridiculous proportion. A large number of sports contribute to that, which is why I'm reluctant to accept that just a small number of sports as being responsible. Nigej (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

      But what you said was "there have been many attempts to tighten individual sports and pretty much all have failed." As someone active in a project that has legitimately tried to hold to a guideline that realistically approximates GNG, I want to know what those attempts were for that sport, because I know I would be open to these and I think the project could have been brought along on that. We had like 7 active leagues in our guideline. Meanwhile 80-90% of the problem was being driven from a few sports that had hundreds of leagues or basically said "anyone who made a living playing the sport for a day." It is irritating that the entire SSG was nuked instead of trying to address more systematically. Rikster2 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is a good illustration of why it was a bad idea to delete all these standards without replacement. This conversation should be about whether these people are likely to be notable, not about whether they have "participated". Frankly given that Major League Baseball is possibly the most prominent sports league in the world (it has the highest attendance and second highest revenue) it's hard to argue that people who've participated in it aren't likely to be notable. Hut 8.5 18:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Since you clearly do not think there will be any problems in demonstrating notability per BASIC/GNG (which ultimately had to be done previously anyway), I'm not seeing what the issue is. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Because the guideline isn't fulfilling its stated purpose of telling editors when subjects are likely to be notable. And the idea of getting rid of this guideline entirely and replacing it with the GNG has just failed to reach consensus. Hut 8.5 18:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  However the consensus is that the guideline didn't do that before. Nigej (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  And because the guideline hasn't been removed completely, interested parties can formulate new criteria to replace the basic participation criteria that were removed by consensus. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  The state of the guideline before doesn't mean this situation is OK, or even any better. I wonder what it would be like if this "logic" were applied outside Wikipedia. You take a car to a mechanic and tell them there's a problem with the tyres. The mechanic returns the car with all the wheels removed. "Well it wasn't working before, right? At least you can put some better wheels on it this time." Hut 8.5 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's more like someone going to the garage before the mechanic has finished and complaining that all the wheels have removed. No one in their right minds thinks we are at a satisfactory position but sometimes you have to a step backwards to make progress in the longer term. Nigej (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  We don't know if there is going to be any future progress on this. There might not be. "Yeah, we might put some more wheels on your car, if someone can find any which I think are good enough." "When's that going to happen?" "Dunno. Whenever we get around to it, I guess." "How do I get to work in the meantime?" "Take the bus." Hut 8.5 19:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Or in our case "take the GNG" (see below) Nigej (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As noted in the close, if you have a case where participation was the only SNG, then the available replacement/alternate is GNG, as it it for the zillion topics that don't even have a SNG. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Rugby union guidelines

The current guidelines for rugby union are that a person is likely notable if they have played for, coached or administered "1.A national team that placed in the top three after 1980 at the Women's Rugby World Cup, the Rugby World Cup, the Olympic Games, or the Commonwealth Games." This is absurd, and clearly written by someone who doesn't know rugby. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who won bronze for Sevens at the Commonwealth games is more likely to be notable than someone who's played for the British and Irish Lions because they've got a medal? It's a joke. Better to have no guidelines at all, like you've done for other sports, than to leave this nonsense standing. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to vent your frustration. If you think that a new guideline which is better indicative of meeting WP:SIGCOV could be written, then you should suggest such a guideline instead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, way to misunderstand my position. The point is, international Sevens, at the Olympics and elsewhere, is a junior competition, not the pinnacle of the sport, and anyone who understands rugby would know that. What has happened is the equivalent of me writing notability guidelines for, say, lacrosse, about which I know nothing, building in an arbitrary rule that says my guideline can't be challenged, and then condescending to people who actually follow the sport because they don't think the guideline I've written is suitable for it.

I actually started out sympathetic to the goal of reducing the prevalence of one-line articles about non-notable subjects. I hate fancruft, and Wikipedia is unfortunately full of it. But the determined, invincible ignorance and unwillingness to learn I've encountered from the editors making these changes has brought me round to thinking that rampant fancruft is the lesser of two evils. If articles about players who've made one substitute appearance in an actually significant competition is the price we have to pay for informative content in an encyclopedia, so be it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your most recent edit to this article had the edit summary "remove what is now nonsensical", and left the section on cricket reading:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they

1. Umpires are presumed notable if they've been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires

You removed something you thought was "nonsensical", and left something that isn't even English. If you're not reading your own edits, what chance do we have? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest either restoring this version or deleting it altogether, for now it makes no sense at all and is pretty much worthless ("Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they: Umpires are presumed notable if they've been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires." What? And playing in the NBA is non-notable but being drafted is, and leading a stat in the G League is more important than doing it in the top league? And no American football? And the only way a baseball player can pass is being a HOF inductee?). This is completely nonsensical. Considering the crap shape it is in currently, I actually would support completely abolishing it like you proposed in January. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's actually the point of the exercise. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

All those players can still be included if they meet GNG. The alternative is to do actually what has been attempted (and often obstructed) for years and come up with guidelines which actually make sense (unlike the older ones) and which are accurate indicators of GNG (if anything, it's better if the guidelines here are a little bit too strict, the extra can still be included if they meet GNG, while if the guidelines are too broad, then you have the perpetual dispute which hopefully this will have brought an end to). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

But the whole point is people have just gone through and gutted the sections without any thought as to adjusting what is left, but apparently we aren't allowed to discuss this because we are sore losers. Spike 'em (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is preventing you from making bold and uncontroversial changes so that the rest doesn't read like utter nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So we have to clear up after other editors making a mess of things? Isn't that what the people in favour of removing the SNGs object to? Spike 'em (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up one page is much simpler than having hundreds of AfDs, no? And its not like there were previous attempt to clean this up, which often did not succeed... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nicknack009: The only thing disruptive is people stone-walling and not wanting to accept that consensus is against them. The reaction to the edits attempting to implement the consensus of the RfC (which was well advertised, well attended, and certainly lasted long enough) is the exact same kind of obstructionism that I was pointing out in my previous edit. Cleaning up this page would be so much simpler if people were not still trying to desperately dispute the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you still ignoring the nonsensical state you left the cricket section in? --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Was the cricket section incomprehensible after I left it? No. It might have needed a more thorough rewrite, but it is certainly not entirely nonsensical. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Where we go from here

It's obvious the decision in the recent RfC, and the resulting edits, has caused a lot of consternation. In particular, the edits by User:BilledMammal, User:RandomCanadian and others have been premature and not constructive, leaving a version of the page that is in many places nonsensical and unusable, and I'd like to thank User:GiantSnowman for reverting to the last stable version of the page - for now, at least.

If the decision to absoutely forbid participation-based guidlines is to stand, then discussion is needed as to what to replace them with, and that discussion needs to be held with the Wikiprojects for each sport. These projects have developed their own guidelines and gained consensus for them, some of them quite recently, and what's described as "rough consensus" between a relatively small number of editors should not be allowed to simply steamroller them. There are conflicting consensuses here, and negotiation is necessary.

I also think it may be necessary to propose a new RfC, not on the whole spread of proposals and subproposals, but specifically on participation-based guidelines and where they may or may not be appropriate. I'm not sure how to go about doing that, but I will look into it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It is incorrect to this that there is a need to have something replace the participation based criteria, given that there is always the default GNG for all sports. That was the whole point of proposal #3 (which I suggested), was that participation does not assure significant coverage. If you can find cases where partication is absolutely tied to significant coverage, that would be a fresh addition, not a replacement. --Masem (t) 20:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you, having failed to get consensus to abolish NSPORT, attempting to achieve that by back door by disrupting it so badly you get your way anyway? Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

uh, proposal #3 is one of the ones that had consensus. It was specifically tuned to tackle the one problematic part of NSPORT, stubby articles due to participation in one game which didn't encourage editors to look for better sourcing.--Masem (t) 21:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The replacement is WP:SIGCOV. @GiantSnowman: Who should implement the result of an RfC, besides those who were involved in it? I figure, if somebody is interested in a topic, it is only logical for them to implement the consensus affecting that topic... Your edit also very clearly undermines that consensus. Personally, my only edit was removing some stray unrelated text which did not make sense given what was remaining, and I didn't !vote on that proposal, and I wouldn't be entirely opposed to some participation criteria (it does make sense in some cases that, yes, nearly all members of a group are likely notable - to take the same example as the one I edited, likely that a cricket criterion which was something "All international cricketers from Test-playing nations" could probably work), but I'm definitively of the opinion that most of these probably should be rewritten from scratch if that is the case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Either those involved (following further discussion and agreement), or those entirely uninvolved in the RFC. Those with a view on the matter making changes and falsely claiming they reflect the consensus is entirely inappropriate. I think we need a sport-by-sport discussion. GiantSnowman 20:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

How about we just add 2-3 sources with significant coverage to every sports related articles we create? Alvaldi (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, since WP:SIGCOV is a rather vague element of WP:N and doesn't really help resolve disputes in this area, what would help on a guideline level would be a specification of SIGCOV for these biographies that could be used to assess the Notability of sports figures. I didn't participate in the RfC and don't have a horse (sic.) in this race, but it seems to me that the main decision to be made is what counts as a non-trivial mention in sports coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This is how I thought the close was going to be - that the requirement to add sources (in addition to or beyond a database source[s]) to all articles would pass and there would be no change to the participation measure (except with perhaps an acknowledgment that the community should revisit all leagues to be more certain that nearly all athletes in those leagues have significant coverage). Enos733 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well, the more intransigent editors dug in their heels and opposed measures like that with all their might and main, that sensible option was off the table. So perhaps the individual sports projects can turn some energy to coming up with revised standards, and in the meantime either rely on the GNG (and on ensuring that new article creations come with the multiple reliable sources that they should have been doing as a matter of course already) or just not create new sports bios until they do. Ravenswing 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, as a non-participant in the RfC and in this subject area, I find it disconcerting how often editors have posted to this Talk page as though their personal beliefs had received consensus support in the RfC when, according to the close, they did not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The consensus declared by the close was not clear, by their own admission, and may be unworkable. More importantly in my opinion, the changes that have followed the close were disruptive, I believe intentionally. If changes are to be made as a result of the closure, they have to be done properly, and not simply, as User:RandomCanadian admitted, leaving "utter nonsense" for other editors to clear up. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean - individual editors are going to interpret the close how they want. GiantSnowman 21:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Even a clear, undisputed consensus does not give anyone the right to edit disruptively. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Where a removal is clearly simply implementing the RFC that is not disruptive. If remaining text needs editing to simply make sense is also doable. GNG is the alternative where needed. But I would urge all to just get this done and don't look for ways to mire it down or roadblock it. Let's just implement and move on and enjoy the evolution. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Alas, there has not been, and will not be, anything 'clear' or 'simple' about this... GiantSnowman 21:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing almost all of the text is not fixing, it's breaking. Lots of the removed content could have been tightened by a discussion of people who know what the competitions in question actually are, rather than being rsndomly culled so the resulting page made no sense at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is not the term or statement of my sentence. If some material only establishes a criteria that the RFC said should be removed, removal would be clearly simply implementing the RFC. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reimplemented it. You can't reject the consensus on procedural grounds - WP:NOTBURO - particularly since the procedural grounds are not based in policy. Note we are already making progress towards fixing the inconsistencies this introduces, such as at WP:NRU, and further work is ongoing there to make an effective guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's recall what Proposal 3 was:

Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events ...

Implementation of this proposal, which has consensus, means removing all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT except Olympics. It does not mean replacing it with a new participation criteria. It does not mean talking about how to removing the participation criteria. The implementation is removing the criteria. (By the way, not only for players, there is no qualification or limitation on "participation criteria".) There is no rule that this implementation has to be done by someone uninvolved. Those who are reverting this implementation are being disruptive. Levivich 22:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• By the way, not only for players, there is no qualification or limitation on "participation criteria". Strongly agree on this point; there can only be a restriction to players if you misinterpret "participation" as "played". Note that there are some criteria that I don't have an objection to, such as the participation criteria for managers of Baseball, but all of the criteria needs to be discussed to determine whether it is suitable to keep in the guideline, now that the status quo is removal. BilledMammal (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  If the criteria is working, why should we remove it? I think the editors who participated in the discussion were more nuanced than rigid in their evaluation of any of the proposals. One of the nice things about this project is that we can take the time to implement the proposal correctly in a way that makes sense. Enos733 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Admin lock

Can we lock the page down so only admins have the right to edit it? As from what I see at the moment, "too many cooks in the kitchen" seems to be happening to this project page. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That would mire down or stop the implementation.North8000 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Really? Because my point of view from my watchlist, is this the page is clearly a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Govvy (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Messy is inevitable for a big complex change. If there are behavioral issues beyond that, they should be addressed as behavioral issues. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The cycle of reverts and edits within a few hours on the main page is approaching edit warring. It further confuses the issue and potentially affects discussion on any AfDs that have been open since the change. Best to keep it in the talk page imo. Bonoahx (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

NSPORT needs to be Superprotected! BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

What I see is people trying to impose their own additional conditions on the implementation of the RFC that would mire down or stop it's implementation. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's see here: AssociateAffiliate restored the cricket criteria. Wjemather reverted it. GiantSnowman restored the March 6 version. BilledMammal reverted it. I reverted BilledMammal. Levivich reverted me. Felixsv7 reverted Levivich. Cbl62 reverted Felixsv7. Felixsv7 reverted Cbl62. BilledMammal reverted Felix. And then Spike 'em reverted BilledMammal. This is one heck of an edit war! I say we all need a timeout. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Editors should not be stonewalling these changes; there is a consensus for them, and if they dislike the result then they should be proposing modifications to correct those issues. I am already attempting this with WP:NRU. BilledMammal (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I've left a request at WP:RFPP (where this request should be made) so that an uninvolved admin can deal with this. Iffy★Chat -- 22:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I urge everyone to please stop reverting each other. It literally doesn't matter regarding deletion discussions: I'm certain someone will point closers to the village pump discussion and they will choose to give it whatever weight they deem appropriate, in the context of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus. Agreed the interim condition of the page isn't great for newcomers, but that's true for either of the states that the page is switching between. isaacl (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have fully protected this page. BilledMammal, BeanieFan11, Levivich, Felixsv7, Spike 'em, you should all know better than to edit war like that. Work this out on talk. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: This was worked out, in an RFC. Please explain to me what is wrong with removing the participation based criteria, and what there is for me to discuss with the editor I reverted? Levivich 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently this isn't as "worked out" as you think. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly not going to work out if you take the side of obstructionists and prevent the consensus of the RfC from being made reality. Avilich (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Muboshgu: Echoing Levivich. There is a consensus for these changes, and while some editors may dislike that change there should be no issue with implementing it - though there is an issue with editors WP:STONEWALLING that implementation. BilledMammal (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus for what these changes should be - just an appreciation that the bar might be currently set too low. Deleting the current guidelines without any replacement strategy is not a constructive way forward. Felixsv7 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

What is unclear about Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events? It says "remove", not "replace". Levivich 22:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The close stated: "participation-based criteria are a problem and that the best way forward is to remove them". This is not ambiguous, and nor does it require more filibustering prior to implementation. The close was also clear that the replacement strategy is GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Everyone, instead of complaining about how the WP:WRONGVERSION is in place, can you go back to discussing the changes? This particular thread is a distraction now that the page is fully protected. Iffy★Chat -- 22:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• What is there to discuss about the change? The consensus is to remove all participation criteria; there is little to discuss beyond "is this participation criteria", and I believe the only area that is disputed in is managers/coaches. BilledMammal (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

From what I see, this is really just a shit-show, you should go back to the person that closed and ask for a joint reassessment. The close that happened, was poorly crafted. The amount of content and context involved for your abolishment of NSPORT will not only daunt a lot of user it will alienate others from taking part. Biting off more than you can chew. You should build and develop in smaller issues, take each SNG at a time and work on that. This page should stay closed until you have sorted out these issues. Govvy (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

As keeps being pointed out and you (User:BilledMammal and your allies) keep ignoring, the edits you're making leave the page making no sense. Repeating "consensus" does not change that. You got a "rough consensus" of the people who contributed to the discussion at the village pump, which clearly does not have a wider consensus of editors, but leaving that aside, you did not get consensus to make disruptive edits and leave the cleanup to others. So stop it until we have a chance to figure out what the page should say! --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The page made sense after the edits. There were inconsistencies, such as considering semi-finalists of the Women's RWC to be notable but not the men, but those inconsistencies can be fixed - and in that specific example they had been fixed, and we were working on improving the guideline further. BilledMammal (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to claim that leaving a section as reading:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they

1. Umpires are presumed notable if they've been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires

makes sense, I would have to question your good faith. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In which case one should probably point you to WP:ABF and smack a big WP:TROUT for good measure. In this case, while one could say that it is clumsily written, even that it does not follow the usual rules of the English language, the meaning of it is quite clear, so it does "make sense", although it might be "in need of a rewrite". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 March 2022

Within the sports-specific criteria, replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist" per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability Subproposal #8. The proposed change has been discussed, consensus has been reached and it is ready to be implemented without further discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 23:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC) –dlthewave ☎ 23:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Enthusiastic support. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Support, straightforward implementation of the RfC's #8.2 per closer. Pilaz (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Support Clear straightforward implementation --SuperJew (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done –dlthewave ☎ 23:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, another place for discussion? Can we centralize the discussion at AN, instead of expecting everyone to scour Wikipedia for yet another discussion. There's a thread at AN about freezing the page while a very contentious discussion is ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Editors reaching an agreement in the talk page after a page protection is exactly how the whole process is supposed to work. You don't get to overturn that if all you have is some useless procedural argument that doesn't address any of the actual issues. Avilich (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Nfitz, I would have thought checking the talk page for relevant discussion would be a basic first step before a mass revert. If you had done so you would have noticed this edit request which was opened before the self-requested AN review. In any case the open review is not grounds to revert, and the outcome of subproposal #8 does not appear to be in contention. –dlthewave ☎ 01:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd have thought that discussion would have been centralized. I'd have thought that the RFC instructions would have had the RFC here. I'd have thought that's it pretty clear that changes shouldn't be implemented while discussion is ongoing. I'm not particularly opposed to the changes - but surely we should apply NOWAIT and let the process carry on, without needless changes. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's very clear that, at best, parts (and not the whole) of the RfC may be altered, but subprop no. 8 clearly isn't disputed by many. If the only objection is procedural in nature, WP:NOTBURO applies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this limited change should be implemented as per sub-proposal 8. GiantSnowman 22:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (2)

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3, please remove the section "American football/Canadian football", as all criteria within the section are participation criteria and there is a consensus to remove them. BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, the page has been protected to prevent edit-warring regarding the removal of participation based SNGs. This is an attempt to usurp that page protection, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This has already been discussed and consensus has been reached. It is ready to be implemented. –dlthewave ☎ 23:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The consensus has been contested by senior editors including admin, so there is obviously not a practical consensus. The closure was dubious and there should be a review,Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I oppose as well, per Atlantic306. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I support, and dispute the opposes as being nothing but stubborn stonewalling (by people who also opposed the new improvements at the RfC). I do not see any challenge to the close (beyond a few polite questions regarding its clarity or its exact outcome on the closer's talk page), and unless the close is reversed, it stands, and people objecting to it should not try to put up even more bureaucratic obstacles in an attempt to filibuster it a final time before it passes... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, per the closing statement, "There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria". Avilich (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, the current objections to this are status quo stonewalling and are not the appropriate venue to contest an extremely well-attended RfC close. Per Proposal 3 of the RfC mentioned above, there is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria (except those based on olympic or similar participation), and the "American football/Canadian football" section consists of one participation-based criterion and two notes, so the whole section should be deleted. Pilaz (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Obviously there are problems with the RfC and implementation. This has already led to edit-wars and numerous continuation of discussion. This is just another attempt to backdoor the changes which have been flagged as problematic after protection of the page. --SuperJew (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Temporarily on hold given the proposal at the bottom regarding how best to implement this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Moving forward

I think we ought to do a couple things to move us forward in a positive direction.

First, I think in either the lede and/or under the Basic Criteria section we specify that 1) articles about sportspeople require sourcing beyond a database and 2) that a RFC concluded that participating in one game or event does not mean that the subject meets NBASIC. Second, the specific sections mentioning participation would not be deleted while editors work to revise and refine the criteria.

I think this change should only exist for a specified time period while additional work is done (like two weeks or a month). This method would provide guidance to editors and recognizes that more changes to NSPORT are needed. It also may have the benefit of limited disruption while work is done to revise each category. --Enos733 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree. The consensus is to remove the participation criteria, and removing it is an improvement to the guidelines. We can work on improving the guidelines further once that criteria is removed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I still don't see how that was a "consensus," unless that just means whatever the deletionists want... I also disagree that removing them are "improving" guidelines. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  BeanieFan11, if you believe that the close was incorrect then I would suggest taking it up with the closing editor. –dlthewave ☎ 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Until such point that a new RFC changes the close, the expectation is that participation should be removed. The question is how to best implement that close. I think it is better to acknowledge in the lede that the close concluded there was consensus that participation-based criteria would not be sufficient, but I do think there should be a transition period in the text to another community-developed criteria. Enos733 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think we should temporarily demote this guideline to an essay with some sort of note about it being under revision... and then work on drafting new rules before rewriting the page because just removing the participation stuff without a replacement makes the entire page useless. Spanneraol (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• The "Basic criteria" section already states that database sources with wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion are not sufficient to show a subject meets the standard of having an article. (A database of hall-of-famers, for example, would not be one with a wide-sweeping, generic standard.) isaacl (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  If that were clear, there would be no need for Proposal 5 (...Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article). Enos733 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree that adding another statement regarding databases is necessary to document the requirement to have one citation to a suitable source providing significant coverage (though the existing one could be reworded). The reason for proposal 5 is that there was no requirement for any citations to establish that the general notability guideline has been met. isaacl (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (3)

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3, please remove the section "Association football (soccer)", as all criteria within the section are participation criteria and there is a consensus to remove them. –dlthewave ☎ 23:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Football is also an olympic sport! You can't simply abolish this. The conclusion of what ever was written, it wouldn't work. You're just pressing GNG anyway and NFOOTBALL worked pretty well for the Football Project, I don't get the pains people go to to destroy it. Govvy (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Participation in Football at the Olympics has already been removed, per this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Per RfC closer: There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria. "Association football (soccer)" #1 & #2 are participation-based criteria. The note clarifies the use of a term used in #1 and #2. There is no way to leave anything behind after removing the participation-based criteria, so deleting everything is the adequate implementation of the rough consensus found at the RfC. Pilaz (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Objectively, there was clear no consensus about that subproposal. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support- this proposal gained consensus. Reyk _YO! 06:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Obviously there are problems with the RfC and implementation. This has already led to edit-wars and numerous continuation of discussion. This is just another attempt to backdoor the changes which have been flagged as problematic after protection of the page. --SuperJew (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose changes to the guideline are being discussed at WT:FOOTY, and fixing issues is better than nuking everything based on a thin consensus. The closer has also noted on the talkpage of the discussion that the point should be to discuss each one not nuke. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Discussing each point individually is what we are doing right now, and a well-attended Village Pump consensus supersedes a WikiProject discussion, per WP:CONLEVEL. Pilaz (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support per RfC consensus. Alvaldi (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. We're not !voting here. The only question is whether this change matches the close; any comments that don't address that must be ignored. BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well the close is being reviewed/clarified at AN, and the close didn't give a clear mandate on what to do, so you assuming it gave you a mandate to nuke everything is plain wrong, so stop pushing that. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  The close gave a clear mandate to eliminate participation based criteria. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Please stop bludgeoning users. --SuperJew (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm replying to an editor who replied to me. That's not bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) The close is being reviewed at AN, and the closer themselves has said on the talkpage that Further drafting and consensus-building after an RfC close is typical, and while a little hectic, I think BRD is yielding better results than if I simply wrote my own policy wording. i.e. we should be trying to reach an agreeable solution. Nuking is not an agreeable solution, and certainly not the only way to interpret the vague closure based on a thin consensus. Sports editors are happy to work with people to fix issues, but nuking everything is not the way to build collaboration and sensible guidelines, it's the way to create nonsense like the version of this guidelines before it was reverted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• oppose - the scrapping of NSPORTS was clearly rejected, yet this is exactly what Billed Mammal is trying to do by removing it. GiantSnowman 10:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a fallacious argument since there is no prejudice against creation of new criteria or even reinstatement of individual removed participation criterion should they gain new consensus. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support per RfC consensus. If a sport only has participation criteria then clearly that particular sport should be removed from NSPORT. Nigej (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

except the close of #3 is being challenged and is probably wrong. GiantSnowman 10:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any action taken to remove NFOOTY in its current form, it can be tailored better. But it had been working fine with most users for a long time. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I voted against subproposal 3 and thought it was a really bad idea that would result in chaos. I also posted notices at the footy and other sports projects advising them of subproposal 3. Unfortunately, and after more than a month of voting, the supporters of NFOOTY, NGRIDIRON, NBASEBALL and other one-game criteria lost the vote. The burden is now on each of those projects to come up with criteria that are more precisely calibrated to GNG compliance. Cbl62 (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  and if you see comments from users who did not participate, they either were unaware or were aware but didn't know where to begin given the extent of the discussion! GiantSnowman 12:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Editors who choose not to participate in discussions do not get to arbitrarily overrule consensus reached by those that do participate. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I hear what you're saying Snowman, but the notices I posted at the footy project included a link that took the reader directly to subproposal 3. If people didn't bother to read the postings or click the links, I don't know what to say. I wish the outcome was different, but I don't think we should go the "Trump"-ian route and claim that this was a "rigged" vote. Cbl62 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Joseph, GiantSnowman, Govvy and others. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. This should probably be put on hold pending the AN review. However, all editors should now be working constructively to implement the consensus and formulate new guidelines where appropriate; they should not be gaming the system to prevent implementation of that consensus with fallacious arguments, particularly when they are simply rehashing the RFC or repeating "concerns" that were explicitly addressed in the close. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  They might've been addressed and even mentioned in the close, but concerns are legitimate and despite them being addressed and even mentioned in the close, we can already see cases of trying to grandfather, like in this AfD for a page created in 2009. --SuperJew (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you understand what is meant by grandfathering. In any case, articles (new or old, grandfathering or not) do not get an exception to the eventual NSPORT requirement to meet GNG; and fwiw, it is commonly argued that articles that are over 10 years old have had more than enough grace in that regard. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh please, well since you're so smart, please explain to me what is meant by grandfathering. And fwiw, I have no problem with a discussion of "scraping by an SNG" vs "pure GNG" on an article basis, but that isn't the case with comments such as The notability guidelines for football have been altereed, and now only apply to managers, so he does not pass that. He clearly does not pass GNG, and so the article should be deleted. --SuperJew (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not an answer to your question, but technically any AfD !vote worded that way ought to be ignored by any closer, because it is WP:NBASIC that applies to biographies, not the WP:GNG. I find the ignorance about this coming from many quarters in this discussion to be deeply irritating. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Replacements can always be discussed here, but removal of the existing participation-based standards was clearly the rough consensus of the RfC. Avilich (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Temporarily on hold given the proposal at the bottom regarding how best to implement this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Village pump closure review

User:Wugapodes has asked for a review of the Village pump closure here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#NSPORTS_closure_review Natg 19 (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Implementing the RfC - participation criteria - interim status

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Obviously, some form of consensus needs to form about how this part of the RfC should be implemented. Doesn't look like it will be overturned, so that leaves a few options as regards how the page should be until such time either a major rewrite or some replacement text explaining the situation has been agreed upon:

1. Remove all participation-only criteria which were not exempted (i.e. not those relating to Olympics or similar events). [i.e. this would be the solution that has first been attempted but reverted. This could and probably should be coupled with a copy-edit where required]
2. Keep the criteria, but add a clear indication that they are only a placeholder until such time as the existing criteria are updated or replaced.
3. Keep the criteria as is for the time being, and revisit this issue in a short while ["short while" would be something like, at the absolute most, a few days to a few weeks (2-3 being the upper limit): obviously, this cannot be a permanent solution, unless the closure gets overturned, but there might be a good argument as to let the dust settle and revisit this when any procedural objections have been settled].

What d'ya think? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think a placeholder and giving the various projects a defined time to come up with new criteria is best. But that isn't a few days. It also isn't 8 months. Rikster2 (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion 3 isn't really intended to be enough for that to happen, more to let the current matter at AN settle and be sure we are on solid ground. Of course, at that point it might make sense to let the various projects a defined time to come up with new criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Then I guess I am suggesting something between 2 and 3 Rikster2 (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

To a certain extent I think it depends on how quickly new proposals can be formulated and, critically, how likely they are to be approved. Does the placeholder stay in place if new proposals fail or is it deleted at that point? As such I think option 1 is the clearest way forward. Nigej (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Well that brings an interesting question. Who signs off on the new SSG guidance? No offense, but there are a number of folks who have been active in this discussion for whom I can no longer WP:AGF. I'd prefer some unaffiliated panel or something similar Rikster2 (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I was assuming it would be by consensus here. I'm only wondering whether a sport might come back here with a tweak to the criteria, expecting that to be approved and I'm wondering what's going to happen if it isn't. Nigej (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Certainly anyone can chime in but I am not busting my butt to try to put good faith SSG guidance together (which, done right will take a lot of my and others' volunteer time) to satisfy people like BilledMammal who are coming at this from a clear bias against athlete bios. I want editors who are sincerely interested in ensuring SSG guidance approximates GNG and are open to what that means. Those folks probably didn't flock to this discussion or contribute 100s of lines of text to these discussions and affiliated AfDs. Rikster2 (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The trouble is that one person's "good faith SSG guidance" is another person's "ludicrously loose criteria". At the end of the data they'll need to be some give-and-take from both sides. Nigej (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not if we get some people who didn't go all-in on this shitstorm. I never said let the sports put their criteria out without review, now did I? Rikster2 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Battlegrounding is not going to move us forward. Please stop. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Then lets make sure the path forward is clear. I have a legitimate concern in this area given how this RfC played out. Rikster2 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

All guidelines need to be established by consensus from the general community. Practically, the editors most interested in a subject have the appropriate knowledge of the domain to craft appropriate guidance. So it falls upon them to figure out what guidelines are suitable and to convince the community, making revisions as necessary. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggested something akin to #2/#3 above. I do agree that there should be rapid movement toward new sport-based criteria (see the Rugby Union Project's discussion). --Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

option 2 is best. We at WP:FOOTBALL are already working on new proposals. GiantSnowman 16:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 is the clearest and simplest way to implement consensus from the RFC, and can be accompanied by a placeholder, so we should probably do that. Options 2 and 3 would only be acceptable as very short-term solutions, which seems an unlikely result, in addition to probably creating/prolonging confusion and uncertainty, so would be better avoided. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Option #1 is best This will actually implement the results of the RFC. #2 and #3 would turn out to be ways to avoid doing so. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Placeholder text (suggestion no. 2)

Following an RfC, the current criteria based solely on participation have been rendered obsolete in most cases. They are kept here as a placeholder until a final implementation of that RfC. Editors are divided on their usefulness, and they should not be relied upon for the time being, although they may still, in some cases, be useful indicators.

One could also add a Until such time as the situation has been resolved, editors should fall back to the remaining criteria, including WP:SPORTSCRIT, WP:NBIO, and ultimately, WP:SIGCOV.. Would this be an acceptable compromise? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I would go "Following an (linked) RFC, it was concluded that just participating in one game or event does not mean that the subject meets WP:NBASIC. Criteria based solely on participation are ..." Enos733 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine with RC's wording, but not Enos733. GiantSnowman 16:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Conditional Support of RandomCanadian's proposal pending the outcome of the review at WP:AN. Seems reasonable, but probably best to hold off until the review is complete to avoid mass chaos given there is no deadline. I'm also open to including some other language referencing both the RfC and review until the latter is complete, reflecting the current uncertain future status of those guidelines, then adding in RC's language if the closure is upheld. Smartyllama (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  For avoidance of doubt since these proposals were not yet numbered when I commented, I Support Option 2 subject to the conditions noted above. Smartyllama (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest replacing "Editors are divided on their usefulness, and" with "Since these criteria no longer enjoy consensus support,". Otherwise, looks fine including the additional pointer to our fallback guidelines. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (EDIT) Note: this comment should not in any way be taken as an expression of support for this option (i.e. 2). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't any changes happens after the closure review is complete? It seems awfully presumptuous to say Doesn't look like it will be overturned. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's already a few dozen who have commented and most, nearly all of them do not really suggest overturning anything (there are a few isolated mentions, but that's about it). Anyway, there's WP:NODEADLINE so we can wait until that is concluded, if you wish - although there's nothing that prevents having this discussion now and waiting to implement it until then. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  The review has been open for less than 24 hours. People here really need to be willing to take things slow and let the process play out. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This would put it into a "RFC won't get implemented until something else happens" mode. And the "something else" would need to get done by the people who generally don't like the result of the RFC and so this is this would likely be a recipe to not implement the RFC. Any plan needs to acknowledge the underlying reality that the sentiments of the folks who maintain this guideline are, on average, in conflict with the sentiments of the overall community and the results of the RFC on this issue. There is no "good" or "bad" in this, it is just human nature. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose suggestion no. 2 (including this) and 3 If the material was voted in the RfC to be removed, then it should be removed. I'm fine with removing what's there and maybe as a placeholder putting a link to the RfC in question with some sort of "under construction" note. Leaving it there is currently generating more "Keep because meets WP:FOOTY" votes at AfDs for stubs that would no longer meet the new FOOTY criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose option 1 - there is no reason to knowingly create bad policy text while the AN review is ongoing; some kind of disclaimer would be fine if people really think that the RfC link itself won't have enough impact at AfD. I see a lot of editors jumping around celebrating their victories, and this from the perspective of someone who had no part whatever in the RfC or the subject area. (I also see lots of logical and conceptual flaws in the discussion itself - the real question, what counts as SIGCOV in the domain of sports biographies?, hardly seems to have been asked much less answered. New policy text that punts the question more emphatically to the GNG (sic.) won't do anything meaningful to resolve the real issues raised by the RfC, IMO.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose option 1 mass-removal of guidelines should wait until the AN thread is closed. NemesisAT (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support option 2 as multiple projects (football, rugby union) are working towards updated tighter guidelines based on the RFC outcome. Oppose option 1 as the attempt to do this led to a non sensical outcome where none of the guidelines made any sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support option 2 as a good compromise while WikiProjects are working on the tighter guidelines. --SuperJew (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose option 1 whatever we do does need to leave the guideline in a workable state and not an incoherent mess. Attempts to implement option 1 haven't done that. Hut 8.5 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Remove the rubbish now. That is what we voted. We had a proposal for change in participation numbers but that was not passed. It is time to remove the druk, and get rid of all this rubbish immediately. It is time to free Wikipedia from being a sports database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support option 1 if it is remove all the language implying participation inclusion immediately. We passed this measure, it is time to let it be implemented. It is these guidelines making participation grounds for article inclusion that has made Wikipedia a mess. It need to go now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • For the record, this is a great example of what I described above as a lot of editors jumping around celebrating their victories, FWIW. Newimpartial (talk)`
    • Wikipedia is being filled with rubbish sports stats pages masqueraading as biographies. This needs to stop. There are thousands of biographies sourced to one sports table. This is not at all acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
      • That is an entirely sensible position, but is only tangentially related to the questions asked in that sprawling RfC, much less the consensus emerging from it. It seems to me that without high-level consensus about what counts as SIGCOV for a sports figure, editors are going to keep taking at cross-purposes in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

        Indeed. and does it actually matter that half of all biographies of living people are sports competitors? And would it matter if that became 60 or 70% in 10 years time. Nigej (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

    • It's all looking a lot like Brexit to me, so we've got a few more years of this to go. Nigej (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @Newimpartial: I don't think that the mentality implied by your "celebrating" phrase is the case. I think that there are folks who are thinking that this change is needed and widely supported and so are happy about the decision and want to make sure it gets implemented but that's pretty well the extent of it. Knowing that it might be a tough moment for the people who think opposite to me who are also dedicated wiki volunteers doing their best to me makes the psychological aspect of "winning" a minus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Being happy about - and rushing to implement - the part of a closure that your one's team agrees with, while ignoring the parts of the consensus/close that you disagree with, is what I personally mean by jumping around celebrating. By no means do I attribute that activity to anyone based on their !votes or POV in the RfC, only their subsequent edit history. Newimpartial (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
        • At least some of those relate to the changed rules for Olympic notability. That policy was approved in October. No one is rushing to implment it at all. A rush would have implmented it in 2021.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Are you suggesting that, because some of those edits relate to 2021 RfC, we are not to notice the ones that rely on an RfC from which the dust has not yet settled? That has the appearance of sleight of hand. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
        • @Newimpartial: I am not in any way a member of any "team", and I think that it is harmful to the process to posit such things or view things in that way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Did I state or imply that you were, though? Nope. Perhaps recalibration of filters is required. Newimpartial (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
            • @Newimpartial: Well you did say "your team" in a response that was specifically to me. But if you indicate that that's not what you intended, cool. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
              • I believe I have now clarified this, above. I don't think of that use of "your" as ambiguous, but it clearly is. Newimpartial (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
        • I fail to see how implementing the result of an RFC is jumping around celebrating. At some point, the result needs to be implemented, and it is generally better to do it earlier rather than later. In regards to your later question about 190,000 redirects to properly sourced lists, say, and 10,000 non-redirect articles, that would assuage my concerns even if it doesn't assuage it for others - although I believe there is sufficient coverage for more than 10,000 non-redirect articles. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• there are porbably in excess of 100,000 articles on Olympians in Wikipedia sourced only to databases. The sheer number of articles involved is staggering. I estimated that there may be about 150,000 total Olympians, but the number may actually be in excess of 200,000. I estimate we probably have "articles" on over 95% of them, but the articles are in the vast majority of cases very poor. In many cases one editor created 10 or more such articles in about that many minutes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If we had 190,000 redirects to properly sourced lists, say, and 10,000 non-redirect articles, would that assuage your concern? Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, every attempt I have made to create a redirect in this matter has been reverted, often with zero improvement. Also even when we have clear cases of a name having other uses that are at least as notable we have to fight to get some improvment. Over 90% of the very small improvement has been brought about by under 10 articles making nominations, maybe under 5. I have severe doubts that there are 10,000 people who competed in the Olympics who are notable, and if there are over 9,000 of them are notable despite Olympic actions not because of it. Which is another huge problem with the druk produced by a certain editor, he did not product Biographies, he produced Olympic actions reports for both athletes and artist in the Olympic arts competition, that neglected to say anything of substance about the rest of the person's life, even in cases where other parts of their life, such as being a military leader, were actually much more noted and covered than their brief participation in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I'll take that as a "no". Carthage must clearly be destroyed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
        • I will not be satified until every article is sourced to sources to a level to meet GNG. This is not an unresonable expectation. The fact that Wikipedia has articles that have lasted for over a decade with no sources at all, and other articles that have lasted that long sourced only to a source we consider unreliable is not a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
          • If that is your goal, how often would you say you look for and add sources to these under sourced/unsourced articles? Rikster2 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
            • Every sport figure that had been an Olympic competitor I have done searches for information in multiple ways before nominating them. The bigger question is why we tolerate editors creating such sub-standard articles in the first place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Allowing Sports specific projects to build there own guidelines is highly questionable. They engage in rhetoric designed to drive away and keep away those who do not support flooding Wikipedia with sports stats tables masquerading as bios. Such as this statement "Quote: Wikipedia has way too many articles on football players. We need to severly reduce that number, and we need to reduce it now. This from Johnpacklambert really does disturb me. There are millions of football players who are notable on this planet. You want to purge it? If you act like that you don't belong on wikipedia. You should be perm topic banned from anything related to this subject with that attitude. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)" This is not a place that is open to any and all views on the acceptability of sports bios. It is built around an a priori assumption that sports bios are good, and involves invoking rhetoric to try and silence and drive off those who hold any other view of sports bios. Exactly why should we let places that engage in this level of rhetoric and intimadation and abuse towards those who do not hold the party line be where we develop our notability guidelines. They show no recognition that there is a problem, that their refusal of any and all improvmenets is constantly feeding the problem, and they contenance this type of rhetoric which tries to silence those who do not tow the party line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • • • • • • • If the actual problem is the bot or bot-like creation of stubs, that is a behavioral issue to be dealt with under the bot policy ((q.v. WP:MEATBOT, not a problem for notability policy. Just as geostubs aren't a problem to be solved by GEOLAND reform, sports stubs aren't a problem to solve through NSPORTS repeal. This is somewhat akin to using a nail gun to deal with a rodent infestation - just not a tool suited to the task. Newimpartial (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• why are you going to the Football project and stirring up trouble anyway? You aren’t there to help them build a workable guideline so why don’t you just stay away and let them work through it? Rikster2 (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have made suggestions on what level of participation should be included. All thoughts and views should be welcomed. People should not be hounded and attacked for sharing their views, and suggesting that being payed to do something for one day should not be seen as stirring things up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Then go over there without an agenda. You have typed walls of text saying the same crap and it’s only going to serve to inflame people over at that project. You are not going there as a neutral actor. Just frigging drop it Rikster2 (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support option 1 per the closing statement for subproposal #3, which makes it crystal-clear that consensus is to eliminate certain criteria: "I gave little weight to the 'no replacement'-type arguments as they miss the point of the proposal and are procedural rather than substantive concerns. To be clear on how they miss the point: the replacement is the GNG which applies to all articles; the proposal was to eliminate certain special criteria, so of course no alternative criteria were specified." This doesn't rule out developing replacement criteria in the future, but we shouldn't wait until that time to implement the current consensus. I also share North8000's concern that this could be used to filibuster or delay implementation of consensus, perhaps indefinitely. After all, this is the topic area where "eventually" (i.e. "reliable sources must eventually be provided") effectively means "never". –dlthewave ☎ 02:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support option 1. We don't delay introducing consensus; we introduce it, and if that raises new issues that need to be settled, we do that. For example, we are already working to resolve the issues it will introduce with Rugby Union, and I believe we are making good progress on developing a solution that all sides will be happy with. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support option 2 (and happy with RandomCanadian's placeholder text). Oppose option 1 as it has proved unworkable, RfC or no RfC. I would also add WP:NOTPAPER. A lot of sports biographies are not necessary, but their existence doesn't mean there's no room for more useful content. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Option 1 certainly proved contentious but it has not proved unworkable (how could it when bold implementation and cleanup was never completed), and nor would it since SPORTCRIT/BASIC/GNG still apply. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose option 1: Find workable solutions within each WikiProject, as is currently happening on Rugby and Football. Nuking isn't a viable option. Felixsv7 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support option 1 Consensus should be implemented immediately. Potential replacements are a separate discussion. Avilich (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• You folks are wasting your time. This poll is local consensus and can't modify the global consensus of an RfC. There is WP:NORUSH, so we can wait for the RfC close review before attempting to implement the RfC. If the RfC close for #3 is endorsed, the participation criteria will be removed. Levivich 16:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 Per the close, the placeholder is other SNG criteria or the GNG are met. Therefore, call out another SNG, WP:NBIO, and use as a placeholder: has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Although this is redundant, it will provide clarity in cases that would otherwise be confusing (such as with Rugby, where it appeared that the only way to be notable was to play in the Women's World Cup). Failing that, Option 1. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose option 1 Removing would provide no quick guidance for page patrollers, and invite mass AfD nominations w/o WP:BEFORE and a future visit to WP:ARB.—Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not true. See GNG/BASIC/any other relevant notability guideline (as now). If page patrollers do not know this, they shouldn't be patrolling. Likewise with AfD; BEFORE applies irrespective of meeting the criteria of any notability guideline. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Wjemather: Can you clarify what you are referring to with (as now). Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sure. The process does not end at the first notability guideline that gets looked at (whether it is met or otherwise), and that would not change by implementing option 1. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  The quick guidance that SNGs provide would be gutted from NSPORTS, without a replacement. Sure, BEFORE should be followed, but I'm trying to be pragmatic about what would really happen. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, but since the relevant criteria no longer enjoy community consensus (because they do not reliably indicate notability) they are providing bad guidance, so surely it would be misleading and counterproductive to leave them in place? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  The other options offer replacements too, but with a different timeline, though it differs from what you prefer.—Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support option 1. The fallback guidance is GNG (etc.). There is nothing special about sports bios that makes them unmanageably difficult for patrollers to assess notability or perform an adequate BEFORE for, and certainly nothing that makes them entitled to more AfD leeway than any other biography subject. Removing these SSGs should actually make clueless nominations less likely since the vast majority of those that did occur were of the "doesn't meet NFOOTY" (without the nom even looking for GNG) type, and now the only guideline a topic can fail is the one that was necessary all along (GNG). If the concern is that, in the past, AfD keep !votes could hinge entirely on the subject meeting an SSG without regard to actual coverage, and now those !votes are (more) worthless, well, all I can say is: tough luck, it's time to get off your lazy ass and actually look for SIGCOV like the delete !voters have had to do this whole time, and like all !voters have to do for the numerous subjects that don't fall under any SNG. Sports editors' time is no more valuable than that of any other volunteer's, if you can't deal with a higher AfD load then that's YOUR problem. JoelleJay (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 per JoelleJay. This has basically been the default position since the 2017 RFCs established that sports people have to meet GNG, with the SNG acting just as a bellweather; and which the recent RFCs roughly reaffirmed, given the need for at least one source to be present. JoelleJay also makes the case eloquently as to why a carve-out for sports people over other bios is undesirable and unnecessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: The 2017 RfC that you referred to didn't decommision NSPORTS:

  There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion...Follow-up discussion should be held to determine (in no particular order):
  The appropriate result for an article at AFD about a sportsperson where they verifiably meet a NSPORTS criterion, but various levels of effort have not yielded significant sourcing (especially for older athletes or athletes from non-Anglophone locations)...

  My interpretation was that meeting NSPORTS shouldn't supercede a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS in a given AfD that might cite a failure to meet WP:GNG. That RFC does not say to ravage NSPORTS.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  The RFC does rather specifically describe the typical "Keep passes NSPORTS" issue at AFDs (do I need to cite any of the recent examples, some of which went to DRV, to show that this is still an issue?) and explicitly says NSPORTS does not supercede GNG. That this is still an issue five years later means that more definite action needs to be taken. Since the more recent RfC has found that participation criteria should be removed, the only real solution is either A) to remove them [and rewrite where this poses textual continuity issues] or B) to remove them and maybe replace them with something better. Of course, both of these can be given some time until they are acted upon, but something needs to be done. My proposal no. 2 was essentially a stop-gap until that can be resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support option 1 per Joellejay and Randomcanadian. The sticking point has always been that people treat SNGs as an exemption from notability and verifiability requirements despite their actual wording, the results of previous RFCs, and hundreds upon hundreds of AfDs that clearly show the community has recognised the problem caused by database entry microstubs. Reyk _YO! 23:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New NFOOTBALL guideline proposed

I have put together a new guideline proposal. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Association football. Godspeed! GiantSnowman 12:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for team sports

I haven't had as much time to contribute to this discussion as I thought I would, but I wanted to make a suggestion that would suit coverage of team sports. I'm in the process of writing an outline history of Ulster Rugby in the professional era with team/season articles, on the model of what's already been done for Munster and partially done for Leinster and Connacht: the current season being 2021–22 Ulster Rugby season, the earliest being 1995–96 Ulster Rugby season. It seems to me this is a more informative way of covering team sports than having lots and lots of short articles that say no more than "player x played for team y in season z". If each team/season page has a squad list, that information is available there, without the need to make a separate page for each player, with the information presented in a better-organised way, and sourced to reputable media sources. I'd like to suggest that WikiProjects for team sports might like to encourage interested editors to take this approach rather than make lots of uninformative articles on individual players. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nicknack009: How would that work? Say take the page of Jack McGrath (rugby union), to what page do you redirect him? 2021–22 Ulster Rugby season, 2020–21 Ulster Rugby season, 2019–20 Ulster Rugby season, or 2018–19 Leinster Rugby season, etc? --SuperJew (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but almost all sports leagues and teams fail WP:NSEASONS and the resultant articles your suggest would undoubtedly fail WP:NOTSTATS and/or WP:OR. However "List of x-nationality/country y-sport players" would almost always be ok (and provide suitable redirect targets, unlike season articles for players with multi-season/team careers). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to redirect anything anywhere. Certainly not a player like Jack McGrath, whose achievements with multiple teams, including not only Ulster and Leinster but also Ireland and the British and Irish Lions, certainly make him notable. I'm suggesting it as an alternative to making masses of new articles about non-notable or marginally-notable players, which I thought is what this exercise was all about, not mindless deletion of players with distinguished careers, although maybe this is the mask slipping. Undifferentiated lists of players are uninformative and, frankly, worthless. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information needs to be organised to be useful. I'm doing my best to be constructive and make the encylopedia informative and useful. If policy makes that impossible, then that policy is wrong. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked that sportspeople at the margins, or those who simply don't meet the criteria for an article, are those most likely to be a member of a team that doesn't meet NSEASONS. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see what that has to do with it. The point of the RfC is that we can't say a player is necessarily notable as an individual just because he's played for a notable team or in a notable competition. Non-notable teams and competitions don't come into it. All I'm trying to do is find ways of complying with the RfC without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Most teams and competitions that are notable don't meet NSEASONS. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I get the message. I've tried to assume good faith, but I'm clearly trying to compromise with zealots. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please try and be civil. It's not that your suggestion isn't welcome or appreciated, it just doesn't provide a global solution without changing (or ignoring) multiple policies and guidelines. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we take the drama out of this and have a fun transition?

Folks on both sides of the RFC are volunteers working to build a good encyclopedia. The debate is merely seeing things differently on how best to do that. Even amongst those opposing #3 there seems to be a fair amount of acquiescence with raising the NSports bar a bit. Those who maintain NSports should realize that the rest of the community had a very difficult time trying to have input to change the large complex NSports guideline. Proposing and passing a change on the "did it professionally for one day" criteria was way to grab onto a specific to do this, plus deal with the specific criteria often cited as the poster child for NSports setting the bar too low.

Amongst all of the "oppose" folks on #3 I saw very few that said "we need to have a participation-only way in". Most opposes were for other reasons such as the change being too jarring, too fast, not needed, or removing something without a replacement. (though the closer noted that GNG is a replacement if/when needed). What this means is that there may not be be a substantial conflict on the fundamental question in #3 which is: "To have or not have a "participation-only" way in?"

Could it be possible for nearly everyone involved to just dive in and do an enjoyable process of implementing this change? Could this be a recipe:

1. Everyone (including persons who maintain NSports and ones from both sides of the debate)just start quickly making the bare minimum changes needed to implement #3. I.E. remove the "participation only" criteria, and, if it breaks nearby text, make the bare minimum changes needed in the nearby text to avoid breaking it.
2. We need to recognize that #1 will still leave loose ends, and needs to fill in NSports. Let's make the process freer / easier than usual for the folks who maintain those sections to make the needed changes. Including WP:BRD being considered to be a norm during the transition.
3. A 60 day pause in applying the #3 criteria to articles that are already patrolled or autopatrolled by yesterday.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

+1.

To those who, like me, supported these subproposals, we should recognize that it's a big change, that a lot of editors have fought against for years, and it's going to take more than a few days to "digest", as it were. It's perfectly reasonable to hold off on the implementation of an RFC while the RFC close is under review (and, as I should have recognized earlier, that review process started with the first message on the closer's talk page).

To those who did not support these subproposals, we should recognize that at least some of the subproposals clearly have consensus and are not going to be overturned (some are not even under review), and there is no reason to hold up the partial implementation of the uncontroversial parts while other parts are under review.

N8k brings up another good point, which is that, after changes are made to NSPORTS, nobody should rush to mass-nominate articles for deletion. Articles that previously met the SNG that no longer meet the SNG should be tagged with {{notability}}, and some reasonable amount of time should be given before they are nominated for deletion. (60 days sounds reasonable to me.) (And don't forget WP:BEFORE.) Levivich 22:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be rushing to mass-nominate articles for deletion, but I don't believe your solution of tagging with {{notability}} will work, as some editors mass-revert those without addressing the issue. BilledMammal (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If that happens those who do it should get a polite talking to. And if it keeps happening without the issues being solved then a more stern talking to. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

+1

Everyone needs to calm down, drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND if it exists, and try to seek compromises where those are required (for example, by not rushing to delete stuff, nor attempting to reinstate material which was altered according to the new consensus) while accepting that this is how things are going to be moving forward. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you trying to be ironic here? Between the battleground behaviour, bludgeoning, and gravedancing, perhaps you can lead by example. Nfitz (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody is "gravedancing" but merely saying it can unnecessarily create it in minds where it does not exist. This was merely a debate between fellow Wikipedians with different opinions in this particular area, and we went through a process to decide.North8000 (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No, nothing about this transition is going to be fun. Deleting an article feels the same as euthanizing someone’s pet. Jeff in CA (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• this is all well and good in principle, but we have editors like @Levivich: making INVOLVED changes that they know are going to rile people up (and which I have neither the time or energy to deal with), and then when editors like myself who opposed the RfC (albeit it whilst recognising change was made) suggesting new proposals and having them shot down by editors who clearly haven't a clue - very disheartening all round. GiantSnowman 10:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Bolded sentence again

Although subproposal 9 to erase that sentence was closed as no consensus, this needed to be eventually revisited. The current wording is "GNG or the sport specific criteria set forth below" but I suggest that this be changed to something more straightforward like "topics should be shown to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources". This is what the "sport specific criteria" (SPORTCRIT and each individual sport's guideline) already say now that "presumed notable" has become "significant coverage is likely to exist" (if there was ever much of a difference), is basic enough that it deserves a mention in the lede, avoids an unnecessary and controversial mention of GNG, and makes the guideline more consistent with itself. Avilich (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support This wording is much clearer and puts what is actually said later clearly in the lead. However we should say it clearly at the top instead of making it look like there are two conflicting avenues, when ultimately all articles need significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. One question though, should we also modify secondary with reliable, thus saying "topics should be shown to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is more about the basic idea than the specific wording, which can be adjusted as needed, though 'reliable' is in any case trivial and already mentioned in SPORTCRIT down the page. Avilich (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I can still see some people trying to rules lawyer that their source is secondary even if unreliable and that it is not mentioned as needing to be other than secondary in the specific place they are quoting from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be simpler instead to rewrite it as "In all cases, the content of articles should be supported by reliable sources."? I mean, sure, that is essentially a repetition of WP:V, but it looks like the actually intended meaning, and if so, then this is a clearer way to say it, a more concise way to say it, and a way to say it which is less open to misinterpretation (this would also make FAQ no. 5 redundant). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ideally the whole FAQ should be redundant, it only even exists to make sure the guideline isn't misinterpreted (not that it has helped much). This change will simply sum up in the lede the most basic criterion of notability (SIGCOV) which the guideline already adopts, while getting rid of the last sentence that is likely to cause problems. Avilich (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The point of that sentence was to indicate an article on an athlete who passed NSPORT subcriteria could be created and permitted in mainspace if their claim to notability was sourced, either directly by GNG citations or with RS verifying they met the SSG subcriteria and therefore were presumed to meet GNG. Since we now have the requirement that articles not directly demonstrating GNG must include a source verifying they meet an SSG and at least one source providing SIGCOV, it would make sense to modify the wording to reflect this change. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of the bolded sentence. Cbl62 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:JUSTAVOTE. On top of that, nobody is proposing the removal of the sentence, only rewriting it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support- the proposed wording describes more clearly what the requirements actually are. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Moto3

Is Moto3 considered to be under WP:NMOTORSPORT #2? It can be argued through bullet 3 that Moto3 is a (somewhat) top-level feeder series to MotoGP since there are riders, albeit rarely, that directly jumped from Moto3 to MotoGP, like Jack Miller and Darryn Binder. Moto3 might also pass bullet 1, although some might argue that even if it is a primarily-professional single-class series, it does not have significant international importance. Since Moto2 is the only series explicitly stated and a user has notified meabout this, I think we need to know some thoughts. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If Moto3 is ranked below Moto2, then it is not a "top-level feeder" Spike 'em (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Though I know nothing about the structure of motorbike racing so am fully prepared to have my view debunked! Spike 'em (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Not an expert, but this seems a bit like Formula 3 (vs. Formula 2 and Formula 1 - although I don't think there has been an instance of a driver skipping straight to the top level from F3 to F1). In which case, it is clearly not the "top-level feeder", although of course individual drivers might still pass GNG despite that (as might be the case with, I guess, some F3 drivers as well). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Max Verstappen went from Formula 3 Europe (which is now Formula 3) to Formula One. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I did say I was "not an expert", right? and I kinda hoped there was one exception which proved the rule... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

From the replies, it might not pass #2 bullet 3. But what about bullet 1? It is still professional, even if most riders are teenagers, with the youngest being just 16. I could say it is of significant international importance since after all, it is a World Championship, althought I know that's arguable. Thoughts? ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

My intuition would be that 1) if it fails another criteria rather explicitly, that doesn't really matter and 2) if you're spending time considering which criteria it passes or not, you're asking the wrong question. What you should really be asking is: can you find enough good sources about [whatever it is you want to write about] to write an article? If so, then go ahead. If you find something but it's marginal, then go ahead too, that's the purpose of the criteria, somebody might be able to find something more thorough. And if you can't find anything, then don't bother. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Engr. Smitty The fact it's excluded from Criteria 3 in the same bullet is a good enough hint it doesn't pass Criteria 1 either. Feeder series are steps on the ladder to fully professional series, the seats in F3 and Moto3 (just like in Moto2 and F2) are fully paid by the drivers themselves without any salary. And I'd argue Moto2/F2 are of higher international importance as that top step before Moto/F1 (which is again why criteria 3 exists). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 March 2022

Per Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Bolded sentence again, change the sentence in bold ("The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below") to "Notability must be demonstrated with significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are independent of the subject". To sum up in the lede what is already said at WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this change. I do not see how a discussion with four participants can change the long-standing wording of a major policy. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no consensus for this change. Cbl62 (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• This would need yet another RfC, which I guess nobody is in the mood for... And the proposed sentence is one amongst many possible options. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Content removed again

I see it took just a few hours from the page being unprotected for someone to again try and mass remove everything. Not at all in the spirit of collaboration, when people are trying to improve and fix things (see all the positive discussion on this page and subpages). Was there ever a consensus to delete everything? The closer of the RFC literally said that changes should be further discussed, which isn't what some editors are doing.... Can this page please be reprotected so thag the collaborative discussion can continue without the constant mass deletion of content? Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Per the RfC close, subproposal #3: "There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria (except those based on olympic or similar participation)"; " I gave little weight to the "no replacement"-type arguments as they miss the point of the proposal and are procedural rather than substantive concerns. To be clear on how they miss the point: the replacement is the GNG which applies to all articles; the proposal was to eliminate certain special criteria, so of course no alternative criteria were specified."; "Taken together, there is a rough consensus that participation-based criteria are a problem and that the best way forward is to remove them." This gives a clear mandate to remove participation-based criteria. Note that the close review was archived with no action, and the proposal to develop interim criteria of some sort is not approaching consensus. I did intentionally leave NFOOTY and NCRIC since my understanding is that those projects are discussing replacement criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 22:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Remove" is clear and needs no further discussion. The others should be removed too. Replacements are great but will need an RfC to implement anyway; in the meantime there should be no NSPORTS participation criteria except Olympic or similar, per the RfC. The page needs to accurately reflect current consensus because editors rely on it. Levivich 23:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And again the NSPORTS makes no sense again, because for certain sports, lots of the text has been removed with no thought for the text left. And so people can be notable for winning a college sport award, or winning a junior level event, but not for being a professional of any adult level team sport? Seems logical to me..... Replacing instances of participated with "won" or "finished top 3" would have at least made the guidelines resemble some level of sense... Yet apparently, I'm the disruptive one, not the people creating illogical nonsense. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

And the fact that NSPORTS in its current form considers US college sports as more notable than major non-US sports such as the Premier League, simply because the Premier League has fewer named trophies that can be awarded to people, seems like a clear US bias to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If you disagree with the current consensus or think something needs to be added/changed, I would suggest opening a new RfC to gain consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 01:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

As per the review of the RFC close there is no clear uncontentious consensus for proposal 3 and readding without proper discussion and a clear consensus is just edit warring and why the page was protected, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Atlantic306, are you aware that the review at AN did not reach consensus to overturn and has been archived? The consensus is clear and needs to be implemented. –dlthewave ☎ 01:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The consensus is unclear and that's why we had the review. Let's wait for Wugapodes views on this and I for one will respect his view, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What's unclear about it? –dlthewave ☎ 01:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Well for a start proposal 3 was closed as a rough consensus and then in the review Wugapodes summed things up three quarters through that there was the most opposition to proposal 1 and 3 and that more discussion was needed regarding proposal 3, but then that discussion didn't take place at least at AN. There have been a number of discussions at the Football Wikiproject and Cricket proect regarding new Sngs that still involve participation criteria but strenghened to be less inclusive so there is ongoing discussion at this stage.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Am going to ask Wugapodes for his views as he started the AN review after making the RFC close Atlantic306 (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • But then you'll stop reinstating the removed criteria, right? Levivich 01:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Ive only reinstated it once and as I said ill respect his opinion, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• At some point the stalling and obstructionist tactics are going to get on peoples' nerves. Reyk _YO! 02:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely clear what I'm being asked to give an opinion on, so feel free to ask follow-up questions if I'm not clear. I just read through the archived close review. Two important points to keep in mind: most participation was from involved editors and given it's a review of my close I probably am not the best person to "close" it. That said, I'll do my best to be objective in summarizing it in hopes of moving things along. I don't see the review as coming to a consensus to overturn the close of proposal 3. The main concerns with the close of that proposal were related to lack of clarity around the implementation (which I guess we're still seeing) rather than the outcome. There were a few editors who took issue with the outcome of 3 specifically, but compared to the editors who specifically endorsed the close of 3 it seems unlikely that it would be overturned.
  With that in mind, I do take seriously the concern about implementation, and I would encourage everyone to think about how to collaborate on implementation. Going through Dlthewave's recent edits, I do think the close was misinterpreted slightly. I'd encourage looking back at Masem's original proposal in order to get a sense of what "participation-based criteria" were under discussion. The problem identified was simple or mere participation, and given my reading of the discussion the main issue editors brought up were criteria like cricket or football where playing a single professional match was sufficient. By contrast, consider this removal for motorsports: the first criterion involved qualifying for high level championships which is "participation" based but also merit based. Personally, I wouldn't consider that "mere participation" given the merit-based aspects of qualifying for major events.
  So while there is generally consensus to remove (merely) participation-based criteria, that doesn't mean we can be robotic about removing any criteria that mentions participation. Productive discussions (as part of the bold-revert-discuss cycle) would center around whether a criterion is sufficiently merit-based to warrant inclusion. Qualifying for (and participating in) highly selective national or international events leans towards the merit-based side of things; playing in a single professional match before being sent back to the minor leagues leans toward the "mere participation" side. For criteria in the middle, editors can and should discuss whether it's sufficiently merit-based.
  If I can offer my opinion for a second, I think a helpful guideline would be the "average professional athlete" test. Over at WP:NACADEMICS, the guiding question is whether a person is more distinguished than the "average academic" in their field. Are they more cited, do they have more awards, etc. My opinion is that the line between "mere participation" and "merit-based" lies somewhere around what would be expected of an average athlete in the sport. Becoming a professional footballer is certainly an accomplishment, but not compared to the average professional footballer. Qualifying for a national or international team might be. This is just an idea based on my experience with another SNG, and maybe it won't work out, but hopefully it helps give a sense of where the line is when implementing proposal 3. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  If the principle of predicting suitable coverage meeting the general notability guideline continues to be followed, then the standard of an average professional athlete isn't a good dividing line. Since talent at that level is the upper end of a bell curve, average athletes (within a given elite level of competition) have considerable value and so receive corresponding coverage. isaacl (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's not meant as a dividing line for the whole policy, but for determining the difference between "mere participation" criteria and "merit based" criteria for the purposes of revising the document. Playing a single professional cricket match is surely an accomplishment I'll never achieve, but my understanding of the RfC is that unless the GNG is actually met, simply participating is not sufficient for a presumption of notability. Every professional athlete participates in professional events by definition, but not every professional athlete qualifies for national or international competitions. Given the discussion around proposals 3 and 4 I think it's clear that the community wants the bar higher than "what every professional athlete has done" even if that is far beyond what most people would be able to do. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, using your example of a cricketer. It is complicated because cricket has variants (unlike football and other sports) but there is a standard called first-class cricket which, I think, serves as a benchmark for NCRIC. Anyone who has played in the English county championship, a national competition, has achieved first-class standard. Although there may be some rare exceptions, there is wide coverage of first-class players in cricket literature, which is vast. So, anyone who has achieved that standard, even with a single appearance only, is highly likely to have SIGCOV, though it might not be immediately available. The same is true of the fully professional leagues in English and Scottish football. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  As dozens of cricketer AfDs will show, merely playing a single (or even more) games of first-class (or the relevant highest-level of domestic cricket for shorter forms) is not a reliable indicator of notability. And same thing for the football leagues (many of which were not fully professional until much later than some have been arguing). But anyway, I'm not going to re-argue the consensus. The consensus is that that kind of criteria should be removed, for exactly the kind of excess it has led to. If you don't like it, can't help you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  The point is that an average player in, say, Major League Baseball, has considerable merit and thus ensuing coverage. The line where players stop meeting the general notability guideline is far below the average MLB player. A merit-based criterion based on an average player in a given elite level would be considerably more restrictive than the general notability guideline. I feel the high false negative rate could have a net detrimental effect on deletion discussions. (On the other hand, it would be more inclusive than just having the hall of fame standards currently listed for many sports.) isaacl (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  That has not always been the case (which is one of the main limitations of most of those criteria) and sometimes isn't the case even in more recent times. And the fact is, if someone is an average Joe who doesn't stand out from the rest (and if the only thing we can say - and there are plenty of such examples in many sports - is that "X played Y sport for Z team[s]), then WP:ROTM is also pertinent. Being at the top level of a sport is an achievement beyond the reach of most (by definition: to be at the highest level, you must obviously be better than most others), but Wikipedia is not a meritocracy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Naturally each sport will have to be examined separately. For many, though, the distribution of talent within the top level of competition is the extreme rightmost portion of a Gaussian distribution, and so an average player at that level is not a run-of-the-mill player. (A replacement level player would be much closer to the general public's concept of a run-of-the-mill player.) And since English Wikipedia's general notability guideline is indeed based on coverage and not merit, identifying statistically run-of-the-mill players isn't necessary, anyway. isaacl (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Inclusion on the basis of merit does not make the site into a meritocracy; it is a means of establishing the true extent of a subject's notability. As Isaacl rightly points out, the average player in a major league does have considerable merit with ensuing coverage. This is precisely where the GNG is so badly flawed because, among other things, its coverage requirement must embrace a vast quantity of tabloid-based trivia which doesn't increase the player's notability – it devalues it. The merit-based criterion, as Isaac says, is at a much higher bar than GNG. The SNG, providing it is sound and sensible, should take priority with the GNG a safety net for those exceptional cases which fall outside the interest of all projects. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  its coverage requirement must embrace a vast quantity of tabloid-based trivia which doesn't increase the player's notability That kind of non-significant coverage and routine stuff is explicitly excluded by GNG (now, whether some people dutifully apply those requirements, is an open question, but one for another place). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, at the present time, I still favour the principle of predicting suitable coverage meeting the general notability guideline. The general notability guideline is biased towards popular areas, as that's what gets a lot of coverage (and this is to the benefit of many athletes), but for now it's the best tradeoff the community has found with the constraints of its consensus-based decision-making traditions. isaacl (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  I mean, if it doesn't work then don't use it. The bottom line is that "simple/mere participation" criteria need to be removed, and editors will need to figure out where the line between simple and complex is. However you all want to do that is fine; I just gave my observation from an SNG that I am familiar with as a starting point. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  To wit on my proposed #3, I know the libe prior on NSPORTS has been that playing professionally, even at least one game, implies accomplishment in the sport prior (a college sport career, or a minor league success), you don't just stumble into that level of success. But the participation criteria were leading to stub articles that made no effort to document these prior achievements, and the mass creation of stubs from databases. The community was clearly tired of these articles, and as there was no significant effort to amend the NSPORTS criteria to encourage better starting articles that had more direction towards including GNG type sourcing. Hence the proposal to simply nix simple partipation criteria, given that the GNG remained an option for most sports people. --Masem (t) 13:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you Wugapodes for the explanation. As the editor who removed most of the participation criteria, I can see that there are some grey areas (you made a good point about motorsports) and I'm happy to discuss these in the sections below. However, the editors who reverted did so almost entirely en masse rather than addressing specific sections that they disagree with. I'm hoping that the sport-specific discussions started by RandomCanadian will lead to consensus-based collaboration so that page protection can be lifted, and I'd also like to see admins address individual editor behavior instead of simply locking the page because of "content disputes" and edit warring. These wholesale reverts that we've been seeing are disruption, not content disputes. –dlthewave ☎ 14:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Decision #3 needs to be implemented; those criteria need to be removed. As acknowledged in the close, any interim "replacement" needed is GNG. This can't wait indefinitely for consensus on some new standards which could take forever or never happen. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This is just a blatant attempt to delay implementation of a consensus RfC result. Admins should treat obstructionism accordingly. JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment re: "GNG"

Editors really need to stop pretending that some local consensus on NSPORT overrides the site-wide consensus on WP:N, which is that WP:NBASIC, not WP:GNG, applies to biographies. I know the differences are not large (NBASIC being slightly stricter about source independence, mostly), but a decade of loose language on sport talk sub-pages and at AfD really doesn't override site-wide consensus about how Notability works. Some SNGs, like NBASIC, NBOOK, NORG and NFILM, apply to their domain without exception and take the place of the GNG in that area. Pretending that NSPORT follows a different logic that skips NBASIC is a violation of WP:CONLEVEL, and is also just confusing for editors who may not have been following the last decade of inside-baseball discussions as closely as we perhaps should. Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This is really needless verbiage. NBASIC reads People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.; GNG reads A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. They're essentially equivalent, at least in spirit, and almost entirely in the letter too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have previously proposed language to fix this issue on the NSPORTS page and in the FAQ - it wasn't difficult to figure out what is required. Reflecting community-wide consensus correctly is scarcely needless verbiage, in my view. Of course the requirements OF GNG and those of NBASIC are nearly the same, but that isn't really an excuse for getting the relevant reference wrong. Newimpartial (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

NBASIC also has, at the very top of it, See also: Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline... That multiple people have been citing them interchangeably doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means the difference is so minor as to be negligible in practice (and given Wikipedia is not a court of law or some other bureaucratic process, that there might be a negligible theoretical difference should indeed not have much practical impact). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: the difference is so minor as to be negligible in practice - that's not a good reason to write (or revert to) misleading policy text, IMO, nor it is a good reason to be lazy when discussing policy on Talk (and I'm not saying that all editors do this, BTW - I have absolutely seen some editors trying to get this right and refer at times to both NBASIC and GNG as required). Newimpartial (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:KISS. Both guidelines say essentially the same thing (the requirement for an article is significant coverage in independent reliable sources). Where they differ is on a few details, but these are not materially significant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Citing a guideline that is similar to the one that applies, but that does not itself apply, is a misapplication of WP:KISS (to put it charitably). Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Both guidelines are (bare a few non-materially significant differences) the same thing, one is just a concrete application of the general guideline (which it explicitly links to using {{see also}}). The fact we need multiple guidelines to say the same thing might mean that there's some WP:CREEP ongoing, but more likely one of these is intended as redundancy to convey the same message as the other one and so interpreting them as being essentially the same is the correct thing to do. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The general notability guideline section has bullet points that provide more details regarding the first sentence. The basic criteria is a capsule summary of the general notability guideline section, with some additional explanatory notes on how to apply the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The additional bullets/sections available at WP:GNG explain why the cross-reference is there, but that doesn't change the status of NBASIC as applying to all biographies. And the text of NBASIC explains the applicability of WP:N to biographies, not narrowly the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• IMHO, editors need to stop getting their knickers in a twist about such a trivial distinction. As RandomCanadian says, this isn't a court of law, although I would be very interested in from where the OP derives his "site-wide consensus" that the GNG does not apply to biographies. Ravenswing 15:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The language of WP:N and WP:NBIO seem quite clear to me on this point, and both occupy a higher CONLEVEL than NSPORT (which, in its current language, conflicts with the senior guidelines). Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said earlier, nowhere does GNG or BASIC or N require use of BASIC to the exclusion of GNG for determining biographical notability. They are functionally the same, and SPORTCRIT covers BASIC anyway, so this is a pointless avenue of discussion. I also don't know how you come to the conclusion that NBIO "supersedes" NSPORT any more than other GNG-dependent SNGs do. "Meets GNG or a GNG-independent SNG" perfectly covers all notability standards, there's no reason to make it complicated by enforcing verbiage that has never needed to be clarified and does not even represent a consensus interpretation. JoelleJay (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

As I have replied to you elsewhere, that just isn't how the SNGs work. SNGs that offer more specific applications of WP:N requirements, similar to the GNG but specific to their domain, have to supercede the GNG in their respective domains, otherwise what would be the point of those more specific requirements? If editors argue that a book doesn't meet GNG even though it passes the equivalent NBOOK criterion for RS reviews, or that a film meets GNG even though it doesn't comply with NFILM, those simply are not policy-relevant arguments. (I have picked these two examples because they are not GNG-independent SNGs, if I understand your framing - they are parallel to NBASIC in the sense of not setting the principle of significant coverage by reliable sources aside but regret offering precision about that principle.)

I don't know what exactly you are arguing about NBIO vs. NSPORT. What I am saying is that NBIO applies to all biographies, without a "carve-out" for athletes. It would he the worst kind of wikilawyering to argue that because of a "local consensus" around NSPORT, biographies that meet GNG but not NBIO therefore pass NSPORT and have WP:N sanction. Is that really what you want? WP:N embodies a higher level of consensus than NBIO, which in turn has a higher level of consensus than NSPORT; in WP policy we are supposed to fix these issues by aligning lower-level guidelines to the higher-level consensus, not any other way around. Newimpartial (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If editors argue that a book doesn't meet GNG even though it passes the equivalent NBOOK criterion for RS reviews, or that a film meets GNG even though it doesn't comply with NFILM, those simply are not policy-relevant arguments. What are you talking about?? A book or film that meets GNG but (somehow) does not meet NBOOK or NFILM is notable. Neither NBOOK nor NFILM requires the respective SNG be met, and in fact both explicitly state subjects under their purview can be notable through GNG or other SNGs.

NBOOK:A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article.

NFILM: For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline are sufficient to follow. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Now you seem to be wikilawyering. You left out the immediately following, highly relevant sentence of NFILM, This guideline, specific to the subject of film, explains the general notability guideline as it applies to film and also takes into consideration other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they apply to determining stand-alone articles or stand-alone lists for film (emphasis added). One of the ways it does the latter is to specify that Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. Many such films would pass GNG, and the whole point of this section (one of the main points of NFILM) is that we should not have articles on them, even if they pass GNG.

My point for NBOOK represents the flip side of this: point one of the SNG specifies that a book is notable if it: has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... newspaper articles ... and reviews. There are a number of editors who would argue at AfD (if properly motivated to do so) that a newspaper article and a review did not meet WP:SIGCOV requirements and therefore that a book did not meet GNG, but NBOOK states that, while books can meet GNG, they can be Notable even if they do not, for example through reviews.

So your statement that A book or film that meets GNG but (somehow) does not meet NBOOK or NFILM is notable is wrong for films. For books, I never said that a GNG-meeting book isn't notable, I said that a book that passes the equivalent NBOOK criterion for RS reviews is notable and any GNG-based arguments are not relevant in that instance.

Is that helpful at all? Newimpartial (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

GNG is relevant for all subjects. Maybe in some cases there are considerations that override it if there is consensus to do so for a particular subject, perhaps based on an SNG, but GNG is always relevant. Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by "relevant". There are SNGs like NORG, NNUMBER and NFILM that say, "these are the notability requirements in this area; if they aren't met, the subject isn't Notable and doesn't merit an article". If you want to read the much more stringent requirements of NORG as "specifying" GNG, leaving GNG as still relevant, then more power to you, I guess, but that doesn't empower you to make an argument at AfD that this corporate topic that doesn't meet NORG still meets GNG so it should still have an article. That's what I meant by policy-compliant above and in that sense the GNG is superceded by the SNG, when applicable. If you have a sufficiently broad idea of "relevance", I suppose the GNG is always in some sense relevant, but good luck defending your GNG-compliant favorite number at AfD if it doesn't meet WP:NNUMBER. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I disagree with you. WP:notability is a fuzzy ecosystem where not every question has a clear-cut answer. But IMO you are making a clear-cut error in a case where there IS a clear cut answer. At the beginning of WP:Notability it says (paraphrasing) that the topic just needs to satisfy either GNG or an applicable SNG. So if it satisified GNG, it clearly does not need to satisfy the SNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that GNG-compliant articles on corporations or numbers don't have to meet NORG or NNUMBER? I think you're the one making a clear-cut error, in that case. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is yes, I am saying that, and the basis is the one I gave. But regarding NORG, there is a complexity that the tougher (than GNG) sourcing criteria specified by NORG is applied in GNG testing. Once could call this a conflict, or one can reconcile it by saying that the NORG source criteria also calibrates GNG for orgs. I don't have practical experience NNumber, but at first glance it appears that GNG would be tough to meet on those and that the SNG would be the more viable way in. But that would not affect my statement. The differentiating question on numbers would be that if a numbers topic meets GNG (i.e. had in depth coverage in multiple independent RS's)would it also need to satisfy NNUMBERS? IMO the answer is no. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This guideline, specific to the subject of film, explains the general notability guideline as it applies to film and also takes into consideration other core Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they apply to determining stand-alone articles or stand-alone lists for film

This refers to additional considerations that can potentially push a GNG-failing subject into a "keep" at AfD, like what happens at NSPORT. It does not at any point restrict all film subjects to meeting NFILM, and as the sentence I quoted earlier makes clear, for the majority of film subjects GNG is the relevant guideline. Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. This is essentially an application of WP:CRYSTAL to NFILM. It is also entirely compatible with GNG: the GNG section on "presumption of notability" accounts for situations where an otherwise-GNG-meeting subject can still fail to merit an article. NFILM is just giving examples of when this may happen in the context of films.

has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include ... newspaper articles ... and reviews. There are a number of editors who would argue at AfD (if properly motivated to do so) that a newspaper article and a review did not meet WP:SIGCOV requirements and therefore that a book did not meet GNG, but NBOOK states that, while books can meet GNG, they can be Notable even if they do not, for example through reviews. Where are you getting the idea that reviews would not be acceptable sources of SIGCOV for GNG? NBOOK merely reminds editors that a book review is a SIGCOV avenue that exists, it isn't implying such sources aren't already considered acceptable for GNG.

At least half of the SNGs ultimately boil down to or are easier to meet than GNG; meeting the GNG implies meeting the SNG and the distinction of which guideline is met is irrelevant. But unless an SNG explicitly says it overrides GNG, per WP:N the GNG is still a perfectly acceptable notability standard for all subjects. JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are still misreading NFILM and NBOOK. Concerning the latter, I have already specified what I mean. To elaborate a little, SIGCOV is a somewhat loose guideline, and editors tend to argue at AfD with higher or lower thresholds of significance based on what they would like to delete. In some cases (I have seen this), they will argue that a couple of newspaper articles or reviews is not sufficient for a GNG pass. While this is potentially a valid argument for certain other topics, it is not a valid argument for books, and in this sense NBOOK "supersedes" GNG, by specifying ways of evaluating sourcing that do not apply to books (e.g., by insisting on more depth than a review). This is exactly the same operation that NORG performs, although the latter is more clear about the way its sourcing requirements supersede GNG within its domain.

Similarly, NFILM specifies that even if certain topics meet GNG, this does not lead to a valid presumption to have their own article if they do not meet certain criteria - yes, this is an application of CRYSTAL, but it is also a limit to the application of GNG-based Notability that is specified in the SNG. Certain SNGs (probably most of them) specify that certain topics that might meet GNG are not presumed Notable due to subject-specific factors (many of which are applications of NOT). NBASIC is one of these, with its standards of independent sourcing that are stricter than SIGCOV. Your argument that such guidelines as NBASIC, NBOOK, NFILM (and NORG and NPROF?) are not overriding GNG (why? Because they don't use the word "override"?) flies in the face of the text of all of WP:N and also the common sense purpose of the SNGs themselves. I don't know where people get the idea that SNGs are all just choose-your-own-adventure alternatives to the GNG, but to my knowledge they have never been that and that is certainly not the status of most of them now, by site-wide consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you will find that NNUMBER is quite a bit more strict than the GNG: Have professional mathematicians published papers on this kind of number, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this kind of number? is a higher bar than WP:SIGCOV, IMO.

The fact is that NORG isn't just criteria (to be) applied in GNG testing. GNG includes SIGCOV, and NORG sets aside SIGCOV in favor of WP:SIRS. This supercedes SIGCOV; other aspects of the GNG are also set aside (a tighter reading of Independence, just as with NBASIC, for instance).

The fact is also that the framing text you are paraphrasing from the top of WP:N is misleading out of context; the guideline as a whole would be better reflected by, to merit an article, a topic needs to satisfy either GNG and/or an applicable SNG, depending on the subject matter area. But you know as well as I do how resistant the text of WP:N is to change. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I gave my opinion in an area where we disagree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

GNG also requires the equivalent of SIRS, NORG is just framing it in the context of typical business sources and telling editors to be more vigilant about RS than they would for other subjects. NORG helpfully mentions that Forbes profiles are often sponsored by the companies and are therefore not independent; this doesn't mean GNG would still accept a Forbes profile of a book or person that turns out to be sponsored, it just means such relationships are rarer outside of orgs and therefore editors don't have to watch out for them as much. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not the current state of consensus at all. SIRS requires that a set of criteria be met by each source counting towards Notability, while SIGCOV allows these criteria to be assessed globally for the sources as a whole. There have been proposals to extend SIRS (and CORPDEPTH, and AUD) outside the domain of organizations, and to date these have not met with community support. Your reading that NORG simply interprets but does not supersede GNG and SIGCOV in particular defies both the text of NCORP itself and the way it is used in deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sport by sport review

What this needs, then, is a sport by sport review. For some sports it's obvious that the criteria are indeed "merely participate in one game"; for others less so, but this annoying cycle of reverts isn't going to stop until an agreement can be made about which sports are and which ones aren't. So, starting from the top: RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with a sport by sport review but, while it is ongoing, I propose no changes to any SNG until agreed below or, as with the Olympics above, evidence of pre-agreement can be demonstrated. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The first step of BRD is B, not D. If some of the changes are controversial, sure, discuss them below, but others are very obvious and shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

As the R of BRD has been done, we're now in the D phase. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems like an unnecessary restriction since many of the criteria are straightforward and have not been objected to on participation-related grounds. I don't think it's right to revert the whole thing en masse and then insist that every change must now be discussed. –dlthewave ☎ 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Excellent idea, RandomCanadian. To keep everyone in sync I would suggest using this version, from before any of the criteria were removed, for reference. –dlthewave ☎ 14:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

American football/Canadian football

Removed. NGRIDIRON was the example given in RFC #3 of an SNG that would be removed if participation-based criteria were removed. There was consensus in the RFC to do that, and that's been re-affirmed here. Levivich 17:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The only criteria is indeed purely and rather explicitly "participation in one game", Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game... I'd say remove. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Not seen any participation from American/Canadian football participants, will post on their Wikiproject talk pages. I assume that a change like ones being suggested for association football could work. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Remove - This one is very straightforward. No objection to creating merit-based criteria in the future. –dlthewave ☎ 14:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Keep, having done a large amount of work on American/Canadian football topics, I'd say the current criteria works well (though I would support a little bit of tightening, e.g. up the CFL and USFL to five games). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC) The question is not whether they work well or whether they could work with some tightening. The question is A) are those "participation in one game" criteria B) is there an obvious way to remove the "participation in one game" criteria without having to remove the rest? Given the answer to A is "yes" and B is "no", then, per the consensus to remove such criteria, they should be removed. This is without prejudice to creating a stronger criteria, but that doesn't mean the current one shouldn't go until such a time (and in fact, maybe removing them and upsetting the now obsolete pre-RFC status quo will give the impetus to come up with better ones)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Remove for now, and allow the project to come up with more stringent guidelines. Natg 19 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Remove per the consensus of subproposal 3. Avilich (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Remove per the consensus, and note that protesting this is utterly disruptive nonsense that should be sanctioned. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC) No it isn't disruptive, the RFC close clearly said that discussions should be had, and this is one of these discussions. Someone disagreeing with you is not the definition of disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Discussions should be had for cases that aren't clearly merit- or participation-based. GRIDIRON is clearly participation-based and there is zero reason to delay implementing the RfC consensus except to be disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Comment it looks like alternate proposals have been discussed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#RIP NGRIDIRON, and the relevant WikiProjects have been notified there (so I won't bother notifying them again). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Remove. Subproposal #3 used it as an example of a criteria that would be removed; it cannot be argued that the consensus does not apply. BilledMammal (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC) It could however be argued that the National Football League is a merit-based participation, as it's the biggest gridiron football competition in the world. Which is explicitly allowed by the RFC closer. Merit-based participation being allowed was part of the RFC close, so we cannot just blanket remove everything saying "participation based". I have no objections to anything else participation based being removed, but NFL is a class above the other tournaments, and so I believe almost all players would be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC) You may disagree with the consensus, but since subproposal #3 used it as an example, there is a consensus that NGRIDIRON is based on mere participation and needs to be removed. BilledMammal (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Remove per consensus of Subproposal #3. Obviously some editors don't like that consensus, but that doesn't invalidate it. Ravenswing 18:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Comment Is there any one who played in the NFL (since the merger) that has not met GNG? If this is the case, then I feel the SNG should state this. --Enos733 (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Excluding a few of the 1987 replacements, I'd say every person who's played in the NFL post-merger (or at least 99.9%) meets GNG (I don't recall us ever finding a GNG-failing player post-merger). I'd say 99% of players pre-merger also meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Association football (soccer)

Removed. There is consensus, though not unanimous, that both NFOOTY is participation-based criteria. The argument, "remove but only with replacement" contradicts the RFC result; local consensus here can't override the outcome of that RFC, which was to "remove", not "discuss a replacement". There is nothing wrong with discussing a replacement, and those discussions are ongoing, but there is no justification for not removing it per the RFC until a replacement is agreed-upon. Arguments about whether NFOOTY was or was not an accurate predictor of GNG are irrelevant at this stage; that's what was discussed at the RFC. Arguments about the NFL are also irrelevant here. The only relevant question is whether NFOOTY is "merit based" or "participation based", and consensus, though not unanimous, is that it's the latter. Levivich 17:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Here again, both criteria are rather obviously "participation in one game", [played or managed] in any Tier 1 International Match; in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues.. Again, remove (with no prejudice towards whatever the FOOTY project might suggest, I've given my word about that at the relevant place). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC) I agree with removal, but only with replacement. GiantSnowman 09:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC) That sounds reasonable, but there needs to be a limit, and if a replacement is not agreed on within the limit then it should be replaced with GNG. How long do you believe is required to propose and get a consensus for a replacement? BilledMammal (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC) I am obviously INVOLVED/biased, and therefore quite possibly looking at the discussion completely wrong, but I think we have a rough consensus on the wording of the guideline, we just need to finalise the list of leagues? Your takes @RandomCanadian and BilledMammal:? GiantSnowman 10:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC) The proposal to keep the criteria mostly as is (the text of Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)/Association_football#Proposed_guideline is very similar to the one quoted here) but tighten the list of leagues is essentially not really a change and won't really solve the issue or be in line with the consensus to remove such "participated in one game" criteria. Even if we take the discussion about "highest level of the game" from above, and agree (just for the sake of the following argument) that that might be an appropriate criterion (as there definitively is some significant merit in playing for such a club), most of the leagues listed in the new proposal are definitively not that (and, as one would have it, the further away you go from stuff like the Premier League or the Bundesliga, or other similar top level European leagues which have plenty of foreign talent, the more "exceptions" to SIGCOV exist). And having the leagues which are almost automatic indicators of notability be kept on a Wikiproject page should be avoided unless the list is truly of significant proportions. I'd argue that, even with football, there is no justification for making such an out of proportion list that would warrant that treatment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC) You've clearly either not read or misunderstood the proposal then. It is made clear that there is no such thing as automatic notability, but only a guide that significant coverage might exist. GiantSnowman 14:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC) That it says "significant coverage is likely to exist" (and not "presumed to be notable") and the fact that the requirement to meet NBASIC has been explicitly spelt out, while good things, does not mean that this is how they are going to be interpreted in practice (see: how the guidelines have previously been misinterpreted), and does not mean that the suggested list of leagues is going to be an accurate indicator of when such significant coverage is likely to exist. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Alas, we cannot be responsible for how editors implement the guidelines and policies - we can only clean up after the fact. That applies whether we have a loose SNG, a tight SNG, or no SNG at all. That is not a reason not to push forward with the changes proposed. GiantSnowman 14:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Agree, the point of NSPORT is to be a guide for who/what might be notable, and that is clearly referenced back to NBASIC/GNG. The fact that some editors try and use it as a black-and-white policy is wrong, but not the fault of the guidelines themselves. Also, as per the RFC closer's comments, merit-based participations should be looked at, which is what we're trying to do. Playing in the Premier League for example is a great achievement, and so everyone who makes appearances there will almost certainly be notable. So condensing to a smaller list of the very top leagues that get lots of coverage makes it more of a merit-based participation, and is compliant with NBASIC and GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC) That's what I tried to do here. Maybe people were just reluctant because I didn't explicitly list the leagues? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Which is fine, but that list is far too narrow I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 15:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC) @GiantSnowman: On the other hand, it is a merit-based list and not a mere participation one, so that's definitively a positive. It's also possible to add a note that a list of additional leagues and competitions which may have resulted in significant coverage also exists (i.e. the existing FPL list, ideally tightened where it needs to be), but that it should not be used as a presumption of such coverage existing (as I also proposed for cricket). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC) good point - let me ponder and have a think about a proposal v2, at the subpage. GiantSnowman 08:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC) The replacement is WP:NBASIC. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Then why not get rid of every SNG? GiantSnowman 14:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Rhetorical point-winning aside, seems it is clear the standard for inclusion should ultimately be NBASIC/GNG (given existing consensuses to that effect and the basic requirements of writing an encyclopedic [as opposed to database] entry). What the role of SNGs is in that should probably be taken closer to what the text itself currently says, i.e. as rules of thumb to help determine whether a given subject is likely to meet those criteria, not as alternatives to it (despite the fact it has been misused as an alternative by way too many for way too long). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Implementing a version of RandomCanadian's proposal is a way better interim solution that removing everything as proposed here. As long as there is scope for refining it in future with consensus, as I believe there are certainly more leagues that could be added to the notable top divisions point. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Remove regardless of potential replacements, as per the closing statement of subproposal 3. In the meantime WP:SPORTCRIT will decide the notability of footballers. Avilich (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC) you mean the bit that says, in part "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have participated in or achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level" - so a participation-based criteria?! GiantSnowman 21:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Thanks for pointing that out, 'participated' will have to be removed from that too. Avilich (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Remove. Any participation-based replacement criteria should gain community-wide consensus before implementation, not before. The positive predictive value of NFOOTY as a whole has been pure, anti-empirical garbage and will remain so regardless of league pruning until editors can actually show playing in League X actually predicts what it's meant to predict 95% of the time. JoelleJay (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Remove - Straightforward participation based criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Keep for international footballers, which is a merit based appearance, which is permitted as per the RFC closer. Also, most international footballers pass GNG, so they are "likely to be notable". Either that or wait for agreement on the new criteria- we don't need to rush into changing everything immediately, and then change it again in a few weeks when there's a consensus for a new guideline. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Too many international footballers do not get significant coverage and fail BASIC/GNG; indeed for many countries, almost no international players (especially women) receive significant coverage. A vague claim of "most" is not enough. The replacement guideline will require tightening in this regard so it needs to be removed from here now. wjematherplease leave a message... 07:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Almost all international players do meet GNG, which means "likely" is correct. "Likely" doesn't mean that 100% of people will achieve it, but I'm pretty sure 98%+ of international footballers do. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Evidence from AFD, plus thousands of contentless stubs, does not support your assertion. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Just because someone has created a stub and not improved it, that doesn't mean sources don't exist. And the AFDs are the ~1-2% of international players, but it's a guideline for what's "likely" not an absolute rule that everyone who meets the criteria must be notable (anyone who applies NFOOTY like this is wrong). We could also exclude friendly/exhibition international matches, as most of the non-notables have, in my experience, only played these matches, or could limit to competed at a major tournament (World Cup, or relevant Continental Competition e.g. UEFA European Championship, AFCON etc and women's equivalents). But most international players are notable, and refinement is way better than blanket removal in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I would agree that internationals should be restricted to appearances in world or continental finals (or similar) tournaments. Please note however, that this discussion is not for agreeing replacement or refined guidelines, just removing the relevant clauses per the RFC consensus. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC) There are plenty of international football players that have been deleted at AfD after extensive searches for SIGCOV. "International" can mean a Gibraltar club playing against a Spanish club, or Liechtenstein playing Switzerland, or whatever. We definitely cannot presume SIGCOV exists for 95% of these players from all time periods. JoelleJay (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I don't think that a single appearance in international football is any more merit-based than a single appearance in the NFL, which was specifically called out in subproposal 3 as an example of a participation-based criteria that should be eliminated. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC) One game NFL players are usually notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC) What a blatantly misleading comment. Like come on, we are obviously not talking about players who played one NFL game but later coached NFL teams; or later played multiple games of professional football in NFL Europe, Arena Football, or in the CFL; or were signed to active rosters of other NFL teams in the internet era; or had notable college careers; or are current NFL players. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Remove per consensus of Subproposal #3. Obviously some editors don't like that consensus, but that doesn't invalidate it. Ravenswing 18:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Comment I saw several reasons for sub-proposal 3. First, there was a feeling there were too many articles about athletes. Second, that too many articles were sourced only to databases. Third, there was a feeling that too many editors would cite "Keep: passes NSPORT" at AFD without examining the sources. To me, sub-proposal 3 used a broad brush to try to solve these problems. I also think that NFOOTY was the poster child for the complaints, as "playing in a professional game," sourced only to a database and no indication that independent reliable sourced material exists(ed). That all said, I do not think the community necessarily has a problem with recognizing that it is strongly likely that a person who participates in an elite league (or in a league that regularly receives substantive press coverage) would likely pass NBASIC. I think the burden now is to show that all players in a particular league do meet NBASIC and if so, there should be no concern with recognizing that in the SNG. --Enos733 (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC) I also think that at AFD sourcing should be evaluated more leniently for a subject that passes an SNG, and subjects who do not pass a SNG should have sources scrutinized more closely. --Enos733 (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Athletics

This one is just too complex. I'd be open to a suggestion to rewrite this entirely, independently of the "participation" issue (the numbers about which races might be notable, for example, seem quite arbitrary). Some sub-criteria might need removing (for example, there was consensus to remove mere participation at the Olympics without medaling, this should be expanded to the other similar stuff). In short, partial remove. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think cutting the list from people who finish top 8 in events to top 3 would seem reasonable (and be in line with the Olympic guidelines). I'm not convinced everyone who finishes 8th in a World Marathon Majors passes GNG, but the top 3 always do in my experience. And all of these are merit rather than participation based, which seems to be what people want. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Australian rules football

Removed. Levivich 17:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Being discussed at #Protected edit request on 29 March 2022 (2). Seems with linking to the discussion here for consistency, but please comment at that discussion instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Baseball

(for reference, version before removal before this was written) No. 2-5 are obvious participation-only criteria (although no. 4, not being about players, might be a special case). Implicit approval, thus, of removing that which has already been removed. On the other hand, given the removal of mere participation, there'd probably be grounds to list stuff such as participation in the yearly all-star games. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Remove #2-#5, these are participation-based. –dlthewave ☎ 14:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Remove 2 through 5, per consensus of Subproposal #3. Ravenswing 18:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Keep parts of 2 and 4. We have a lot of AfDs of National League and American League players who have played in only 1 Major League game over the years. And as far as I can tell, the only ones for which enough sources to at least marginally meet GNG have not been found (including 19th century players and very recent players) have been a handful whose first names were not known. Since those have now been collected in a separate article there is no good reason to presume that National and American league players, managers and commissioners who have played in or managed (or commissioned for) at least 1 major league game are not notable. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Remove 2 to 5. They're still just participation criteria, and if many of one category are notable then this is redundant anyway, probably belongs in a wikiproject essay instead. Avilich (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Which MLB players have not met GNG? If Rlendog is correct, there is no reason not to include MLB players in the SNG. --Enos733 (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse removal of 2-5 as 'mere' participation criteria. The core of RFC #3 is that appearing in one game is not sufficient, and it doesn't really matter in what league, or what tournament, that game is played. "Merit-based" means the individual had some kind of recognized individual accomplishment that sets the individual apart from their peers, and "appearing in a game" is not such an accomplishment, because all of the individual's peers will also have had that "accomplishment". (If you're an MLB player, then your peers are other MLB players, and every MLB player will have played in an MLB game.) If it were otherwise, we'd be saying that every player in a given league, or a given tournament, was likely to be notable, and that's exactly what the community decided not to do by eliminating participation-based criteria in RFC #3. Levivich 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The same could be said for any achievement. If you are an MLB MVP then your peers are other MLB MVPs and every MLB MVP would have won an MVP. The point is that we have been able to find sources for every MLB player whose first name has been known that has come up at AfD that I am aware of (and if you are aware of a counterexample, please let me know), including many 19th century and dead ball players who played in one or very few AL or NL games. If that is the case then the statement that "Significant coverage is likely to exist for baseball figures if they played in at least one AL or NL game" is correct and there is no reason to eliminate that. Not acknowledging that is just adding unnecessary bureaucracy and any such nuances in the previous discussion were buried in the massive scope.Rlendog (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    "The point is ..." I disagree, that's not the point. The point here is about whether criteria are merit-based or participation-based. "the statement that ... is correct and there is no reason to eliminate that." I disagree, and I see this as re-arguing the RFC. The RFC decided that "played in at least one AL or NL game" is not sufficient criteria. There's no point in discussing that further, here.

    What you said about peers is true, but it's about calibrating the level at which we group 'peers'. So if a criteria was, "Was an MLB MVP", then that would be a merit-based criteria. Being an MVP isn't about participating in anything, it's about winning something (the MVP award). So it's not participation-based at all. Whereas, playing in a game in the majors, is participation-based.

    "Played in at least one AL or NL game" is participation-based. "Drafted in the MLB" is merit-based. "Called up from the minor leagues" is merit-based. It may be that everyone who played in at least one AL or NL game was drafted or called up... but still, the former is participation-based, the latter two are merit-based. Levivich 21:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    I agree the past RfC reached a general consensus, but it did not discuss each individual sport and so did not decide on the specific validity of "played in at least one AL or NL game". Now that the general discussion is over, each individual sport can proceed to discuss new proposals based on the predictor principle. If a criterion can be demonstrated to be a highly accurate predictor of suitable coverage satisfying the general notability guideline, then we can evaluate it on its own merits. isaacl (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Curling

Regarding this edit: participants in the world championships are national champions, and so have been selected on the basis of merit. Participation in the Canadian Olympic curling trials is also based on merit—winning specific elite events or accumulating sufficient Canadian Team Ranking System points. (Due to the large numbers of elite Canadian curlers, the Olympic trials are sometimes described as the world's most difficult bonspiel to win.) Thus I feel these criteria ought to remain for the present. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have notified the curling WikiProject of this discussion. isaacl (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that participants in World Championships should stay. It could be rephrased as notability is presumed if the curler has won a national championship; however, you will actually open up the guidelines for more curlers because there are curlers who win their national championships who do not make it to the World Championships. For example, in 2016 Anne Malmi won the Finnish Women's Curling Championship; however, Finland did not qualify for the 2016 World Women's Curling Championship; having said that, I have no issue with that expansion to all nation champions. It seems if you win a national tournament like that WP:GNG would not be difficult to meet. TartarTorte 13:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

These days, many countries do not send the winner of their national championship to the World Championship, and therefore many national championships aren't that important. However, one national championship that is important is the Canadian championships (Brier and Scotties), which arguably get more coverage than the Worlds. I saw that participation in those events was removed as well from the criteria, and I think we should discuss that a bit further. To get to the Brier/Scotties, a team has to win a provincial championship (unless they are a Wild Card team), which usually comes with significant coverage (less so for the Territories though). I would think that we should change the Brier/Scotties criteria to have finished in the top 3 in those events, or skipped a provincial championship team at the Brier/Scotties. A similar criteria should be for the Worlds, the curler should have won a medal, or skipped a national championship team at the Worlds, or something along those lines. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I did consider saying something about the Brier and Scotties, but due to the varying levels of elite curlers across the provinces and in particular the territories, I didn't want to make a proposal without more supporting evidence. I agree that national champion in itself isn't a good standard. Nations have to go through a qualifying process to participate in the world championships so I think it is a better indication of the existence of suitable coverage meeting the general notability guideline. Although there are some national curling associations that can appoint a team other than the national champion, I think it can be generally assumed this team is at least of equivalent level as the national champion, and so still feel it's reasonable to consider the team to have earned their spot through merit. (That being said, with winning a medal at the World Senior Curling Championships being in the current criteria, at a minimum it makes sense to also include winning a medal at the world championships.) isaacl (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess with regards to curling I'm a bit of an inclusionist, but I am fine with any skip who won a provincial/territorial Briers or Scotties making it in. Presumably the wild card team(s) for any given year would also be notable from likely having won a previous year's provincial/territorial tournament. It's likely adding 10 skips per year which seems reasonable. TartarTorte 20:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of research for historical articles on Briers/Scotties and curlers, and the skips will usually get significant coverage, no matter where they're from, though that's not always the case for other players. In any event, making the playoffs / finishing top 3 should be enough to qualify for notability at the very least. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That's good info to know—if you can show some of that work (demonstrating significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources) using a randomized sample across history, it would help with convincing the broader community. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've randomly picked 10 Brier skips over the course of its history, and got three skips without articles: Gerry Glinz (NS, 1955)[1]), Bob Charlebois (ON, 1971 [2]), John S. Malcolm (NB, 1933 [3]). The rest have articles: Bruce Lohnes, Don Duguid, Brad Gushue, James Grattan, Peter Corner, Steve Laycock, Glenn Howard. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Endorse removal in the linked edit, basically for the same reasons I wrote in the baseball section. "Participated in X" is, in my view, participation-based, and not merit-based, even if "X" is an exclusive level of competition. Winning "X", or placing in the top 3, or something like that... that's merit-based. It has to be based on something beyond just playing in a game. Levivich 20:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate this viewpoint (in particular, there's a bit of a gap between a curling team and its members). Just a note, though: participating in the World Championships or in the Canadian Olympic trials is not the same as just playing in a game. You have to compete and win a lot to qualify. isaacl (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a general comment that applies to multiple sports: Yes, but every level of competition requires success at the prior level of competition. Everyone in the finals did well in the tournament; everyone in the tournament did well in the season; everyone in the major leagues did well in the minor leagues; every pro player did well as an amateur; etc. "Played in the Finals" is participation-based criteria; "won the Semi-Finals" is merit-based. Now, it may be true that (almost) everyone who plays in the Finals has won the Semi-Finals, but still, the former is participation-based and the latter is merit-based. This is especially a concern for team sports, where "played in the finals" means the team won the semi-finals, but not necessarily the player (and notability is not inherited, etc.). Levivich 21:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but now that we are discussing specific sports, we can examine specific circumstances. These are the two of the three highest level bonspiels in curling. As Earl Andrew suggested, the qualifying championship victory can be explicitly included, such as won a national championship for a country participating in the world championships. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with "won a national championship" as a criteria. For the criteria that were removed in the edit you linked, I'd support changing "participated in" to "won" in each case. Levivich 21:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to even go that far at this point; I've only discussed the world championships and the Canadian Olympic trials. As I mentioned above, I think "won a national championship" may be a bit too broad, and so think narrowing the candidate countries to those participating in the World Championships during the same curling season may be better. Let's see what others think. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, though I think we need to include winning a World Championship medal to the list (for the cases of teams that didn't win a national championship).-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm waiting to see if anyone else weighs in before trying to summarize a more formal proposal. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Cricket

RandomCanadian proposed these guidelines on the WikiProject Cricket talk page:

Proposal

Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they: Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation (for umpires) Have been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.

What do you think of it? --Techie3 (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have already put my thoughts on the other page- it seems good to me. Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation this is the top level of international cricket and so is a merit-based participation, we should probably list the years that teams have had Test status though. There are only 12 teams of each gender that meet this criteria, and this removes all the rubbish T20 International matches between minor countries. Elite Panel of ICC Umpires is also a merit-based participation (as there are many levels of umpiring below it, from domestic cricket, then the lower level Development Panel of ICC Umpires and International Panel of ICC Umpires- only c.30 people have ever reached the Elite Panel). I support listing the "may be notable, but coverage must be found" with a link to WP:OFFICIALCRICKET (which itself did a massive pruning of its scope last year), as a project based guideline that explicitly tells people to look for sources- that link itself may need modifications to make this message clear too. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• @Techie3: You implemented this proposal? Shouldn't it get consensus first? Levivich 20:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @LevivichThe concerned Wikiproject has implicitly accepted this definition, and I think there was a implied consensus, almost no one commented on this section or reverted the implementation. You can revert it yourself. Techie3 (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• This version is a lot better than previous practice. Reyk _YO! 23:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Cycling

Male

• Remove #1-#3, (participation based), Keep #4-#5 (merit based). –dlthewave ☎ 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually, no. 2 might be partly on merit (there are only 3 Grand Tours: Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a Espana), and the "Monuments" are to the number of five, and include such stuff like Paris-Roubaix or other really well known races. A more obvious solution, however, instead of removing no. 2, would be to change it from mere participation to actually winning something (either an individual stage, or a race classification [for multi-stage races which award different classifications]; or finishing on the podium [for stuff like Paris-Roubaix]. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree that for #2, the winner of a stage/top 3 of a one-day race seems sensible. #1 and #3 could just have "competed at" replaced with "won" and I'm sure that would be acceptable too. Seems like a simple fix to me, and way more sensible than just deleting it all. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Female

• Remove #1-2, Keep #3-4. –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've altered no. 2 to read "won" (like with the men's competitions); otherwise I've gone ahead and implemented both as discussed here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    Endorse the current version ("won"); all the WP:NCYC criteria look merit-based to me. Levivich 20:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Figure skating

There is already consensus to remove simple Olympic participation at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_46#Figure_skating. I am proposing:

• Merge #1, #2, #4 and #5 to "Medaled at an international senior-level event or the World Junior Figure Skating Championships"
• Keep #3

There was also some talk about including "competed at an Olympics since 1992" in the above discussion, but it went nowhere because although 1992 did seem to correlate with increased coverage of skaters, the date seemed arbitrary. What wasn't mentioned in that previous discussion is that 1992 was the first Olympics after figure skating eliminated "compulsory figures", which drastically altered the sport and made it much more media friendly. Therefore, I feel that it's inclusion as a cutoff date makes perfect sense. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support but could we also clarify in there what a "senior-level event" (for people who may be unfamiliar with it). For most other sports, we either list the competitions, or at least provide a link to where someone could find what qualifies or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The events listed in the previous revision are mostly already listed in the linked wikiproject essay. Avilich (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse current version (which appears to implement the suggestion above). WP:NSKATE looks good to me now, with all criteria being merit-based. Levivich 20:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Tennis

• Remove #2 and #3 which are participation based. –dlthewave ☎ 03:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • 2 are a few international competitions. The solution might be to limit these to the highest level (the Fed Cup has multiple tiers; so does the Davis Cup; the Hopman cup can probably be kept as is due to limited numbers); but that's a bit of a more complex idea, so I'd support removing for the time being. For no. 3, changing "competed" to "won" likely solves the issue with minimal fuss (I could figure even some Grand Slam participants might not be reliably notable, especially in the early years and when travel to distant locations like Australia was not as practical as today). So remove 2, modify 3. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Since the writing is very specific there is no need for removal at all. Participation at the WTA/ATP level is usually a guarantee of notability but it's not automatic with the change of NSPORT wording. The higher levels of BillieJeanCup/DavisCup is not a bad idea. For the most part these are used for new tennis players so early years with no ATP/WTA don't really come into play. Only at the four majors and even then almost all are notable. This is why it says "Though it is not a substitute for proper sourcing, significant coverage is likely to exist for tennis figures if they" etc etc etc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Fyunck(click), aren't you the one who added "though it is not a substitute for proper sourcing"? The consensus is to remove participation-based criteria, not keep it and soften the language. –dlthewave ☎ 04:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

      @Dlthewave No, it is to "remove simple or mere "participation" criteria, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. "

      As said by Mesem, "On the other hand, holding a record, winning an individual championship, or awarded a well-recognized award, are things that are generally assured that more coverage about the person will come in time." Techie3 (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

      I have reverted the edit by Fyunck, as this is still under discussion here. The language should not be unnecessarily softened in a bid to keep the criteria as is. Participation at the WTA/ATP level - I'd guess that might be true for modern times, maybe for the very top tournaments (Grand Slams, major ATP/WTA tournaments, maybe Olympics as well), but that has not always (particularly in the olden days before the Open era) or everywhere been the case, and it still is a participation-based criteria. Replacing the word "competed" with "won" would solve most of the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

      Um... Pre-Open level had no ATP/WTA tournaments. That happened actually a few years after the Open Era started, so no issue there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

      Grand Slams still existed (as did tennis at the first few Olympics). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

      • I did add that. I did it because NSPORTS itself was softening the language. From what I am reading in all the posts on the talk page is that NSPORTS no longer guarantees notability in forming an article. Is that true or not? It always has been but it seems to have changed from using NSPORTS as the basis for creating an article to using NSPORTS as a framework for creating an article. Which is it now? We can't have it both ways. If it is used as a framework then participation is perfectly fine. If it's to use as endowing notability then it's not. Administrator @331dot: even started a topic on this very issue that this guideline has changed from "presumed to have notability" to "presumed to have received significant coverage." Those have completely different meanings. I would never have changed NSPORTS nutshell had I seen differently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
        • NSPORTS never "guaranteed" notability. At least, that's never what the text of the guideline said (from the very first sentence) nor how it's been interpreted in practice (plenty of instances of meeting one of the many criteria of NSPORTS but still not being notable). NSPORT is supposed to be an indicator of whether a subject is likely to have enough coverage to sustain an article. If the criteria are not accurate indicators of this, they need to be adjusted, and one of the most common reasons behind this problem is the proliferation of participation-based criteria which, except at the highest levels, do not usually have that strong of a correlation with reliable source coverage. There's a consensus to remove them. If you wish to come up with something better, you're free to do so (I'd suggest discussing it at the WP:TENNIS project); but as it stands the current criteria are flawed. Beyond the obvious fix (changing "competed" to "won"), there are still other issues outstanding which likely shouldn't be addressed here (to keep the conversation focused - as I said, go to WP:TENNIS and have a chat there if you wish to propose new, better criteria). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
          • NSPORTS was always portrayed as "presumed notable." It said it right up front for over a decade. Written by many many editors to refine it through the years. Now it seems to be portrayed as "presumed significant coverage." Those are totally different. Which is it? WP:Tennis is fine with their guidelines, it's here that we need to be clear what is changing. As 331dot said it is very confusing just what is happening and clarity on those two totally different phrases would help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
            • We had an RfC which resulted in consensus to change all instances of the long-standing text, "presumed to be notable", to "significant coverage is likely to exist" (Subproposal #8) and remove all simple or mere participation criteria (Subproposal #3). The sport-specific sections have already been updated to "significant coverage is likely to exist", and in this discussion we're trying to decide which criteria are actually based purely on participation since there are some grey areas. You're welcome to give your input on that specific question but if you need further explanation of how and why long-standing guidelines are changed and the role of Wikiprojects in that process, I would suggest asking at the WP:TEAHOUSE. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
            • As you write: "presumed to be notable. Presumed to be notable≠is notable. It was a rebutable presumption. There have been many instances of subjects that were presumed to be notable according to these guidelines, but on closer inspection turned put not to actually be notable.Tvx1 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
              • There will always be some that slip through but that far outweighs the mess it creates with edit wars, and overall bad feelings between editors. Here's the problem with the above. Presuming Notability created hard criteria that doesn't really exist for significant coverage. NSPORTS got watered down when "presumed notable" got removed so that it barely resembles anything with any kind of power anymore. It's not really a guideline but a "here's what will probably work" article. If you then water down even the suggestion of significant coverage by going from what will probably work to removal of items that very likely have significant coverage, this article become useless. Is that really what people want? An article at wikipedia that is powerless and useless? Why even have it anymore since SNGs can pick up the slack. I'm really dumbfounded as to why we don't remove it altogether. It really doesn't help us anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Agree that 2 and 3 need to be removed. In fact, there already was a discussion last October resulting in the decision that 2 had to removed which was done back then. No idea why this was returned. As for 3, I strongly contend that every single tennis player who played in one single match of a grand slam tournament (which has 128 players every year) gets significant coverage. Certainly when you delve into players who only made one ever appearance through a wild card only to suffer a straight set loss. And the claim certainly does not hold true for all first round participants all the way down in the lower tier ATP/WTA 250 tournaments. Better to remove this point now and write a new one here that actually reflects reality and have it supported by community consensus. Another thing that needs to be removed is the sentence claiming that the situation is equal for singles and doubles players. The reality is that doubles gathers considerably less coverage than singles and is about high time that the tennis project finally accepts this.Tvx1 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• "2 and 3" have become confused. In the revision of the page from when this talk subsection was started [4], 2 and 3 referred to participation in "international team competitions" (2) and "main draw in one of the highest-level professional tournaments" (3), but this version was after Fyunck(click) had replaced the tennis notability guideline on this page with the notability essay at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Notability, claiming "someone removed some events that usually have significant coverage", an action which has since been reverted by Tvx1 and RandomCanadian. Now the only participation-based criteria is 2 i.e. the old 3. I think the WikiProject Tennis essay should be replaced with the the guidelines from this page to stop the confusion, and per WP:CONLEVEL. Letcord (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• As for 2 (the old 3), participation in a Grand Slam tournament in singles *in the Open Era* basically guarantees notability. Before then, but particularly in their early years, the majors and especially the Australian Championships were more regional tournaments, with near-100% local players (example). I would support a narrowing of the guideline to Open Era-only (1968-present) for Grand Slams. For tournaments on the ATP and WTA Tours (~1970-present), it's true that an occasional local talent is thrown in as a wildcard and loses easily, never to be heard from again. The guideline could be narrowed to having participated in at least 2 tournaments to avoid this scenario. I agree with Tvx1 that "This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players" should be removed as doubles does not receive near the coverage of singles. Letcord (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Or write a new guideline where having won particular matches, rather than just starting them is the norm. I strongly contendst that every of the 128 players starting each grand slam tournament is notable. Ask the average layperson who Ryuso Tsujino is and they will not have any idea. And that is missing the point even, since were not discussing notability but the existence of significant coverage now.Tvx1 18:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    Yes won a main draw ATP/WTA tour match would be a reasonable alternative. "Notability" I'm using in the Wikipedia sense (passes WP:GNG), not the "layperson has heard of them" sense, which would be a terrible test for an encyclopedia as the average person knows very little about anything. I do believe all 128 singles players in both men and women's singles in the Open Era would have significant coverage, including Tsujino, whose Japanese article is more substantially sourced. There are only a couple hundred players who meet that criteria and are yet to have an article anyway, so we're not talking large numbers. Letcord (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    • No, the average layperson is the perfect. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a sports fansite. The average layperson is our audience. The claim that Tsujino has significant coverage is simply false. His article solely exists because some people believed that playing one grand slam match makes one notable.Tvx1 20:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

      No, the average layperson is the worst criteria imaginable for a useful encyclopedia. Has the average layperson heard of a Muon, or an Abelian group, or Ploidy? Obviously not, but these are fundamental topics within their respective fields, with thousands of reliable sources covering them in-depth. Within tennis, has the average layperson heard of Alice Marble or Pancho Gonzales or Jack Kramer or Helen Wills? No again - most non-fans would only know the Big Four, the Williams sisters, and a handful of others like Kyrgios. Enforcing an "average layperson" criteria would strip the encyclopedia down to fewer than fifty thousand articles, and what point would there be in reading one if you already knew every topic in it? That to one side, are you a Japanese speaker, and/or have you searched newspaper archives for Tsujino? If not, how do you know he didn't receive more significant coverage in Japan, or in old newspapers not accessible to Google? Letcord (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

      Completely agree with Letcord. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

    I'm confused about the meaning of "strongly contend". Contend - "assert something as a position in an argument." but you seem to be arguing that they aren't necessarily notable. Perhaps I'm the only person who's confused but best to clarify your meaning. Nigej (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse removal of 3, change 2 to "won" or remove. "Has competed in" is participation-based; changing it to "won" would make it merit-based and I think that's a noncontroversial proposition (that anyone who won one of these tournaments would likely be the subject of sigcov). But if there isn't consensus to change it to "won", then it should be removed altogether per RFC #3. Levivich 20:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • While having won any of the listed tournamemts is likely to yield players with significant coverage, the current text deals with with playing just one match in them. If you change that to won one match in such a tournament, you get a claim that probably holds true to players winning a match in grand slam tournament, but I strongly contest it does for players who only ever won one match in a WTA/ATP 250 tournament.Tvx1 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I would bet it does. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Changing it to "Have won at least one title" (to clarify what is "won") would avoid any such confusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

      "Won at least one title" would be very odd for criterion 2, as criteria 3 and 4 are "won at least one title" and they are for the lower leagues. You're not going to win an ATP Tour tournament and especially not a Grand Slam if you haven't even won a challenger, as you need to be winning challengers to start qualifying for the main tour. "Won at least one match" would be a reasonable tightening for 2 if a change is absolutely necessary. But this whole participation- vs. merit-based criteria debate is an absolutely false dichotomy; to participate in many leagues, you have to have serious merit - you're not participating in the NBA All-Stars game or ATP Finals for example unless you're the best of the best. Letcord (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

      And yet, despite what you call an "obviously false dichotomy", there are many cases of players participating in "many leagues" and having no reliable source coverage with which to write an encyclopedia. This extends to far more than just tennis, and even on occasion includes footballers (which is a far more popular sport than tennis). Not going to argue the RfC result again, but mere participation is not a reliable indicator of significant coverage, anywhere. And in tennis, where half of all involved players do not proceed past the first round no matter the tournament, insisting on mere participation in one match (take the archetypical qualifier who loses in the first round as an example) would be even more dubious. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

General discussion

On a discussion organizational note, I feel it is better to have separate top-level sections for each sport, allowing each discussion to be monitored separately. Thus I had placed my original comment in a separate section. Is there any objection to separating it again? isaacl (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Keeping them as sub-sections allows it to be made explicit what the discussions are part of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the intent of each section is self-explanatory, and I don't think the preceding discussion matters. (My decision to start a discussion to review the changes is not a consequence of it.) Personally, I don't want to subscribe to changes for the whole section, including all sports. isaacl (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea isn't linking the outcome of any discussion with another. The idea is that these are discussing the same broad topic (the removal or non-removal of certain participation-based criteria) and they should be grouped together as a result of that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Several times editors have said that interested editors in each sport are welcome to start discussions on how to further refine the changes being made. I don't think there is much advantage in arbitrarily grouping discussion on all sports together under a parent heading, and I do see advantages in having separate sections. isaacl (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The same thing's been done with Olympics just previously (#Proposal_to_clarify_Olympic_participation_as_an_indicator_of_notability), I don't see why it couldn't be done here... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes things get discussed in an omnibus fashion, for better or worse. But if the interested editors for each sport are going to start discussing how to refine the criteria for the sport, as has been suggested, then I think we can let the editors in each area independently choose their own set of important topics to discuss. It's not important that they be slotted underneath a "Content removed again" heading (and personally I would prefer a clean break from the arguing about reverting). isaacl (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Per #Figure skating, in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Figure skating please change Have competed at an Olympics or at an ISU senior World Figure Skating Championships to Have competed at an ISU senior World Figure Skating Championships. BilledMammal (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this shows the problem of just considering one small part of a guideline: as a disinterested layman, I would say that appearing at the Olympics is far more likely to result in coverage than at a World Championships. Spike 'em (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree too, but that's not what the consensus for Olympic participation came out as. Support BilledMammal's change, to be consistent with the general Olympic guideline, and the clear consensus linked above by BilledMammal. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If there was consensus to remove mere participation at the Olympics, I'd say that would also include mere participation at lower events, unless some overriding reason why interest (and consequent reliable source coverage) in the Olympics might be lower than the other events (for example, with football). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree in principle, and some of the sports have already been changed from "participated" to "top 3" where appropriate. I already suggested it for athletics which uses "top 8" for some non-Olympic sports. But figure skating is clearly an uncontroversial change (as it has an explicit consensus above), so should definitely be done now. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. However, please be aware of #A note of caution following unprotection below.—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Gymnastics

Is there a reason why the gymnastics criteria only applies to artistic gymnastics and not to rhythmic gymnastics? I know very little about the sport, but I would imagine that their World Championships provide similar levels of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Artistic gets orders of magnitude more coverage than rhythmic. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 March 2022 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Delete WP:NAFL (not being discussed above as of now), per WP:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, "there is a rough consensus that participation-based criteria are a problem and that the best way forward is to remove them"). Avilich (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose add it to the things being discussed in #Sport by sport review, and have a discussion. If it gets consensus (which seems reasonably likely), then and only then should it be removed. Edit requests for removal without any discussion are akin to the blanket removal that users were doing that ended with the page fully protected in the first place... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The RfC was the discussion. Levivich 15:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Per the RFC closer in #Content removed again thread above: So while there is generally consensus to remove (merely) participation-based criteria, that doesn't mean we can be robotic about removing any criteria that mentions participation. Productive discussions (as part of the bold-revert-discuss cycle) would center around whether a criterion is sufficiently merit-based to warrant inclusion. Qualifying for (and participating in) highly selective national or international events leans towards the merit-based side of things; playing in a single professional match before being sent back to the minor leagues leans toward the "mere participation" side. For criteria in the middle, editors can and should discuss whether it's sufficiently merit-based. So a discussion is needed, rather than a unilateral demand of removal. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
      • NAFL is "mere" participation criteria that should be removed per the RfC. Levivich 16:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

        @Levivich The Australian Football League is the highest level of Aussie Rules, and so most players in it have coverage. It can be considered a "Merit" based participation criteria. Techie3 (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

      • You don't get to use a lack of discussion as an excuse to obstruct, you have to give an actual non-procedural reason to begin a discussion in the first place. Otherwise no additional discussion is needed at all. Avilich (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal per obviously being "mere participation". JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• The RFC WAS the discussion. It's time to implement the results of the discussion. The only question is whether or not the edit (only) implements the discussion and it looks like that is a yes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal as this section is clearly participation-based and no valid objections have been raised aside from "keep because the current criteria work well" which is a non-starter. I don't think we're required to discuss and reach consensus for every section; normally we follow BRD which means that discussion is only needed if the substance of the change is challenged (and variations of "more time is needed" don't count). And if someone has a reason why the section would be considered merit-based, I'm all ears. –dlthewave ☎ 00:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I believe the Australian Football League could be considered merit-based, as it's the biggest competition in the sport in the world, therefore reaching that level is an achievement. It has way more coverage than other leagues (like Australian state leagues), and I would expect that almost all the players would pass WP:GNG (though my subject knowledge isn't great, albeit knowing anything about these sports doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for people commenting on these discussions). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I see nothing automatic with the wording as it stands and the wording could be tweaked a bit if really needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"have appeared in a match" is straightforward enough, if you want to suggest a replacement be everyone's guest, otherwise your opposition ought to be disregarded for the same reason as those in the RfC. Avilich (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is but in the opposite way you are thinking. Saying "Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes (who) appeared in a match of the Australian Football League..." is absolutely 100% true. It tells us that those are the players we should be creating articles for provided one can find those likely sources. That is straightforward for me. I don't see where it needs to be clearer but be my guest to make it so if you are unsure. Otherwise I would disregard this whole discussion being brought up by you as biased. The problem may not be the wording of individual sports but the "nutshell" definition at the page top. Change that to:

"An athlete is very likely to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. GNG still applies." That gets rid of presumed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. The question being asked here is whether NAFL is based on mere participation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm simply opposing its removal based on what it says. There is nothing automatic based on participation, just that significant coverage is likely based on that participation. Why would we remove that fact? If it said you are automatically notable if you participate... that is a different story. But it doesn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that no matter what it says, it gets misused in practice. There was a consensus to remove this kind of easily-misuseable and usually not very accurate criteria, and this is one of the more blatant examples. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

But that is a problem for that user, not the wording if as you say "it gets misused." Don't delete the truth. Refine what it says if you find it can be misused. I don't see where it should be misused but part of the problem could be the intro to the page, not the actual sport by sport wording. To be honest I'm not really that astute on Australian football as I am on tennis and a couple other sports, so perhaps I am wrong on how often folks are found to be non-notable with their project wording, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater unless someone shows it is really inaccurate, not just because it says "Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes (who) appeared in a match of the Australian Football League." If that statement is pretty much true why would we remove it? It becomes a great guide as to what to expect when making a new article and helps our new editors. Make sure they understand they will need to provide that coverage notability upon insertion into Wikipedia, but don't delete this helpful insight and guidance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We've already had the discussion about whether we should have criteria in NSPORT based on mere participation, and the consensus is that we shouldn't. You may disagree with that consensus, but that is the consensus - all we need to do here is decide whether this criteria is mere participation, and it seems obvious to me that it is. BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

And that's where we read it very differently. I can't see where it's criteria, by definition. It is guidance as to what is likely, but not a mandate at all. It is simply helpful insight, especially for our new editors, who are very difficult to keep anymore at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

These used to be actual criteria for notability. These criteria were often, "If a sportsperson has appeared in one game of this major league, they are notable."(i.e. mere participation citeria/guidelines) The community founded that editors created articles about sportspeople only sourced by a database, or a couple of links, which was not good. An RFC agreed that the mere participation citeria/guidelines should be removed. Techie3 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Used to be" might be true, but that is certainly not what it says now. Oh I see you simply removed it anyway. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of those leagues are the highest domestic leagues, which could be an exception as a merit-based participation (which is allowable as per the RFC closer)- my knowledge of Aussie rules is limited, but I expect players in the Australian Football League are almost all notable. I don't agree with removal until this discussion had had more input, but not going to edit war to put it back. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, and ditto on why I didn't put it back. But it was pretty audacious to remove it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. However, please be aware of #A note of caution following unprotection below.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A note of caution following unprotection

Following a request for unprotection and discussion with other administrators I have unprotected the page with a log entry directing administrators to use blocks instead of page protection moving forward. For the most part, I've actually been very impressed by how many editors have been working together to not only implement the RfC but also start follow-up discussions to clarify or improve the guideline. Unfortunately these collaborations are made harder by disruptive editing and the page being protected for long periods. I will continue to monitor behavior on the NSPORTS guideline page myself, and I want to note that my tolerance for disruption is at an all time low.

Unprotection is not a warrant to continue disruption. In order to let others get on with editing the guideline, tendentious or stonewalling editors will be blocked for extended periods. Moving forward, I would recommend editors consider the following:

• Make as few edits as possible, ideally consolidating multiple edits into one to avoid flooding watchlists and page histories
• Voluntarily abide by a one-revert-rule or zero-revert-rule so that you avoid even the appearance of edit warring
• Attempt discussion first rather than being bold or reverting, and avoid discussions through edit summaries

These are my recommendations for how to move forward while minimizing disruption. Whether you follow the recommendations is your own decision, but three full protections in three weeks demonstrates a serious behavioral problem that needs resolved. Following the recommendations makes will make sure that your participation on the guideline page is constructive and not disruptive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wugapodes There is a discussion above at #Implementing_the_RfC_-_participation_criteria_-_interim_status regarding how to proceed post RfC. It seems that should be closed first. Otherwise, this is heading for a repeat of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability and its 13 parallel subproposals. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba: That discussion is a bit moribund (and redundant) at this stage. Most of the discussion is now in the #Sport by sport review section (and related sections which follow or precede it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal Here are all the bold guideline edits made prior to the most recent full protection and the now new sport-by-sport review section. I'd propose reverting to the status quo before those bold changes, and await the results of the per-sport discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless you believe that a specific edit removes a guideline that is not "mere participation" then I don't believe reverting is appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there should be a discussion on if it's a mere participation, even if that discussion consists of 4-5 people quickly saying "yes, this is clearly just participation". That way there is no justification for it being re-instated. Some of the top sports leagues do look like a merit-based inclusion, and so I see their removals as controversial and in need of discussion. Attempt discussion first rather than being bold or reverting Agree with this 100%. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal, per WP:GAME. Time to move on with implementation; there is absolutely no need for further discussion on the removal of most of the simple participation clauses. Objections to, or collateral problems with, the removal of individual clauses should be fixed/discussed without reverting everything else. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The RfC orginator had started #Implementing the RfC - participation criteria - interim status, so your reference to GAMING is curious.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion is also exactly what we should be doing- collaborating to get something that works rather than removing, reverting and being inflexible about anything. There are already many good discussions started, and we should continue those rather than blanket deleting. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that the criteria for implementing an edit that gives RFC implementation as it's basis would be that it does that and does the bare minimum needed to do that, including avoiding turning any remaining text into nonsense. And that any discussions on those would be on whether or not this criteria has been met.North8000 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Bootcamp

These discussions are about the community trying to implement this proposal, agreed at a RFC:

"Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria give (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left.

The fundamental problem with NSPORT is the idea that participating in 1 or more games means the person is notable, but there's nothing about this criteria that assures more sources will come. On the other hand, holding a record, winning an individual championship, or awarded a well-recognized award, are things that are generally assured that more coverage about the person will come in time. Otherwise, we'd just expect individuals to meet the GNG to have an article. There should also be some type of grandfathering so that if passed, there is not a sudden rush for AFD." Techie3 (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Notability guideline"

Is this still technically a "notability guideline", now that it seems to just function as a list of non-exhaustive suggestions of criteria that might get significant coverage? Nothing wrong with that, but I wonder if referring to this as a "supplement" would be better. Maybe I'm just nitpicking. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:N still reads:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...

—Bagumba (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not all SNGs presume notability, for example most of the subject-specific criteria at WP:NBIO simply tell us that the person is "likely" to be notable. Similarly, WP:NMUSIC uses "may be notable" for musical artists. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Per Bagumba above, and NSPORTS itself: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below., NSPORTS does provide a presumption of notability on the same level as GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?

  A5: No With the newer changes to the text (which make it clear the criteria only help determine whether a topic is likely to have SIGCOV), and with the many opportunities that you've had to understand this (this must have been explained to you plenty of times already), it's also untenable to keep supporting this position (although it might be less consequential now that the criteria are being adjusted to actually be reliable indicators). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Feel free to get WP:N modified, or delist NSPORTS as an SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Again, that sentence has literally nothing to do with WP:N. JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not saying that a page must be kept solely because it meets NSPORTS. But I also disagree that consensus can't be to keep if a minority is claiming GNG not met. It should be up to the participants. NSPORTS already says conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.—Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  The FAQ is incorrect. I'm quoting the guideline, which if it and the FAQ contradict, the guideline itself should take precedence. NemesisAT (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  It is not incorrect. The problem is you apparently just cannot grasp a minor nuance of the NSPORT guideline (which the FAQs are part of and accurately document) and repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that the consensus interpretation is fully consistent with the original intent behind the second sentence. JoelleJay (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Implicilty all notability guidelines provide presumed conditions for a standalone article that can still be challenged for appropriate reasons at AFD. We consider them as rebuttals presumptions that may be challenged in the future. This even includes the GNG if only the bare minimum of coverage can be found.--Masem (t) 13:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  What is your point? —Bagumba (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  With the changes, I think it is a "notability guideline" in name only. All I see it do now is guide readers towards players who are likely to have significant coverage. Sort of a "don't-waste-your-time guideline" if the article you want to create doesn't meet these minimal standards. There is no longer any presumed notability but instead it points us towards what we should focus on. It is more of a helpful supplement now with the recent neutering of power. It is still helpful, especially to new editors, but it is less helpful in overseeing and maintaining 1000s of articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fully agree with this - it is a guide only, giving editors an idea of what kind of articles might be notable. GiantSnowman 20:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  And if SNGs only identify what "might be notable", what does it provide over an essay? —Bagumba (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  I have asked those who have sought to abolish NSPORTS why they are concentrating on this particular SNG and not others, and nobody has yet given me a fair answer... GiantSnowman 21:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  None of the other SNG had "simple participation" criteria, and instead are principally based on merit-based criteria, which usually means that's at least one source that will give some significant coverage of the topic. The NSPORTS participation criteria gave no assurance that a source with significant coverage would be available, though this was argued this would exist for most cases. Even if this wa true, editors were not creating articles to include any of these types of sources, leaving them as star heavy stubs, which are against NOT and frowned on by the community. Keep in mind there have been similar efforts such as the NCORP revamp and the removal of the NSCHOOLS outcome that fall in line with removing participation based criteria. --Masem (t) 22:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  It appears that this NSPORTS guideline, used for well over a decade, has been softened and words changed from "presumed notable" to "presumed significant coverage." Two totally different things. "Presumed notable" is much more strict and was the basis in discussions for changing to no participation merits. "Presumed significant coverage" is much softer and is more amiable to participation such as major league baseball players or any NBA player. It's very confusing as to what we have here now except I see all the sport headers now say presumed significant coverage and removed notability. If we are going to remove participation then we should go back to "presumed notable" in all the headings. Changing the headings AND removing participation is far and above what is required here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  As I am sure you know, this change (presumed to be notable → significant coverage likely to exist) was the result of the RFC #8, and was deemed necessary to avoid misuse of the SNG (i.e. NSPORT is not an alternative to GNG/BASIC and "presumed notable" gave the impression that it is). Removing simple participation (RFC #3) criteria doesn't change this. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  ...instead are principally based on merit-based criteria...: WP:NACTOR allows the subjective "significant roles in multiple notable films".—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  That's a far better metric than "participated in one professional game" - significant roles (usually meaning starring or co-starring rather than cameo, and thus will be the immediate subject of movie film criticism) and across multiple films means there's likely to be multiple secondary sources that will have significant coverage of the actor from those reviews alone. Just that in this type of case, it is far harder to skim databases to autogenerate articles, one usually has to do work to satisfy this criteria. But I still stress from what I said above: all notability guidelines are a rebuttable presumption of the allowance for a stand-alone article that can be challenged (after an appropriate BEFORE check) at AFD. --Masem (t) 17:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  "significant role" is highly subjective. One game isn't the problem, it's that some leagues were chosen that shouldn't have been e.g. some of the multi-national sports had some fan thinking "their" country needed representation, or people wanting both genders represented etc. Those can now be removed, but the leagues where 1-game is an accurate barometer should be restored, if demonstrated.—Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Significant role" sets a far better bar than merely touching the field during a professional game. And the problem with participation-based criteria is that it caused editors to create massive number of stub-level articles across popular sports without any attempt to expand beyond basic stats, with the expectation that other editors would come and "clean up" after them. That's not acceptable anymore even if that was okay when WP was first starting out. --Masem (t) 22:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Serial microstub creation should be addressed at WP:STUB. Dumbing down NSPORTS wastes people's time at AfD, if there is a simple alternative to GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@331dot, half of the SNGs listed at WP:N ultimately require GNG-level sourcing. These SNGs exist to provide quick, initial guidance on which subjects are likely to have received SIGCOV in multiple IRS based on meeting topic-specific criteria -- which in theory should predict GNG compliance 95% of the time. So allowances can be made at AfD for, e.g., an Olympic gold medallist or major award-winning film for which SIGCOV can't immediately be found due to lack of digital newspaper archives in the relevant country/time period. But the presumption is still rebuttable, so if someone comes along who does have access to those newspapers and can show SIGCOV doesn't actually exist in them, the article can and should be deleted. The issue has been with people interpreting an SNG's presumption of GNG as if it was a direct alternative to GNG, to the extent that editors will even acknowledge no IRS SIGCOV exists whatsoever but still claim an article should be kept based on meeting some SNG subcriterion. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

And that's a reasonable assessment of how NSPORTS and SNGs are supposed to work. We were getting flooded with so many battles and edit wars and back and forths we couldn't do honest real to goodness work. So criteria was set forth that covered almost all cases. But in the rare instance where an article was called to the mat, if it couldn't provide that notability, it should be deleted or redirected. However, the person asking to show that notability had better have done some searching themselves before nominating. Just going around making dozens of deletion requests because they don't like it does no one any good and becomes disruptive. It should be "hey I'm not sure this article meets GNG... let me look around the interweb"... "Oh, I found something so I'll add it to the article so this doesn't happen to someone else" or "I couldn't find anything so I'll propose a deletion" in case someone else can find something. That's sort of how we expect it to work and should work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In regards to: There is no longer any presumed notability and it is a guide only. Not sure I agree that SNGs are "just a guide". This seems to be saying that SNGs are no more legitimate than an explanatory supplement such as WP:OUTCOMES. SNGs are legitimate in the sense that 1) they can be used and given weight in deletion discussions, and 2) NPPers are allowed to use these criteria to presume a topic notable and mark it as patrolled. Any attempt to reduce this to "just a guide" (which I read as "just a prediction of common outcomes") should really get an RFC with the question "should WP:NSPORT be demoted from guideline to explanatory supplement?" Which by the way I would not support, but I think it deserves a full RFC to make this shift from "can use this to determine notability" to "is just a list of common outcomes". –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

That RFC seems to pretty much already have happened and it's why everything is being softened and presumed notable is being completely removed from the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that for at least several weeks, big changes where the RFC is cited as the impetus should be limited to removal of the participation criteria. Trying to tackle giant fuzzy questions like those above is not RFC related and too much to add to the mix right now.North8000 (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Nutshell

@Fyunck(click): Can you explain why you made this edit in light of the RFC (specifically, the consensus to change "presumed" to "likely" and to remove participation criteria)? Levivich 20:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've restored it. "presumed" is just a very bad idea to include back at this point. Does anybody object to me swapping "won" with "achieved"? At least, some of the stuff which is listed (like the Baseball hall of fame; or taking part in a top level competition where notability is essentially 100% guaranteed) remain major achievements without necessarily implying anything has been won. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

All notability guidelines are presumptions that allow for good faith challenges, so removing that is a bad idea. It needs to be put back in. --Masem (t) 22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There was consensus at the RfC to replace "presumed to be notable" with "likely to have significant coverage". The nutshell should be a proper summary of this and not be at odds with it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• There isn't much difference between 'presumed notable' and 'significant coverage is likely to exist' except that the former makes it easier for piles of vaguewaves to carry an AfD discussion. Ultimately it's right that 'presumed notable' be reserved for the sigcov requirement itself (as in WP:SPORTCRIT) and that 'significant coverage is likely to exist' be applied to all other criteria, because those criteria are simply means to that end. This doesn't prevent good faith challenges from being made. Avilich (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• The current version "An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage if the person has achieved a significant honor in a major amateur or professional competition, as listed on this page. It should be understood that articles still require reliable sources that meet the threshold of Wikipedia GNG." neatly summarizes the current consensus. Some SNGs presume notability, others don't, and this one doesn't. It's as simple as that. –dlthewave ☎ 01:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  Wait, did I really allow the mispelling of honour to remain there unchanged? Oops, I'll have to go change that... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there a huge difference between those two items... like night and day. Significant coverage really softens and pretty much makes this Guideline un-needed. And yet when other individual items are softened people complained. There's a bit of hypocrisy going on here that seems strange. If you are going to soften the language that makes this guide simply advisory rather than presumptive, then why on earth wouldn't we leave in participation? It's only advisory. If you leave in presumed then the participation issue makes some sense, because the other items have some real teeth. Why is this guideline even here anymore? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thus has already been explained to you: We can't leave in participation because we had an RfC that reached consensus to remove it. –dlthewave ☎ 01:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, the change from "presumed notable" to "likely to have received significant coverage" has stripped any power this page once had in AFDs (i.e. no more "Keep per N:Tennis"). As such, I think this page should be downgraded from guideline to essay status, as it is now just a list of criteria that *might* indicate significant coverage, and nothing more. Letcord (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly this. We need "presumed" because any criteria - not just the NSPORTS ones but any SNG or even the GNG - are all meant to be rebuttable presumptions. We allow a standalone to be created if they meet basic levels so that they can be developed on the open wiki in good faith that significant sourcing exists, but if it becomes clear that there's really not that much significant coverage after a thorough source search, then it should be eligible for deletion, hence why "presumption" is critical. --Masem (t) 02:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Downgrading to essay status and/or keeping "presumed" are both things that you all could have advocated for at the RfC, and you're welcome to propose those changes in a new discussion if you'd like. Right now we're talking about how to write the nutshell to match current consensus and it would be much appreciated if folks could focus on that task. –dlthewave ☎ 02:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Right now, we need to understand that the proposer of RFC subproposal 3, Masem, thinks that RFC subproposal 8 does not work. Techie3 (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Already before the RfC there was a requirement that GNG be met, so the spirit of it doesn't change much with the new wording. And it's not like the 'presumption' was being used in the manner you say it should, anyway. Avilich (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Already before the RfC there was a requirement that GNG be met: Not true. Per the RfC close:

To the extent that the first part of this proposal would create a requirement that a sports biography meet the GNG (i.e., must), there is no consensus. Proposal 1 was better attended and did not find consensus, so proposal 8 is not sufficient to overturn that.

—Bagumba (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

That there was "no consensus" on an RfC proposal to "create" (i.e. in quotes because it already exists) a formal requirement doesn't mean much when the guideline as it stands says stuff (i.e. the status quo before the RfC, and thus the existing consensus, since "no consensus" defaults to "existing consensus remains in place") like If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? No. Very crystal clear that a sports figure still needs to meet GNG. Doubly so if it's any WP:BLP... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, NSPORTS is supposed to reflect that significant coverage exists. It's up to AfD participants whether they choose to keep per NSPORTS or delete becuase they don't think GNG can be met. I oppose any wording that allows a minority "delete per GNG" position to procedurally override a "keep per NSPORTS" majority view. WP:N states that either GNG or SNG provides a presumption of notability. We've removed the 1-game participation of questionable leagues (and non-questionable ones as well, unfortuantely). That was the main problem.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

GNG or SNG That does not mean that the SNG needs to be independent of GNG (for example, NASTRO, which is essentially "the criteria is SIGCOV, but here are some criteria to help you judge whether something is likely or not to meet it"; or NBIO, which states quite explicitly that the basic criteria is [essentially, a variant of] SIGCOV). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

For reference, the previous stable version of the nutshell (as of 08:23, 31 March 2022 UTC[5]) was

An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Please discuss the various proposed changes—exact before and after wording preferred—so we can have a clear consensus. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• My proposal, changes in bold or in strikethrough: An athlete is presumed to likely to have received significant coverage, and thus be notable, if the person has actively participated in or achieved a significant honour in or won a major amateur or professional competition, as listed on this page. The second bolded bit is open to better suggestions if you have them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• The intent of this particular wording is to establish a clear cause/consequence relationship: the athlete is notable if they have received significant coverage, not if they are "likely" to have received such coverage. This also avoids having to repeat this later on. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Accurate summary of the current guideline. –dlthewave ☎ 05:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, sort of - the wording is much too clunky. First, why do we need bolding? Second why say "likely to have received significant coverage, and thus be notable" when we can simply say "presumed notable?" The rest is ok but I should point out that the word "major" does cause troubles in tennis and golf. the term "major" does not mean important in those two sports where it specifically means one of the four most important tournaments those sports have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    • The bolding was only there to highlight the changes. "presumed notable" was explicitly changed by the RfC, so should be changed in the nutshell too. The oddities of the usage of the word "major" is some sports isn't really an issue given that the common, natural non-jargon meaning of the word ("more important, bigger, or more serious than others of the same type" [6]) is not really obscure... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's points above regarding keeping presumed. It is consistent with WP:N that an SNG can also provides a presumption of notability. My proposal removes the particpation verbiage:

An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated won a significant honor in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Consistency with WP:N doesn't matter. N says that topics should meet GNG or SNG, but how each particular SNG works is decided on a case to case basis. There's nothing in N preventing SNGs from being what the RfC-approved wording entails. Avilich (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is being prevented?—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This was accepted at the RFC:

Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist".

This was for clarity reasons, apparently. Techie3 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This does not accurately reflect the current guideline, which does not presume notability in most cases. –dlthewave ☎ 05:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Dlthewave: Can you clarify? This proposal only removed "actively participated" from the prior stable version. Where does your assertion that we do "not presume notability in most cases" stem from?—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It stems from the fact that when I scroll through the list of criteria, all of them except the Olympics say that "coverage is likely to exist". They do not say "presumed to be notable". –dlthewave ☎ 12:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

But that's because they were all recently changed from presumed notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and now we're discussing how to ensure that the nutshell reflects those changes. –dlthewave ☎ 21:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I feel the previous stable version is the best, but if not, this guideline should presume notability as per Bagumba. If we aren't presuming notability then there is no reason whatsoever to remove participation. That's overkill to the extreme and turns NSPORTS into uselessness. Sure we have project SNGs to pick up the slack but we shouldn't gut this longstanding guideline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I am unconvinced of the "need" to retain presumption, which would be inconsistent with the RFC consensus to replace such wording, but "...won a significant honor in a major amateur or professional competition" is awkward and doesn't adequately encapsulate things. Replacing participation with success would be simpler and better? i.e.

An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated been successful in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

or for consistency with the RFC:

An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated been successful in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

_wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I posted this in another section, but I want to bring this back as we think about the purpose of the SNG. I saw several reasons for sub-proposal 3. First, there was a feeling there were too many articles about athletes. Second, that too many articles were sourced only to databases. Third, there was a feeling that too many editors would cite "Keep: passes NSPORT" at AFD without examining the sources. To me, sub-proposal 3 used a broad brush to try to solve these problems. ... That all said, I do not think the community necessarily has a problem with recognizing that it is strongly likely that a person who participates in an elite league (or in a league that regularly receives substantive press coverage) would likely pass NBASIC. I generally believe that playing in an elite sports league should be considered a success and an honor, that there are elite leagues where all* players receive coverage in independent sources, and that the SNG should provide guidance to editors about which subjects are likely to meet our community's standard for notability. To the extent that I would rewrite the section, I would go with something like (strikethroughs omitted):

  Athletes who won or medaled in a major amateur or professional competition (as listed on this page) or won a significant honor (such as election to a hall of fame) are likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Professional athletes in team sports may also be likely to receive significant coverage, especially in elite professional leagues, but all articles must contain references to more than a statistical database.

  --Enos733 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We had a successful RfC to replace presumption of notability with likelihood of SIGCOV. Proposals retaining the presumption wording are directly incompatible with this very clear-cut result. I think the nutshell should also reflect the requirement for at least one IRS containing SIGCOV to be present in articles, which is a much stronger statement than "non-database ref". JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is now that without "presumption", that breaks the entire structure of how notability is supposed to work on WP, and going to make the problem of when NSPORTS articles reach AFD. I had participated in RFC proposal #8 but if I had seen it, I would have been insistant that removing "presumption" breaks too many things. --Masem (t) 18:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing the presumption breaks absolutely nothing. It simply makes it clearer how this page is a mean to an end. It's not an alternative to GNG or to NBASIC (hence why you shouldn't presume that something is notable based on it), but simply a list of criteria to help judge whether a topic is likely to meet those, as the first sentence has been saying since I guess forever: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.) And, with the well known issues which led to the current situation, removing any language which can be easily misinterpreted should be a priority. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if changing "presumed" to "likely" did break something, the community decided to break it, so whatever is "broken" has consensus to be "broken". Levivich 19:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's statement above. It seems to me that SNGs are a binary thing: either it is an SNG and it lets an NPP reviewer presume notability for a list of criteria without checking GNG, or it is not an SNG and GNG must be checked. To call something an SNG and then not have it presume notability is confusing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Have you ever seen WP:NCORP or WP:NASTRO? Both of these ultimately require GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

NCORP adds restrictions on top of GNG. That's not what we're doing here so doesn't seem relevant. NASTRO#Criteria gives criteria for presumed notable so seems like a normal SNG. This NSPORTS attempt to have criteria that don't presume notability is my concern. It is confusing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The NASTRO criteria still make clear the requirement for actual SIGCOV (Whether an object meets these criteria must be established through independent reliable sources, following WP:NRV. This means independent of the scientist(s) who discovered the object, or others who may have a conflict of interest in promoting it. or Notability is determined solely by coverage in reliable sources, not whether editors personally believe an astronomical object is important.). There's no reason why we can't do the same thing for NSPORTS, i.e. make it absolutely clear the ultimate criteria is SIGCOV, while giving a few set criteria which generally correlate with high-likelihood/ near-certain SIGCOV for guidance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 8 passed by a razor-thin margin with minimal participation. The closure endorsing it was seriously flawed. There was nothing clearcut about it. Cbl62 (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

And yet it's not been overturned, despite such claims. If you think the closure was seriously flawed, that boat has sailed, and even if it hadn't this wouldn't be the right port of call for such a complaint. I also find it rather staggering that this line of reasoning is still ongoing despite the fact that, even well before the RfC, the guideline made it clear that yes, SIGCOV is required: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? No. That's not new, and hasn't been overturned by anything, so it remains the consensus, and, combined with the recent clarifications stemming from the RfC, gives plenty of justification for these changes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It is still completely possible to rewrite the lead to meet the close of #8 and then add the reminder that this is still a presumption of notability. "Presumption" has to be mentioned somewhere early on on NSPORTS otherwise you are going to make it impossible for any NSPORTS articles to have a sane discussion at AFD, since some will claim the changed wording (sans "presumped") means notability can never be challenged. There's no issue with saying overall that these are setting out conditions when significant coverage is likely to exist, but you still really need to address tht this is not forever protection from being deleted. --Masem (t) 01:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As per Englsh Wikipedia's guidance on closing discussions, closers are evaluating the arguments that are being made in each individual discussion. So it continues to be up to the discussion participants to make a sufficiently well-reasoned argument that an article should be kept, whether through identifying appropriate citations, or through other arguments regarding the notability of the subject. This can include an evaluation of whether or not there has been sufficient time and effort spent yet on finding sources, and how likely such a search will be fruitful. Just as always, participants can decide that further efforts are warranted and that the article should be kept for now, or that they are unlikely to uncover new suitable sources and that the article should be deleted. isaacl (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Huh. I wouldn't describe 29-20 as "razor-thin." Close, but not "razor-thin." Beyond that, Cbl62, what was "seriously flawed" about the close, above and beyond that you didn't like the result? Are you alleging there were procedural errors, and if so, what, exactly? Ravenswing 21:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: The initial proposal and subproposal 1, trying to achieve similar results, received mass participation from well over 100 editors. Those efforts with mass participation resulted in a clear consensus against downgrading NSPORTS. By the time subproposals 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. came along, things became a "mess" (to be kind) and participation levels dwindled greatly. The closer mentioned that consensus was difficult to find from the later subproposals with lower participation levels. Given the closer's own reasoning, no consensus should have been found. Cbl62 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

THAT is deeply flawed reasoning. First off, you know full well that no consensus is eternally binding, and can be overturned or rejected by another one. Nor is it a numbers game, where whichever discussion has the largest number of editors automatically "wins." Nor, generally speaking, would anyone on Wikipedia disparage a consensus where fifty editors registered opinions -- except, also generally speaking, against a result they didn't like -- there's many a consensus in play reached with a tenth that many participants. Nor are the words "consensus was difficult to find" equal to "consensus cannot be found." Hell's bells, the whole thing was contentious from start to finish, but even so, decisions are made by those who show up.

The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes you're going to be on the losing side, and it's incumbent on those who are to accept the fact, lose gracefully and move on. Ravenswing 05:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

THAT is the reasoning espoused by the closer himself, yet ignored when it came to this particular point. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• note Unless an administrator puts the breaks on discussion, someone smack dab in the middle of these discussions shouldn't just close a section of the discussion, whether they agree or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

NFOOTBALL now removed

Further to the recent RFC on NSPORTS, NFOOTBALL has been removed from that page. I invite further comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Association football on a replacement. GiantSnowman 12:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)