Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

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[1]) 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" [2]) 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.

wjematherplease 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)
On that point, I agree with you: there do seem to be some parties intent on ignoring the consensus as expressed in the close, and not seemingly capable of losing gracefully and moving on. Ravenswing 11:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with @Ravenswing. And you know full well there was not "a clear consensus against downgrading NSPORTS" from subproposal 1. JoelleJay (talk) 20:53, 5 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)

Latest attempt

I've put in An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page.; based on a few of the proposals above. Hopefully, this is either an acceptable compromise, and can be left as is, or, worst case, it sparks renewed discussion so we can find something better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I don't think "no consensus" would apply. An apparently acceptable solution (which nobody objects to so far) appears to have been reached. This is a rather high-traffic page and I'd be surprised if this was simply because people didn't notice it. At some point, if nobody objects to it, the current status quo becomes the new consensus: since the discussion seems to have reached its natural end, with no new comments in a significant enough amount of time, that would be the logical conclusion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No new comments in 27 days. I don't see a reason to have the {{discuss}} tag on the nutshell. @Bagumba: unless you have something new for us to consider here or want to launch an RFC or something about the nutshell, I think you should self revert. I agree with RC that under no circumstances would we go back to the old nutshell (that would contradict the RfC and no longer accurately summarize the page), and the outcome of this thread isn't "no consensus", the outcome is the current version, which appears to have been stable for weeks. We can't just stay "stuck" on these issues forever. Levivich 14:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich@RandomCanadian I see at least four other proposals above, not including the live version, and even that version was contested via edits and ongoing discussion here. I agree that the old nutshell is obsolete, but I don't see a consensus yet for its replacement. Hence, a discussion tag seems appropriate. I don't think an RfC will draw more than the usual suspects here, but that remains an option too. —Bagumba (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps try WP:VPI? In general it is better to bring any proposals for substantial change to WP:VPP rather than here due to the "usual suspects" issue, and it may also help in more general discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
But sometimes there can be too many cooks in the kitchen. I've made another attempt below. —Bagumba (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Latest attempt II

Looking at the current version, I'd propose this reordering:

An athlete is presumed to be notable likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources.

For comparison, this was the stable version before the RfC:[3]

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.

I believe "presumed to be notable" should come first, as that states the purpose of an SNG upfront. "likely to have received significant coverage", which defends how this criteria determines notability, is secondary and is placed later. It is also consistent with the general format pre-RfC.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This implies that an athlete can be presumed notabile based on achievement, but the actual text of the guideline presumes notability only if there is significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 12:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Exact same concern as Dlthewave RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, without a presumption of notability, this guideline is completely worthless IMO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    That requirement for a "presumption of notability" was very much rejected at the RfC, and as shown elsewhere, there are plenty of guidelines where the main part of the presumption is meeting GNG. The nutshell needs to be updated to match with the new consensus from the RfC, not used as yet another attempt to delay it. This guideline currently does not presume notability based on solely participation or awards; it states that "significant coverage is likely to exist for a sports figure if"... The nutshell must accurately reflect that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    We're discussing how to briefly summarize the current guideline, to reflect the RfC consensus which removed presumption of notability. If you would like to overturn the RfC result, you may open a separate proposal. Please refrain from disrupting this discussion with out-of-state suggestions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    I support a proposal, and that makes me a disruptive editor? Hah. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    yes –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah I agree, making or supporting a proposal that directly contradicts an RfC result is disruptive because it wastes editor time because there is no chance it'll be implemented because local consensus can't trump global consensus. Levivich 17:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • We're all here trying to implement the result of WP:NSPORTS2022. Subproposal #8, second part, was to replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "likely to receive significant coverage", and that had "clear consensus". So any proposed language that includes "presumed to be notable" is dead on arrival, and a waste of our time to consider. Levivich 17:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

GNG vs. NBIO: question of ANYBIO

An anomaly that arises from the LOCALCONSENSUS at NSPORTS that it is GNG, not NBIO and NBASIC, that applies to the biographies of athletes is that it raises the question whether WP:ANYBIO is understood to apply to athletes or not? My understanding of the higher-level consensus at NBIO is that ANYBIO applies to all human biographies (I mean, it's kind of there in the name), but is the LOCALCONSENSUS here that ANYBIO does not apply? I am thinking mostly of criteria 1 and 2, The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor and The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANYBIO is part of "Additional criteria" which states A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia:Notability says: 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; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. So, GNG applies to biographies of athletes. Alvaldi (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the criteria of an SNG listed in the box on the right (or if it meets GNG). NBIO, which contains both NBASIC and ANYBIO, is listed on the box on the right. I am asking whether the LOCALCONSENSUS here is that Notability can be presumed based on ANYBIO, or not - I have heard it stated here repeatedly that "only GNG" applies, and am trying to verify what the local consensus actually is. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like I was misunderstanding your question. Personally, I haven't really seen ANYBIO used in AfD's so I can't comment on the LOCALCONSENSUS. Alvaldi (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Basic Criteria #5

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article

Despite the second sentence editors are using this to argue that one source providing significant coverage is sufficient to keep an article. Given that is not the intent of this line, I believe we need to reword the second sentence to make it clearer that while one source is enough to create the article and contest a prod, this paragraph doesn't make that sufficient to keep the article if challenged at AFD.

I propose:

Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirements indicates that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article and is enough to justify contesting a WP:PROD or creating the article, but it is not sufficient to justify keeping the article if challenged at WP:AFD

BilledMammal (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I disagree. We went from using caps on certain teams for presuming notability, to at least having one good GNG reference. At the same time, as this isn't a firm rule, the use of the word "must" seems poor to me. I propose maintaining the original wording and changing must to should. Besides, a subject can be notable if sources exist, even if they have not been named yet - which surely makes the entire sentence unnecessary. Nfitz (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a long-standing WP:ATA, and the final paragraph is worth quoting here: We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable. Levivich 05:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
      • With all the policies and guidelines involved in this mess, I don't think getting into essays like WP:ATD is going to help. Bottom line is there are many, many policies and guidelines that contradict each other. There is no firm rule, one way or another. I keep feeling that those pushing for these changes, and trying to impose a very black & white lens where it is inappropriate. Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS, absent an WP:IAR argument (which should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area) this is a firm rule. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
          • This is part of the problem. You think there are such things as firm rules in Wikipedia; and there simply isn't. That's not a guideline. That's not a policy. That's a pillar - WP:5P5. You are using the wrong lens. For any player from this millennia in G8 or primarily English-speaking countries - which is most of the articles - IAR wouldn't apply. It's only when we get into countries or time-periods where we have a lack of available information - and that is the situation where IAR comes into play. Applying this as a firm rule, only favours further systemic bias and WP:Recentism issues. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
            The only recentism/presentism issue here is assuming that the same kind of coverage we get about modern sportpeople existed in the past. In fact, even with modern coverage, there are plenty of athletes whom the only thing that can be said is "oh, they played sport x for team(s) y (and z). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
            I don't think quality coverage has changed all that much in the last couple of decades - if anything it's gotten more sparse, as coverage moves from established print media outlets, and gets into blogs and tweets. In many places, there's little trace of coverage from 10 years ago, and only 20 years ago, there simply wasn't online coverage to archive somewhere. There's huge recentism issues. Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The root problem is that the requirement to have a reference doesn't fit in the "Basic criteria" section, as it isn't a criterion to establish that a subject meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article. I think it would fit better in the "Applicable policies and guidelines" section, as a followup to the requirements that the verifiability policy and the general notability guideline must be met. isaacl (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    • That appears to be an uncontroversial change; done, though I don't think it will resolve the situation. It also gives a chance to address #Numbered list. If editors disagree with this change, or how I have done it, please revert. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Reverted myself; I'm not sure it fits better there, as this is part of the basic criteria for an article. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
        • From your description (perhaps you could link to a few relevant discussions), it sounds like editors are considering "have a reference" to be a sufficient criterion for demonstrating notability. But it's not a criterion for demonstrating notability; it's a requirement to document the existence of a source that demonstrates notability. isaacl (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This "at least one reference" requirement is toothless. The page still must go through AfD if it is not notable, and the nominator is expected to perform WP:BEFORE, whether there is 0, 1, 2, etc. existing cites to significant coverage. Or we can continue this bureauracy and quibble over a "requirement" which adds nothing.—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe the explicit adding of the phrase "excluding database surces" will make it clearer to all what sources are and are not acceptable, and will hopefully end the creation of new articles sources only to database sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the proposal change. A PROD can be contested for any reason (while BLPPROD requires a source to contest), so the new language is misleading. If editors are misinterpreting the clear meaning of the current language at AfD, then that should be pointed out there. I have noticed a significant improvement in AfD discussions where editors no longer robotically !vote keep per NFOOTY. :) Jogurney (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:NSPORTS2022 #5 is global consensus now:

    This was the best-attended proposal and had the most agreement. There is a rough consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. This is meaningfully different from the proposal; the original proposal required that the source be present from inception, but editors in opposition pointed out the problems with this. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG. Supporters point out that it has the added benefit of reducing the number of one-sentence biographies based on database entries.

    AFD !votes at odds with this should be discounted, and AFDs that are closed against this should be taken to DRV. I'm not convinced we should respond to people ignoring the RFC with language revisions here. At some point it's time to start calling out individual editors (and closers, if need be) for ignoring the plain language of the RFC (and NSPORTS). "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability" is pretty clear, and I think adding "it is not sufficient to justify keeping the article if challenged at WP:AFD" is superfluous because it means literally the exact same thing. If some editors didn't listen when we say it once, I don't think saying it twice is going to make them listen. We could however save a lot of time by just replacing the vast majority of this page with one sentence:

    To be kept at AFD, an article must have at least two GNG sources.

    Levivich 15:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    That's broadly true of every article and not unique of sports; also we need to be clear that the existence of sources is the key matter; not citations. It's not that the article must cite two sources; it is that the subject of the article must have been written about in at least two sources. I'm sympathetic to wanting to be sure that sports articles are created about subjects about which a good encyclopedia article can be written, but I also don't want to swing too far in the other direction; we shouldn't imply that more is required of sports articles than other articles. We should only create articles about subjects that have enough source material to fill the article with enough well-referenced high-quality prose writing. No more, and no less, than just that. --Jayron32 15:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see why the notability guideline for athletes shouldn't be explicit about the ultimate GNG requirement just because other SNGs don't (necessarily) also have that language. Sports (and geo) articles are uniquely conducive to pseudoautomated article creation from databases, so rapid stub proliferation is much more of a problem in these areas than elsewhere. So it makes sense to clarify/reiterate our notability expectations here to preempt creation, rather than pass off all assessment of notability to time- and effort-consuming future AfDs. Why should sportspeople be afforded special benefit from "we think there are probably sources somewhere offline" vaguewaving just because they meet some "GNG presuming criteria" when those criteria have never been proven to actually predict GNG? Or worse, criteria that have been decided by consensus to be worthless at predicting GNG? Indulging such sourcing claims is requiring less of sportsperson articles. It's not like we see history editors pushing for all ancient orators to get a free stay of deletion just because they appear as professional orators in censuses. JoelleJay (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    Re: To be kept at AFD, an article must have at least two GNG sources - there isn't any policy supporting such a statement for any type of article, so I don't know why we would suddenly insert this for NSPORTS. It certainly doesn't represent the consensus of the last NSPORTS RfC in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    There isn't any policy about notability at all, WP:N is a guideline. But the guidelines WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:SPORTBASIC all say that multiple (which means at least two) GNG sources = meets WP:N. The policies that underpin that are V, NPOV, and NOR, our three core content policies (and for living people, add BLP). We can't--can't--write a policy-compliant article without two GNG sources. That's the policy behind GNG in the first place. Levivich 17:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    There is a brief section on notability in WP:V#notability, which starts with "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". What's interesting in this, is that it doesn't use the word significant (or routine for that matter). In many of the NSPORTS AFD, reliable and independent are normally easy to find. It's the significant and routine that becomes the subject of (too) much debate. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    Levivich, I don't see any part of WP:N (or, for that matter, WP:V) that supports your claim that We can't--can't--write a policy-compliant article without two GNG sources. We have whole domains of articles, documented in WP:NPROF and WP:GEOLAND, where there is quite explicitly no expectation that two GNG sources are required for a policy-compliant article. What is more, WP:SIGCOV differs from WP:SIRS precisely in allowing that sourcing requirements can be met globally through multiple sources carrying different elements, so that there may not be two GNG sources - possibly not even one - that meet all the requirements including depth. Perhaps what you meant by GNG sources is something different from my understanding, but there is no requirement for two magic sources to grant Notability on Wikipedia. Two reviews grant NBOOK Notability and two SIRS sources grant NORG Notability, but that seems rather tangential to what you're saying. And as I understand the NSPORTS RfC, the proposal was made that two "GNG sources" must be included in each sports article to pass AfD, and there was no consensus for this (fairly novel) proposal. Please let me know if I'm wrong about that. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    I assume Levivich was talking about subjects who fall under the scope of this guideline or under GNG in general, not about those that are governed by the two non-GNG-based SNGs. I don't know what your point is about SIGCOV vs SIRS, did you mean to link BASIC instead? JoelleJay (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    I did not understand Levivich to be talking about subjects who fall under the scope of this guideline or under GNG in general, based on the actual words they used. I was therefore referring to SIRS, precisely - the gap between NBASIC and GNG is small, but the difference between SIGCOV and SIRS is enormous. Newimpartial (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    Where are you getting that SIRS and GNG have "enormous" differences?? It does not say at any point that the main criteria in SIRS are not already in place at GNG (it in fact says literally the opposite (emph mine): These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.) JoelleJay (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    The word generally is doing a lot of work in that passage; "structurally" might have been the mot juste, since it is the structure or high-level logic that is the same, while most of the elements are "ratcheted up" to make the bar higher in CORP, as a way to combat PROMO.
    Anyway, aside from the difference in application logic between SIRS and SIGCOV - which I have addressed below - the most significant differences between GNG and NCORP relate to WP:AUD and WP:CORPDEPTH, both of which are much more restrictive than general GNG sourcing requirements and which, in combination with the SIRS logic, result in the difference that I have called enormous. I don't really believe any of my statements about SIRS, AUD, CORPDEPTH and their overall effect when combined in NCORP are controversial (and I should perhaps have clarified that it is this overall effect that is an enormous difference), but I am always happy to spell out the basis for my judgements. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Without two WP:GNG sources, a policy-compliant article cannot be written because:
    1. Without any sources at all, an article will violate WP:V and WP:NOR
    2. Without any reliable sources, an article will violate V
    3. Without any secondary sources, the article will violate WP:NOR (if there is any context/analysis it will be based on an editor's interpretation of a primary source) or WP:NOT (if it just reproduces the primary source data with no context/analysis)
    4. Without any independent sources, the article will violate WP:NPOV as it will only present the non-independent POV (the POV of the subject)
    5. Without multiple sources, the article will also violate NPOV because it will only present one POV. It takes at least three independent sources to determine a majority and a minority view for any conflicts between the sources. Two sources are required to at least have an article that isn't just a summary of one source. If our articles were just summarizing one source, that might even be plagiarism and/or copyvio in some jurisdictions, as we'd just be restating what one source wrote about something, which would also violate NOT.
    6. Without in-depth sources, we can't write a complete article; it'd be a perma-stub, and that would violate WP:NOT
    Over the years, the community has at times made some exceptions, such as NPROF. The exceptions are few and narrow, and they're policy-compliant per WP:IAR. Levivich 04:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    I was asking for reasons rooted in the community's guidelines, not your personal opinions. (I know you have opinions.) Some of these opinions do not have community support - e.g., there is no "rule" against perma-stubs (that isn't what NOT says, for example). And your "rule" that at least three sources are required to triangulate NPOV is pretty hilarious and would be IAR if you tried to apply it in practice - but I think you know that. And I also think you know that the community support for GEOLAND and PROF is based in other pillars than IAR.
    As far as your first four points go, which are less original, their logic does not require two GNG sources, as the GNG itself does not. SIGCOV allows these qualities to be distributed among sources (as opposed to SIRS, which requires them to be present in each source) which means that, strictly speaking, all these GNG requirements can be met with no "GNG sources" at all. You have moved the unit of analysis where it does not belong, according to the guideline, and you have also set the actual sourcing in the article as the criterion for deletion, which violates ATA. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Permastubs violates the part of NOT that prohibits "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." And ATA is an essay. Levivich 13:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Permastubs that comply with GEOLAND do, by definition, offer sufficient contextual information to show encyclopedic merit, by definition. So no, not all permastubs are deficient in this way.
    And sure, ATA is an essay, but guidance of the kind "you must provide these two sources not to be deleted at AfD" is, to be generous, rather rare in the project. The proposal to require this as part of NSPORTS failed to gain consensus, so I'm not sure why you're proposing to force it into a (largely unrelated) implementation discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Adding a 2 GNG source requirement was never part of the RfC and, if needed, it should surely apply to any bio / article and therefore raised at a more general level. Spike 'em (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    To be fair, JoelleJay did propose somwthing like this [4] [5] [6], but it certainly didn't meet with consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    To be clear, no one is suggesting adding a 2 GNG source requirement to anything. Levivich 18:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    You wouldn't see All subjects must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD. ... Amendments to/additional guidance on this statement could include: #SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD. as suggesting adding a 2 GNG source requirement? Nor your proposal, To be kept at AFD, an article must have at least two GNG sources.? That's, er, interesting. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
NPROF discussion
I think NPROF actually is essentially calibrated to GNG, it's just that the SIGCOV aspect of it is more difficult for laypeople to evaluate and the majority of sources are expected to be paywalled. JoelleJay (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
In my view, that essay has the essential character of a retcon, starting from the premise that NPROF ought to be a "calibration" of GNG and then finding a logic by which it could be. For non-PROF topics, I don't think we would ever accept sources that do not mention the article's subject except in what is clearly a passing mention - as the author of a reference - as having anything to do with Notability, so it seems absurd to me to consider it "calibration".
(I suppose there would be a way to see NPROF as following an extreme version of the global assessment logic I described above - the content may be based on dubiously independent sources, like official uni websites, while the truly INDependent sourcing consists of scholarly references to the works that are, at best, name dropping. But you didn't seem very supportive of "global assessment" above and, to me, the differences between GNG and PROF are so dramatic that I can't really see one as a calibration or filter attached to the other.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
SIGCOV allows these qualities to be distributed among sources (as opposed to SIRS, which requires them to be present in each source)
Are you saying you think GNG can be met with one RS that has SIGCOV but is not independent, one non-RS that is independent but has no SIGCOV, and one non-RS that has SIGCOV and is independent but not secondary? Am I reading that right??? JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
As "everyone knows", the difference between SIRS and SIGCOV is reflected in the following text of SIRS: An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. This is not true for SIGCOV/GNG, where it is specified (under "sources") that There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources are generally expected, not required, and editors are to take into consideration quality and depth of coverage - as a whole, rather than SIRS' requirement that a source have all relevant qualities (including CORPDEPTH) to be counted.
So, for example, while non-independent sources do not generally count for Notability, a topic that has some independent, secondary coverage and more extensive coverage that is reliable, but not fully independent or secondary, can pass SIGCOV better than, say, a subject that has, say, only two indisputably independent, secondary sources where the coverage has less depth. And one high-quality, independent, secondary source with extensive, deep coverage can offer an even better SIGCOV pass - particularly if other independent, secondary sources provide usable coverage, even if those mentions are marginally in detail, to use the language of the guideline. This is what it means to assess significant coverage what I called globally above, and is what the guideline asks us to do. Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Uh WHAT?? No that is absolutely not how GNG is interpreted!!! It most definitely does not say a source only has to have one aspect of [SIGCOV, reliable, independent] to contribute to GNG, as evidenced by the first line: 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.
If it was as you claim, the sentence would not say "SIGCOV in reliable sources" and it would not say "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It would also mean that literally every use of the standard AfD source assessment table was wrong, and in fact that basically all AfDs where specific sources were discussed for meeting GNG were completely misguided. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Levivich is this your understanding of GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay: I do not share Newimpartial's understanding of GNG. I've seen the "distributed SIGCOV" argument made before in AFDs, and I think it's wikilawyering. Each "GNG source" must meet all the criteria of GNG. That also goes for BASIC and SPORTBASIC and NCORP and all the other guidelines that talk about source criteria. Further, I'm confident that the "distributed" view is the minority view on enwiki. (So much so I didn't think it was even worth addressing in my original reply.) Levivich 18:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If editors are using that source assessment table as though it were a logic problem or a Bingo card, in which they need two lines of checkmarks across to shout out "Notability!" (which would be the logic of SIRS, not of SIGOV) - then they are doing it wrong, at least for non-NCORP topics. That is equivalent to an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problem.

I am not saying that discussing specific sources in relation to GNG is completely misguided - that is actually the opposite of what I'm saying. But SIGCOV doesn't say that multiple sources are required that meet each of the SIGCOV criteria, it is actually quite explicit about that when you read the "sources" section, and so people who treat it as though it does are simply wrong. That approach is SIRS, not SIGCOV.

The key word in that opening sentence of SIGCOV, in my view, is significant, and the definition provided for that term is that it addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed. In principle, pretty much any RS that can be used to support a non-trivial statement in an article would meet that criterion, but even outside of NCORP editors have a tendency to ratchet that requirement up (denying those check marks) for shorter passages on topics that they would rather see deleted. I understand why this happens, but it is the global assessment aspect of SIGCOV, which requires editors to consider the quality and depth of coverage provided by the sources in general, that ought to save GNG-based AfD discussions from becoming a pure nitpicking exercise. Of course, editor behaviour at AfD is much harder to steer, much less control.

And by the way, pinging editors with whom you are known to share a perspective on a particular issue is not regarded as a best practice, behaviourally speaking. Newimpartial (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not how GNG is interpreted by the vast majority of editors (as evidenced by AfD results etc. -- how would we ever delete any promo articles if the significant coverage aspect was allowed to be from non-independent, non-reliable sources?!), nor is it what was ever intended by that guideline (as evidenced by the wording of the guideline).
But SIGCOV doesn't say that multiple sources are required that meet each of the SIGCOV criteria, it is actually quite explicit about that when you read the "sources" section, and so people who treat it as though it does are simply wrong. That approach is SIRS, not SIGCOV.
Again, it says very clearly "SIGCOV in RS that are independent of the subject". GNG does not at any point state the SIGCOV can be in non-RS or in RS that are independent, or any permutation thereof. Nor do other articles in wikispace that summarize GNG suggest a source can contribute to GNG if it has SIGCOV OR is independent OR is reliable. I don't know how you can read the "sources" section and think the "no fixed number" clause somehow means an individual source doesn't have to be independent or have SIGCOV or be secondary?? All that section is saying is that, for example, two high-quality independent RS each with 20-page non-overlapping discussions of the subject is just as sufficient for demonstrating GNG as five 1200-word articles in good magazines by independent authors.
And pinging the other editor in a specific subdiscussion to clarify their position is perfectly acceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
You can say whatever you like, but I have seen plenty of AfDs over the years argued, and properly closed, based on global assessments of sourcing. What you seem to be missing here is that in SIGCOV, none of the major factors (significant coverage, reliability, secondary sourcing and independence) is binary; they are all matters of degree. And I am not saying, for example, that unreliable sources should ever count for anything (though I have certainly seen unreliable sources be presented for Notability at AfD), but not all reliable sources are equally reliable, and it is not true that only the most reliable sources count for SIGCOV.
Likewise, some sources are more independent and have more of that important secondary quality; the sources section of SIGCOV quite effectively recognizes matters of degree when it says that There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage (emphasis added). Quality is another term referring to that blend of independence, secondariness and reliability - it makes no sense of SIGCOV, or the difference between SIGCOV and SIRS, to treat any of these qualities as having a fixed minimum level for a source to count towards GNG.
And depth, or significance of coverage, is the least binary of all. The section is not only saying that two 20-page discussions can equal five 1200-word discussions. It explicitly says that multiple sources are generally expected - meaning that sometimes only one is required. This may not make much sense in terms of source assessment table Bingo, but it makes perfect sense when we recognize that each of the elements of the GNG sourcing requirements (even multiple) is part of a complex balance and assessed globally, not as binary categories. Your own essay likening NPROF to GNG actually relies on something similar, when it says that references to an author's work (which would at best be "passing mentions" of the person in terms of SIGCOV) an contribute to Notability in some degree.
Again, I'm not sure why you have such difficulty accepting that SIGCOV follows one logic and SIRS another, but if you need proof of that, I think the debates that produced NORG and SIRS (and AUD and CORPDEPTH) should be sufficient to convince you. And if editors out in the wild are "fighting PROMO" by applying the tools developed for CORP to domains where they don't apply - well that is an error, and they don't have any site-wide consensus to do what they're doing. Newimpartial (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The individual sources that contributed to a GNG assessment are each expected to be reliable, secondary, independent, and contain SIGCOV, even if the ultimate evaluation is more gestalt. Just because there is a continuum within the four factors doesn't mean there aren't also obvious, bright-line minimums for each that disqualify a source from going towards GNG -- for example, an athlete's coverage on their team's website, strict interviews with no analysis by the interviewer, sources considered generally unreliable at RSP, routine transactional coverage, etc. etc.
The discussions that led to SIRS do not suggest that it is anything radically different from GNG, and especially do not claim the GNG doesn't already expect each contributing source to meet all of the factors. Instead we have comments like ...this policy is likely going to be stricter than WP:GNG in the sense that it addresses in more detail how to separate independent sources from churnalism..., and A much improved proposal which aligns with the GNG rather than trying to abrogate it, and I do have to say that WP:ORG comes remarkably close to being essentially a focused restatement of GNG (it's certainly closer to GNG than any of our other SNGs), and We already have a standard of scrutiny that we apply, and it is WP:GNG, which wiki-traditionally has the unwritten rule of at least three multi-paragraph-depth sources spread across three distinct independent publishers.
And again, how do you reconcile the wording in GNG saying significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject with your assertion that "significant coverage" doesn't have to be in "reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? JoelleJay (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
To begin at the end, I am not saying that the GNG does not require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. What I am saying is that - unlike SIRS - SIGCOV allows that the degree of significance (in particular, the degree of depth of coverage) required in any particular reliable, independent source depends on the overall sourcing situation. At an absolute minimum, WP:N in general requires reliable, independent sourcing that the article's topic actually exists (this requirement isn't limited to GNG, but it is reflected in GNG). Once this requirement is met, there must also be (and here I am drawing on policy language that I wish were referenced on N, but is not) a "credible claim to significance". This also must be reliably sourced, according to the standards operating in the appropriate domain (so for BLPs, it must be BLP-compliant sourcing, etc.).
Once these requirements are met, additional requirements for Notability depend on the context - not all topics meeting these two bare-bones criteria are presumed to merit an article. And it is at this level that we employ criteria such as NPROF and AUTHOR, which provide a stronger claim to notability than just "this topic exists and this credible claim has been made about it within a RS". In areas without SNG criteria, though, the only evidence we have about whether an article is merited concerns the GNG criteria, and it is in this context that the SIGCOV language about significant coverage - Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material and about sources - There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected - really come into play. We must have some coverage that meets all the criteria, at least to document the subject's existence (and, I would also insist, its claim to significance), but there is no minimum depth requirement for that coverage. And where we have non-independent or imperfectly-independent but reliable sourcing, that can contribute to the viability of non-CORP, non-PROMO topics and therefore contribute to Notability, just as a single source of unimpeachable quality and independence and great depth can ensure Notability even if all other mentions of the article's subject are in passing.
You quoted an editor citing the unwritten rule of at least three multi-paragraph-depth sources spread across three distinct independent publishers as part of GNG, but this rule of thumb has never had site-wide consensus, and the more people try to combine it with "and all the elements of SIGCOV must be met at a high level for each of the three sources" along with "and GNG is a universal requirement for Notability on all topics", the less the rule of thumb actually fits either AfD decisions or actual article content. I actually don't disagree with you that minima generally exist for any source to count for Notability, but these minima have to be contextual - being a third author of 100 academic papers counts towards the Notability of an academic, but having 100 film credits as a chief grip does not count towards the Notability of a film technician, to pick an arbitrary example. A university's official website is not fully independent of its employees, but it may be sufficient to document that a prof occupies a prestigious chair and thereby contributes to Notability. The announcement of a major award may offer only a brief mention on a list, and in some fields may result only in niche coverage, but that still contributes to the Notability of the award recipient in spite of the brevity of the mention (this is particularly relevant in fields of achievement where we do not have SNGs). And so on, ad infinitum.
To tie this back to NSPORTS for a second, it would seem to me to be potentially productive if the community could identify achievement-based criteria for athletes that the community agrees to be directly presumptive of Notability (at the level, say, it the Nobel prize in Economics or whatever), rather than insisting that the achievement-based criteria can only "predict" coverage in other RS (and I'm using Nobel Economics as an example because this prize is known not to predict very consistently coverage of the subject in other RS). I know that isn't where consensus is at the moment, but I don't think it helpful to pretend that such criteria are impossible in principle. Newimpartial (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not really disputing what you said above this, but your claim here
We must have some coverage that meets all the criteria, at least to document the subject's existence (and, I would also insist, its claim to significance), but there is no minimum depth requirement for that coverage. And where we have non-independent or imperfectly-independent but reliable sourcing, that can contribute to the viability of non-CORP, non-PROMO topics and therefore contribute to Notability is still incorrect. There IS a minimum depth requirement for a source to contribute to notability (it must be significant coverage, as defined by the guideline), and non-independent and non-secondary sources flatly DO NOT count towards GNG. You have not provided anything from any guideline or policy that contradicts this, other than asserting that, somehow, the number of sources not being fixed invalidates the lead of WP:GNG. That is the only issue I'm contesting here. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
As I have suggested already, where I think you go off the rails (in relation to SIGCOV) is in seeing each of these aspects in binary terms, as "yes" or "no" (as Notability Bingo tends to encourage). There simply isn't any policy basis for that, for GNG topics - in reality, among reliable sources, some are more reliable than others. And what SIGCOV allows as significant is an extremely broad range, but some sources obviously provide more depth than others. Some of the RS coverage must be secondary and independent, but there is no threshold in SIGCOV specifying how much (and I believe my official university website example shows that even when it comes to independence, there are levels between "yes" and "no" that are relevant for Notability).
One of the main problems with the instructions given to AfC reviewers is that they are presented with a fixed threshold for significance and polar examples of reliable and unreliable sources, which does not reflect the fact that some perfectly acceptable, reliable sources (for GNG topics in particular) are less easily recognized than the New York Times, and some full paragraphs may not contribute to Notability while some shorter mentions do - depending on the context. And while nothing in WP:SIGCOV backs up the detail of those project-specific guidelines, yet there they are, helping and misleading at the same time. Newimpartial (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
SIRS has just as much of a subjective continuum in acceptable depth of coverage and quality as GNG does for its sources. That is perfectly compatible with the minimum of each element still being required.
Your comment about university websites (A university's official website is not fully independent of its employees, but it may be sufficient to document that a prof occupies a prestigious chair and thereby contributes to Notability) was completely irrelevant as it is used for a uniquely non-GNG-dependent guideline, in a context where the website is providing uncontested biographical information rather than establishing notability-compliant coverage. Such a source (a profile by the subject's employer, or by an org presenting the subject an award, etc.) absolutely would not be acceptable for meeting GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Contrary to the urban legend, there is nothing unique about NPROF. A non-independent source (from the grantor) for a literary award would serve precisely the same function as the university website in my example, and would contribute to Notability in the same way.
And to elaborate on my example a little, WP:SPORTSPERSON currently acknowles a person as presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and then gives some verbiage about predicting SIGCOV, or something. But setting the verbiage aside, a reliable source documenting the "significant honor" should be seen as contributing to Notability even if it doesn't go beyond documenting the honor. I would see this as a great example of a source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content (SIGCOV), but GNG bingo or AfC guidance will typically deny the green checkmark under significance - what I am saying is that actual SIGCOV here is right and the AfD sourcing table or AfC instructions are wrong. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
As has been affirmed numerous times in the discussions above and in the RfCs, NSPORT presumes a subject meets GNG, it does not grant notability either independently or through conferring a GNG pass. NBIO hasn't yet been updated to reflect the consensus to update all instances of "presumed notable" to "presumed to have SIGCOV", but that doesn't mean the RfC doesn't have effect there.
NPROF (and NGEO I guess) uniquely explicitly confer notability through mechanisms entirely separate from GNG. Other SNGs do not do this. But anyway, we're not even talking about other SNGs, we're talking about GNG, which most definitely does not consider a grantor's announcement of a literary award a SIGCOV source, both because it would not necessarily even contain SIGCOV, and because it would be automatically disqualified as non-independent. If you don't agree with the interpretation used at AfD, AfC, and NPP then you need to take it up with those projects. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Another thing that everyone knows is that AfC and NPP apply sourcing standards to general topics that exceed the requirements of SIGCOV and GNG, and they also tend to do a poor job of interpreting SNG requirements (although many volunteers do figure their way around SIRS and NORG). The LOCALCONSENSUS of these projects does not overrule the site-wide consensus embodied in WP:N, WP:5P, and WP:V. And neither do specific AfD outcomes.

That said, I have certainly seen policy-compliant outcomes at AfD, such as articles kept under GNG with sourcing consisting of one extensive. high-quality source and a few brief mentions, or where the only strongly independent, reliable sources documented the grounds of Notability (like existence and awards) while much of the article detail came from lesser sources. And yes, I have also seen articles kept through consideration of (primary, but independent of the subject) announcements of literary awards - whether these are considered as contributing to SIGCOV or to an SNG pass is a bit of an irrelevancy, since they demonstrably contributed to Notability. (In fact, one cause of discrepancy between the SNGs and some editors' assessment of GNG is a tendency to discount reliably and independently sourced information - that is directly relevant to the topic's claim to significance - based on misreadings of SIGCOV; this why we can't have nice things: in this instance, more consistent Notabiity decisions.) Meanwhile, I have certainly not seen source table Bingo used preponderantly to resolve non-CORP AfDs, though perhaps I should watch that venue more carefully.

Also, it still isn't true that NPROF and NGEO are the only SNGs where the criteria differ substantially from the logic of of SIGCOV and GNG. Within NBIO, for example, ANYBIO 1-3, CREATIVE 1-4, ENTERTAINER 1-2 and POLITICIAN 1 each offer a path to Notability that is not dependent on GNG or NBASIC (with CREATIVE 3-4 being specifically excluded from the WP:NOTINHERITED principle at ATA). So yes, I understand that athletes are currently said to default to GNG (though this is a LOCALCONSENSUS against the site-wide consensus that they should be subject to NBASIC, but the differences there are minor). But what I am saying is that there is no reason in the logic of WP:N that there could not be a stronger presumption of achievement-based notability for athletes, as there is for academics and for authors. It would just require consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

My responses here apply. Your stances that non-independent, non-secondary, and non-SIGCOV sources can contribute to GNG, and that an awarding org announcing the name of an award recipient constitutes "independent SIGCOV" are already comprehensively invalidated by SPORTBASIC itself, so this subdiscussion is irrelevant to NSPORT and should be contained elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Two brief points in reply: (1) I am not saying that non-SIGCOV sources can contribute to GNG (which would be self-contradictory) but rather that SIGCOV applies to a set of sources rather than to each source individually, and (2) I have been saying for months now that what NSPORTS needs is a SPORTBASIC that is fit for purpose and embodies the relevant consensus.. You can have a SIRS-style project-based criterion for SPORTBASIC, for example, but pretending that that (and other ways SPORTBASIC is tighter than GNG) are already present in GNG, and that the latter is the only applicable guideline, is counter to CONSENSUSLEVEL and ultimately self-defeating. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Without having spent too much time dwelling on the previous, SIGCOV applies to a set of sources rather than to each source is just wrong. If you have two sources which are entries in all-inclusive databases, one source which is an interview, one which is a routine obituary in the local newspaper, and one article which contains a few short non-trivial paragraphs about the article subject, the only source that counts is the last one, not any of the others. SIGCOV has always been understood and been applied as applying to each source individually: a single person misunderstanding this doesn't change it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to trawl AfDs for examples, but both Levivich above and the discussion that produced SIRS acknowledge that editors have read the GNG globally. The way SIGCOV is written, unreliable sources and those not independent of the subject never count, but the degree of secondary coverage, the depth of coverage and the number of sources required are part of a balance to be assessed globally. Your examination of sources in your potted example is quite correct, but the real world of sources is considerably more complex and less binary. Newimpartial (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
"the degree of secondary coverage, the depth of coverage and the number of sources required" are indeed "part of a balance", but this balance is still usually assessed per source. A source which only confirms that "John Doe has accepted a contract with team X", or only contains some other routine information, like "Doe was named player of the match for his performance last week against Y", does not count as SIGCOV, no matter whether there's one or half a dozen of them. In the same vein, two (or more) sources which provide some but not significant coverage do not add up to SIGCOV: even where the question is more debatable, each source usually gets assessed individually (i.e. whether the coverage provided by source A is sufficiently deep is a question whose answer does not depend on whether the coverage provided by source B is or isn't). On the other hand, yes, an entry in something like the Australian Dictionary of Biography, might be enough by itself to justify the claim of SIGCOV, but this is still one source assessed individually, not multiple sources added up together. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I am not really talking about what is done usually, but rather about what WP:GNG actually calls for. You are quite right that routine coverage is excluded, but the requirement for "significance" in SIGCOV for each source is that it addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content - essentially a NOR requirement. It is fairly clear from the "sources" paragraph that the depth of coverage is to be assessed based on the body of independent, reliable sourcing available; otherwise the statement that There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected would be a bit nonsensical. Yes, I know that the source assessment table used by some editors at AfD imposes a Bingo-like structure, but that isn't really what GNG implies. Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Multiple sources combining to meet GNG doesn't mean that every source needs to by itself have enough content to justify having an encyclopedic article, so long each of them contains some amount (i.e. "vary in quality and depth of coverage") non-trivial non-routine coverage about the subject. If there is a significant difference between what is done in practice and what the guideline says "should be done", then the guideline needs changing. If the difference is debatable, or in this case seem to be one of personal interpretation (one where you don't seem to be holding the most popular interpretation of, either), then this all seems like hair splitting to me. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I think the recognition that SIGCOV is different from SIRS is fairly widespread and is not regarded as hair splitting. I also don't think that project-wide consensus can override community-wide consensus, per WP:CONLEVEL. As to the specific questions that arise from this discussion, about how NSPORTS ought to be written, please see the section below. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment - the existing text is not great, IMO, but the replacement text doesn't seem better to me. Specifically, does not indicate doesn't seem quite right to me, and seems to be based on an unusual understanding of what "indicate" means - I think does not guarantee would get the point across better. But indicates that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article means exactly the same thing as indicates notability, so whatever hair is being split between this and GNG/NBASIC, or between presumptive Notability and AfD outcomes, this proposed text doesn't make sense of it, at least to this (reasonably experienced) reader. Newimpartial (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

agree with this - no change needed. If it was such an issue it should have been dealt with at the RFC. GiantSnowman 10:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
agree with newimpartial and snowman. Cbl62 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

SPORTBASIC and NBASIC vs. GNG

Like NBASIC, SPORTBASIC differs from the WP:GNG by inserting secondary into the lead sentence: multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject (NBASIC) being evidently stricter than significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (GNG). SPORTBASIC goes even further, specifying that Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, which has no equivalent in NBASIC or GNG.

This is all well and good, but then we have pointer after pointer on NSPORTS saying that what matters to the Notability of athletes is whether the topic meets GNG - but GNG is a much more flexible standard. Shouldn't all of these point to the subject-specific standard (SPORTBASIC, which is based on NBASIC at a higher CONLEVEL) instead? It seems that this whole structure is based on some confused shorthand rather than the actual WP Notability guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it needs fixing, but for a different reason than you. My reason would be that it makes the SNG somewhat conflict with itself. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Actually, North, that's pretty much the reason I intended to invoke here (q.v. confused), since I get the feeling that "neither side" of the great NSPORTS debate cares very much about CONLEVEL logic. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
GNG also says "Sources" should be secondary sources so I don't see the difference. Levivich 14:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
GNG/SIGCOV doesn't require multiple secondary sources - the sources bullet says in fact that multiple sources are generally expected, which is pretty weak sauce. If you want a standard that has the requirements set out in SPORTBASIC, that's great, but don't pretend that it is only GNG, because it isn't. If may not be as far from GNG as NCORP and SIRS, but it's still rather distinct, IMO, (with NBASIC being stricter than GNG but lower than SPORTBASIC, because of that new bullet completely disallowing primary sources, which sometimes count in NBIO). Newimpartial (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
However the literal wording of the guideline goes, in practice, except if you have a very good source which provides enough broad coverage of the topic to support a whole article (like the Australian Dictionary of Bibliography, or another encyclopedia-like source [for ex., to take from my own topic area, Grove Music Online or Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart]), you usually require multiple sources. And most of those articles which would be covered by such a good source either have unquestionable notability (ex. Dieterich Buxtehude; Johann Gottlieb Goldberg, or already have significant coverage from multiple sources anyways, so not something that is in dispute. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree with any of this. However, given the choice between guidelines that allow the expected/intended decisions to be made less equivocal, and guidelines where the same expected/intended decisions will usually be made based on an oral tradition that supplements the guideline itself: I will pretty much always choose the former (unless I am trying to create work for myself, or collect rents for my expertise). Which is why I am periodically mentioning the advantages of making SPORTBASIC fit for purpose, in terms of its use within NSPORT - so the guideline aligns with the intended decisions without relying on LOCALCONSENSUS oral traditions. Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The guidline is full of vague (toothless) references/deferences to GNG while defining other SNG type criteria which are what actually gets used when somebody is using a SNG. n the fuzzy wp notability ecosystem, I think that is th best of the alternatives and seed no need or benefit to switching to something else. If anything, tweak the discussed top level sentence in the SNG so that the SNG does not conflict with itself. North8000 (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Quick question

Would Liverpool F.C. 4-0 FC Barcelona be notable enough for an article of its own? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

has the match received significant coverage (i.e. not just match reports and listicles?) GiantSnowman 20:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
There was an article, which was deleted by consensus in 2020 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool F.C. 4–0 FC Barcelona. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Olympedia as SIGCOV

The contention is made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Starkey (rower) that an entry in Olympedia constitutes coverage in a national biographical dictionary and thus supports a stand-alone article. I thought we had concluded that entries in comprehensive databases like Olympedia aren't SIGCOV. What is the actual status of database entries like Olympedia? Cbl62 (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It clearly isn't a country's standard national biographical dictionary. It could be argued to be a biographical dictionary, but that isn't enough to confer notability - Marquis Who's Who is a biographical dictionary, and there is a consensus that it should not be used to establish notability for article topics.
Whether it can count as significant coverage has been disputed - this AFD was closed as "no consensus" because of the existence of the Olympedia entry, with the closer stating that since some editors don't consider it to be a database it isn't covered by WP:SPORTCRIT #5.
Personally, my opinion is that Olympedia is a database, and that since it is a comprehensive database it doesn't count towards WP:SIGCOV, but we might need a a discussion to establish a consensus for or against both of those positions. BilledMammal (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
It's definitely not a national biography- that clause is intended to refer to publications that focus on only important people from a specific country e.g. Dictionary of National Biography (UK), Australian Dictionary of Biography, Historical Dictionary of Switzerland. Having an Olympedia profile just verifies that someone has competed at an Olympics (some of them, only Youth Olympics), although if there is substantial information about them aside from Olympic performances, I would say Olympedia bio is a source that could be used towards WP:THREE. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it's not a national biography, and that many (most?) articles are not SIGCOV (ie [7]). But, [8] is unquestionably WP:SIGCOV, as are many others. So in my opinion, we can't dismiss it as "just a database", nor can we automatically accept it as WP:SIGCOV, but have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. (I did not consider the Bob Starkey entry to be SIGCOV). Jacona (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Jim Thorpe's notability is not established by that source, though. There have been numerous book-length biographies of him, so citing his entry is not necessary here. The question is whether Bob Starkey's entry in Olumpedia in-and-of-itself contains enough information to write a properly in-depth biography of his life. Please don't confuse irrelevant issues with this one. --Jayron32 14:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant to mention that there are both non-significant entries and full-length articles at Olympedia. Each should be treated according to what it is. The Bob Starkey article doesn't look like SIGCOV to me. Many others do. Jacona (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, except that for any entry where SIGCOV appears to be met, there are going to already be better sources which show even more in-depth material. Which is to say, Olympedia is worthless on all fronts as a sole determiner of SIGCOV. Either there's not enough at Olympedia, and in cases where there is enough biographical information, it's nearly always certain that there exists, outside of Olympedia, sources that are more comprehensive, better researched, and better written. It's either not sufficient, or redundant with better sources. So, what's the point? --Jayron32 17:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Unless there is a substantial biographical section describing much more than their participation in the event(s) listed, an Olympedia entry certainly does not constitute not significant coverage – and the vast majority are mere database records – this is the same principle that applies to similar wide ranging databases, such as ESPNcricinfo. Additionally, it should be remembered that Olympedia is a largely amateur enthusiast (however well-regarded some/most of them may be) maintained database. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Per Wjemather, the entire purpose of WP:GNG is to establish whether there is enough quality, reliable source text out there in the rest of the world to determine if we can actually write a properly in-depth article here at Wikipedia. Insofar as Olympedia is reliable and independent, a properly in-depth biography written there may be useful in writing one here as well, which means it could be used to establish notability. However, as noted above, many Olympedia articles exist primarily of basic sports statistics and little else; merely being named in that source doesn't mean much of anything if we don't have enough good prose there to use to write a good article at Wikipedia. The Olympedia article, contains less than 100 words of prose, and most of it is just a restatement of his sports statistics. That's not enough to build a real encyclopedia article from. --Jayron32 14:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Olympedia seeks to be basically comprehensive. The entry in question just mentions what the guy and his team did in the Olympics, and then that he and his wife and children later emigrated to Canada. It does not mention his wife by name, how many children he had, or even what he did to earn a living for all his life (remember this was in the era when Olympians were amateurs), his education or anything else. I do not see any way to say that that entry constitutes significant coverage. It barely tells us anything about the person at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I would argue to be considered a GNG meeting source, Olympedia needs to have at least 2 paragraphs on the person, not just 1 or none. Actually, maybe we should ask for 3 paragraphs, I am willing to consider either. Clearly it is not a good enough source for Bob Starkey. It would be a good enough source for Jim Thorpe, but there are much more indepth and better sources to actually build the article on Thorpe on. Is Olympedia a secondary or a tertiary source? If it is a tertiary source, we should be preferring secondary sources when avialable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I would agree that the Bob Starkey entry is very dubious as SIGCOV, but in that discussion you state outright that Olympedia can not be used as a source. Why? Jacona (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
    I can't find where he said that. Perhaps to could post the quote here. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
    [9] Jacona (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. I was assuming "you" was Cbl62. Anyway the quote is "it is not a source that can be used to show notability." Nigej (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
    I may have misunderstood Olympedia, because a huge amount of its entries are very basic. I would still stand by the argument it cannot on its own ever show any article is notable. We need multiple sources to show anything is notable. It is clearly not a dictionary of national biography as one eidtor has fasely tried to claim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
    Agree. Many of the entries are little more than family history stuff, the sort of content that you could produce for almost anyone. Nigej (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Is this a suitable summary? BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Concur: Olympedia may well be a valid source for information, but it is certainly not "significant coverage in detail." Ravenswing 09:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
    • There are occasions (albeit a small percentage of them), where Olympedia is clearly significant coverage in detail e.g. [11]. We shouldn't be putting a sweeping, all-encompassing statement like the above comment by Ravenswing, as it isn't true- some articles there are clearly significant coverage. What people should be doing is looking at the coverage on Olympedia and discerning whether it's significant or not, the same as people should do for any other sources used in articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
      • That's not really how it works, especially with the standard knee jerk Keep responses at AfD. No doubt there are small percentages of the time where the most partisan and loosey-goosey tabloids get it right, but that doesn't give them the WP:RSPSS imprimatur. Ravenswing 18:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Actually that is exactly how it works. The New York Times may have a mention of a player that is not significant coverage, and then again it may have paragraphs on a subject that is easily significant coverage. First we determine if the source is valid for using as a valid source. The New Your Times is yes and the Enquirer is no. But whether the source is significant coverage is often in the eye of the beholder or done by consensus. Olympedia is a valid source but only sometimes can it be used for significant coverage. This is how it's done at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Here [12] is an Olympedia entry. That is literally just a sports table.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree that most Olympedia entries don't constitute "significant" coverage. However, there are a few entries that do. Therefore, it is inaccurate to make a blanket statement "Olympedia is not significant coverage" and is also inaccurate to make a blanket statement "Olympedia is significant coverage." Each piece of coverage has to be assessed individually to determine if it is significant. If the coverage is just a "sports table" as JPL put it, obviously it is not significant. But given people have presented a very small number of entries there that do constitute significant coverage, it would be inappropriate to blanket label it as not significant coverage. Note that this says nothing about whether Olympedia is reliable - database entries can be used if they are in reliable sources but cannot, by themselves, justify creating an article. There is nothing wrong with citing Olympedia, even the parts that don't amount to significant coverage, but that can't be all you cite (unless it's one of the few parts that do constitute significant coverage) or the article will fail GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Mixed Martial Arts Guideline

This guideline seems extremely out-dated. World top 10 by Sherdog or Fight Matrix means very little. For one, it doesn't include the UFC's official rankings for their divisions, which is the official ranking system of the west's most highly-regarded MMA organization. I think Tapology is another site that is very regularly referenced by fans of the sport and would be a good consideration for any ranking requirement.

Besides the sources, top 10 is too strict. The UFC considers a fighter "ranked" when they are within the top 15 in their division. There are also times where a fighter may quickly become notable without being ranked due to their hype or actions outside of professional fighting. One example would be Johnny Walker, who quickly became very notable due to his very fast finishes and 3 performance of the night streak despite it being against unranked competition. Another example, for good measure, could be somebody like Alex Caceres. I'm not sure if they've ever been ranked, but they have been in the UFC for over 10 years and are a recognizable fighter by most intermediate-level MMA fans. Lobuttomize (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  • So ... you're suggesting that the Sherdog/Fight Matrix rankings are useless in determining notability, but that the Tapology rankings are? Do you have an objective basis for this assertion beyond your personal preferences?

    Beyond that, the purpose of SNGs is to set forth useful markers for determining whether someone that meets it will meet the GNG, not to stand in lockstep with the interests or declarations of athletic organizations. It's not enough to assert that there are fighters ranked #11-15 who are notable; you must demonstrate that 90+% of them are. Is that provably the case?

    In any event, I'm not sure what injustices you think are being perpetrated here. Alex Caceres (who is a "he," by the way, not a plural) has had an article for a dozen years now. Johnny Walker has had an article since the second of those three POTNs, three years ago. Neither article has been challenged. Ravenswing 22:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

    • It wasn't a specific suggested course of action; I was suggesting possibilities. If Wikipedia is dead set on the top 10 idea, add more sources such as Tapology. If not, add some other possibilities for a fighter to become notable. Johnny Walker and Alex Caceres having articles are examples of the current notability rule not being followed for good reason. Also, I sometimes just use "they" as a neutral pronoun. Lobuttomize (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Mm, you may be misinformed as to the purpose of notability guidelines. It isn't to set up a brightline standard of "A subject that meets these criteria is automatically notable / a subject that fails to meet all these criteria is automatically not notable." It's to establish that a subject who can meet the criteria will likely satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, as something of a shortcut to coming up with those sources. The worst MMA fighter out there, with zero accomplishments, qualifies for an article all the same if he or she meets the GNG.

        We're not in the business here of inventing ways for a biographical subject to "become notable." We're in the business of ways to better refine sound ways of reflecting how that's already happened. As I said, if you think (say) that Tapology is a sound guideline of notability and should be reflected in the MMA guideline, do the legwork and demonstrate to us that 90% of the fighter that meet their standards can meet the GNG. Ravenswing 05:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

        • The removal of all participation based criteria was done very haphazardly, without much regard for logic within each sport. The fighters he is referencing have pages because they are obviously notable, but I think the point he was making is that they were written under the old NMMA and would not be "presumed notable" by the current way NMMA is written. The inconsistency here is that many new notable MMA fighters who pass GNG would not pass the now-very-strict MMA guidelines, which is not super important because, again, they pass GNG, but there is still a discrepancy there. I am not the biggest MMA fan, nor am I terribly active in the wikiproject, but "top 15-ranked fighters" is a very reasonable assumption of notability, especially given the recent changes to NMMA. JTtheOG (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Fighters, gym managers, and promoters can claim their own pages and make edits to them on Tapology, see WP:ABOUTSELF. Also not to mention Tapology literally has Mike Jackson ranked in their "worldwide current best pound for pound rankings" so I'm not sure how reliable it actually is. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 13:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  • An outfit that had a ranking for someone with exactly three MMA bouts (and a single win, where the OTHER guy was DQed) over a stretch of six years (other than, perhaps, in the "Bottom Ten Bottomfeeders" ranking)? I'm sure how reliable that is: not in any way, shape or form. Ravenswing 18:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: It's a load of bunk anyway, the rankings are published and edited by site members. Found this in the faq;

"How does Tapology create its rankings?"

"With the exception of the Regional Rankings, it doesn't create them. You, the site members, do. As a registered member of the site, you are able to build your own custom rankings of fighters, bouts and events across a variety of categories" [13] ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 01:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Updating the Equestrian section to be consistent with the RfC and the rest of NSPORT

There are still a few participation-based criteria in Equestrian that need to be removed/reworded per the RfC. I suggest changing "have participated in" to "have medaled in" the Pan American Games (etc.). This should not be a controversial change and should not require an RfC... JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  • I don't think we should blindly include all participants simply because they showed up, unless they received the media coverage that satisfies GNG. IOW, if the participant was notable prior to the competition, or did something before or during the Games that made them notable, then yes, we include them. Participation alone does not warrant inclusion, and to state it in the guideline would be misinformation and noncompliant with WP:N and WP:GNG. Atsme 💬 📧 19:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    ...Yes? I am glad you agree. JoelleJay (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • We agreed that merely being in a competition should no longer be grounds for inclusion. It looks like it will take a long time to actually tighten the de facto inclusion criteria on articles though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Could someone place a link to the recent RfC in the FAQ section please. Given that there are substantial changes which have occurred it seems sensible to have the ability for everyone to go find out what was actually discussed and what people were actually voting on. I'm sure someone has it bookmarked, but I can't find it quickly enough. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added a link to the RfC at the top of the talk page. isaacl (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
There's also the wikilink WP:NSPORTS2022 if you want to just type it rather than searching for it here. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Both of those are helpful. It's useful to be able to see exactly what was agreed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_50&oldid=1094169066"