Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
References
  1. ^ Request for Comments discussion that established the sports-specific notability guidelines: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4#RfC: Promote Notability .28sports.29 to a guideline
  2. ^ Discussion in June 2011: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8#Applicable policies and guidelines
  3. ^ Discussion in October 2011: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 9#Relation to GNG .28again.29
  4. ^ Discussion in February 2013: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 16#Second sentence


RfC: Paralympics[edit]

(non-admin closure) Consensus is that the proposed text should not be restored. Arguments that Paralympians cannot be presumed to be notable outweighed counterarguments.- MrX 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Should WP:NOLYMPICS restored to its original text? Namely: Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or the Paralympic Games Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Rationale

In a nutshell, 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. The Paralympics certainly qualifies as a major professional competition. Indeed, it is the third largest in the world, surpassed only by the Olympics and the World Cup. To demonstrate that Paralympians routinely pass WP:GNG, we were able to easily able create articles on Australian athletes for the 2016 Paralympics. So we have demonstrated that Paralympians in recent years invariably attract sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG That being the case, the proposed change only reflects the reality of what has already been achieved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. The "original text" was there for two weeks after this became a guideline, and has been absent for more than 6 years since. Stronger arguments than "it is the original text" are needed to be convincing. Many, many Paralympians, certainly for the early games but also for more recent ones, at least ~upto and including the 2000 games, have received little to no attention at all (they get listed in databases, and that's it). We have had the discussion about this in a previous section here, where I presented many examples of athletes without the required notability (or teams where the names of the athletes are not even known). NSPORTS is intended to make life easier for e.g. AfD debates and the like, i.e. indicating which groups of athletes can be presumed to have the necessary notability as defined in WP:ANYBIO: not as a pass for certain groups to lower the basic notability threshold. Fram (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Um, I didn't propose a rationale at all! To make the RfC as neutral as possible, per WP:RfC, I did not put a rationale up immediately. I have done so now. You posed Jamaican athletes as an example; you thought we couldn't even find the names of the athletes, but it was quickly demonstrated that not only could we find their names in an instant, but that they do indeed pass WP:GNG!!! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I said that I couldn't even find their names. You found all five (good). The first one you listed was "Anthony Bryan (table tennis)". I can find him listed in one or two non-independent databases or lists, but he doesn't seem to have received any significant attention in reliable independent sources, which is needed to demonstrate notability. And that's for a 2000 athlete, not some 1968 one or so! Fram (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
For Bryan, all I can find is [www.ipttc.org/communication/2000/M_1-11_April2000_selection.xls] which is a list of competitors, not evidence of any notability so far. Apart from that, absolutely nothing. Obviously, I can't prove that no sources exist, but it certainly doesn't look good, and is a good reason not to give Paralympians, even from the 2000 Games, a free notability pass here. Fram (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Now I've always been on the side of inclusion, but I agree with Fram here. If it's next to impossible to even get the name of the individual from the Paralympic Games, then I can't see how they'd be notable. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: There've been several attempts to broaden the scope of NSPORTS criteria to include more (or all) Paralympians. Probably unsurprisingly, these attempts have been almost completely devoid of any evidence that there are broad swathes of Paralympians who would otherwise meet the GNG falling through the cracks. This particular wording is completely inappropriate unless -- and only unless -- its proponents are willing to do the work to demonstrate that every Paralympian who has ever competed can meet the GNG. Without such evidence presented as part of a proposal to change the guideline, an Oppose is the only reasonable response. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an engine for social engineering or consciousness-raising. Ravenswing 08:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I have added one now. Evidence has been presented. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
You're really not suggesting that the notability of Australian Paralympians from THIS YEAR credibly mirrors the notability of every such athlete from every country in every year? I'm frankly astonished both at such an assertion from an editor of your longevity and experience, and that you'd think we'd swallow such uncritically. Ravenswing 11:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose As noted above, early Paralympians certainly can't be safely assumed to meet WP:GNG, and even for more recent games this would be questionable. Sideways713 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Paralympics are in recent years rarely meet GNG, it would be way more difficult to find references and news from early age Olympics, sometimes just list of medalists and more recently participants. I will not buy the "original text" argument. --Osplace 16:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't an argument, that was merely the proposal. I have posted one now. Paralympians in recent years invariably pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
What about WP:BLP1E? --Osplace 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Like the Olympics, you won't qualify unless you are a national champion. Only the top nations have more than one athlete per event. Qualifying times are set around the previous top ten in the world mark. So in the process of just qualifying, athletes build up a solid record of achievement in international competition. While it is possible for a rookie to play in the Super Bowl or to break a world record, you won't get into the Paralympic Games. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
But national paralympic championships and other meetings will receive (and certainly in the past didn't receive) very little to no attention in many countries. The may "build up a record of achievement", but they are still only known for one event (if even that), which is BLP1E. Fram (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, so what? No doubt there are "national champions" from all manner of fringe sports in all manner of small countries. I expect that there are a bunch of US Navy sailors who could credibly claim to be the first baseball "national champions" of the Marshall Islands, by virtue of whupping the crew of that Air Force flight in a pickup game in 1979, and they're not presumptively entitled to Wikipedia articles for the same reason prevailing here: they don't meet the GNG. Ravenswing 11:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
IOC gives participation to athletes that do not meet the qualifying criteria, a lot of them in swimming and track and field. Paralympics athletes in most of the countries do not held any championships. United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, but most poor countries just nominate athletes that have been trough a training process to achieve required marks. No national championships at all. They train without ever appear in a national or even local newspapers. Even when they are mentioned as the traveling delegation they are only mentioned as a team. Some favorites may be mentioned. But the point is that they do not meet GNG just for appear in the Paralympics Games. You have to prove case by case. --Osplace 22:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
They do not invariably meet the GNG. I would actually argue the opposite, that they almost invariably do not meet the GNG. There may be some countries where their athletes are more likely to meet it. But in the vast majority of countries they don't even come close. In many countries it would be hard to find a list of participants never mind multiple articles written in depth about each individual. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Support As proposer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Paralympians definitely meet the notability criteria - 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. If any Olympic athlete is considered notable then Paralympic athlete is as well. You need to consider the recent history of the Paralympic movement. Since 1988, there is a strong relationship between the Olympics and Paralympics - host Olympic cities are required to host the Paralympics several weeks after the Games. This applies to both Summer and Winter Games. Paralympic athletes in many countries are financially supported by their Governments just as Olympic athletes are supported. Like the Olympics, the Paralympics have strict qualification standards and anti-doping regulations. In the pre-digital world, Paralympians received less press than Olympians but since 2000 Paralympians receive a great deal of coverage in the digital world. Paralympians are representing their country just as athletes selected in national football, basketball, cricket and other sports teams. Wikipedia regards as notable someone who may play first class cricket but who has not represented their country -it is not easy to accept this criteria if Paralympians are excluded. I agree somewhat withHawkeye7's compromise that the criteria may limit it to Paralympians from the 2000 Games onwards as this is where there is a wealth of information due to the increased coverage of the Paralympics, the profesionalisation of the Paralympics and the digital world. (talk) 12 October 2016 (UTC)
You miss the part that mentions so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In the case of the paralympians this isn't the case. You can't say that 99.9% of paralympians meet the GNG even if you cut it down to 2000 and after. It just simply isn't true. In Canada a fairly sports minded country you could barely even tell the Paralympics happened never mind coverage of a single athlete from an obscure sport. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Canada is not generally regarded internationally as a "fairly sports minded country"! Face-smile.svg In London in 2012, I heard a great deal of griping about how meagre coverage the coverage was in Canada, but 2016, it was expanded, and better, but still not as extensive as Australia's. That having been said, the Canadian media contingent in Rio was just as large as ours, and was, by our standards, very well resourced. They were unfailingly helpful to us, both to the Australian media in general, and to Wikipedia in particular. A key difference is the lack of emphasis on Wkipedia. Jnkwidis in particular did a great job on Canada at the 2016 Summer Paralympics.

There are ample sources on Canadian Paralympians, and plenty of manpower available, so I will be taking this up with them in the near future. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Comments on the rationale. You have established that in one developed, sport-minded country, all athletes of the 2016 Paralympics are notable. This is not evidence that all Paralympians (all countries, all years) are notable at all. If you could establish that e.g. all athletes of the 1968 Paralympics for a number of countries (including smaller or less sport-minded ones) are notable, then you could claim that the text should be changed to your proposed version. Less relevant for here, but what's your evidence for the claim that the Paralympics are the third-largest sports competition in the world? You have, in the 2016 one, 4,342 athletes from 159 countries. The 2015 Summer Universiade had only 143 countries, but 12,885 athletes. According to the BBC[1], the claims of "third largest" are made by a fair number of events, including the World Athletics Championships, the Rugby World Cup, the Youth Olympics, the Champions League, the Cricket World Championships, and so on. For some of these, all competitors are considered notable. For others (like the Universiade or the Youth Olympics) not so. Fram (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose In recent months there has been a number of newly created Paralympic articles. Some have passed GNG and some have not and some have just squeaked by as no consensus to delete. Older events would be ridiculous to create articles for. I think medalists in the NOLYMPICS section is adequate with GNG able to pick up those with extensive press articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As much as I support and think what paralympians do is amazing, there just isn't the media coverage to meet GNG for the vast majority of them. You would barely have even known the paralympic games were happening in my country for example. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This comes up often and the overwhelming evidence shows that coverage cannot be presumed to exist. Of course a decent number of athletes will meet GNG and every single one of those should have an article. But evidence is not there that all participants gain the necessary coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support for most recent editions only: As example from the Dutch Athletes it appears that they all meet notability for the recent editions. See as example the Dutch page nl:Nederland op de Paralympische Zomerspelen 2012.Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 05:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
There are many countries that still in this games have almost zero coverage of the games. Simple mention in a list is not enough. Still not even this days is easier to not to find any information about every specific Paralympic athlete in most countries. Remember, big countries are just a few and total participation, as of 2016, was 159 and only 83 won medals, that is half the participation without even a medalist mention. --Osplace 12:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I have not seen your Dutch example until now. In that example I could not find any references. Is not an example of relevance, just a Wiki enthusiast is what I have found there. --Osplace 12:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per most of the above. If they can't pass WP:GNG they don't get a free pass just because they were in the Paralympics. Olympians get treated as presumptively notable (!= absolutely guaranteed to be notable) because they do in fact garner enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG in most cases. Topical notability guidelines like this are not the Magical Notability Rules Exemption Bureau; they're simply interpretations of the existing site-wide notability guideline. They exist to help avoid wasting editorial time writing articles on topics which/who are most likely not notable, or arguing in vain to delete those that almost certainly will prove to be so. All these topical interpretative notability pages aside, it's entirely possible for a specific topic (person, whatever) to fit in something one of the declares presumptively notably (e.g. someone on a Olympic team with a lot of members, who played one game in an early Olympic Games, and was from a small country later subsumed into another one, and who was never otherwise noted by reliable sources for anything), and be deleted on the basis of an actual GNG failure after people have tried to more specifically prove notability for that individual. The obvious problem with RfC proposal is that an enormous number of Paralympian article could get created under the proposed WP:Notability (sports) rule change, and then end up causing a big time sink for a lot of people, as editor group A wrote earnest but poorly supported articles about them, and editor group B tried to verify their notability and eventually took them to AfD on GNG grounds, then editor group C argued and source-checked and so on at great length at AfD, and editor group D administratively deleted the weak pages. That's four groups of editors with better things to do.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Support The distinction made in current text distort and confuse the broad term Olympian. Most arguments that oppose will be refuted once a contestant in the Summer or Winter Olympic Games is confirmed not notable. I don't think it is impossible to find the not notable ones, but I do not wish for a constant process of measuring and weighting on wiki terms, is this Olympian notable? .--Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 05:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:NRU Update[edit]

I posted this on the project page as well. I just commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgi Pruidze. He played for Georgia at the 2015 Rugby World Cup. In evaluating WP:NRU I see it hasn't been updated for the 2015 World Cup. I don't have the knowledge to make sure that the correct update is made and technically that the update should be made, but looks to me someone with the knowledge should. RonSigPi (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

esbl.ee[edit]

I found Estonian encyclopedic website with selected Estonian related sportspeople. I lists ~7500 (former) sportspeople, with a short biography (well written in Estonian language).

The website can be found here . I made a list of: Requested articles/Sports/Estonian sportspeople.

Because it's a selection from the Estonian sports history, and what I red from the articles I've seen, from my opinion they are all notable. So I think it would be good to include it under WP:NSPORTS. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 21:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not all are sportspeople, they are sports-related people. I don't see enough in e.g. [2],[3],[4],[5] to conclude that these are indeed clearly notable enough to be included in NSPORTS. Has e.g. articles on a motorsports talent who is only 14 years old[6], probably not ready for an article here. Fram (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes I see, some will be border line. I see your point. I did a quick search on these people. I think [2] might just pass for notable researcher (profile) [2], was after his own career the coach of the best national gymnasts in Estonia (example) and the junior boy is multiple European Junior Champion. In several sports (but I'm not into motor sports) people get an article for it. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

NRU update High performance unions.[edit]

Hi there have been some significant changes to the IRB definition of high performance unions. They have now been split into 2 tiers.

  • Tier One (the 10 Six Nations/Rugby Championship Unions): England France Italy Ireland Scotland Wales + Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa
  • Tier Two (the other 10 RWC qualified Unions): For the moment for the 2019 World Cup they are (other than Tier 1 teams) Georgia and Japan.

This definition is interesting but poses a problem concerning the nations that were qualified for 1 RWC but not for the next, if they are not in the tier 1 do all the players that were considered notable thanks to this definition become no longer notable.

I propose that we widen the definition to any international player that has played for a nation that has at one point in time participated in the RWC. At the moment this stands at 25 nations in total.

Just as a reminder other wikipedias have much more liberal conditions. e.g in the French version a player is considered notable if he fulfills one of the following conditions

1. For a country with professional competition:
  • After the professionalisation of rugby union in 1995, having participated in his country in a professional championship game as a player, coach, manager or referee.
  • Before the professionalisation of rugby union in 1995, to have participated in their country in the highest championship as a player, coach, manager or referee.
2. For a country with amateur or semi-professional competition, to have participated in their country in the highest championship like player, coach, manager or referee.
3. Have played at least one game in official international competition as a player, referee, coach or officer.

I would appreciate any feedback and ideas before going ahead and modifying the criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

When did they change their regulations? Hack (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hack: Hi it's difficult to say as i can find no press release or other official document but on the World Rugby web site there are documents dating back to the 2013 season giving the fixtures for tier 2 matches. http://www.worldrugby.org/search?s=tier%202%20fixtures&toggle=document. This document date from 2015. http://www.worldrugby.org/documents/high-performance?lang=en Domdeparis (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you provide a few examples of tier 2 HPU players that don't meet WP:NRU but meet WP:GNG? Hack (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
this could be difficult as they are systematically deleted as not being notable. most sportsmen are notable only for their particular sport especially at the start of their careers and when they come from a tier 2 nation there is often little or no coverage in English. Domdeparis (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you provide a few examples of HPU tier 2 players that you believe meet WP:GNG, whether they have articles on the English Wikipedia or not. Hack (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
here's a couple Matthew Janney Giorgi Koshadze. Domdeparis (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This change would mean that any player who has ever competed for e.g. Portugal or Ivory Coast would automatically be considered notable. ("any international player that has played for a nation that has at one point in time participated in the RWC"). I don't see why the fact that a cuontry played at the RWC in 2007 or so would make a player for that country in the 1950s suddenly notable. Fram (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: I understand what you're saying but as it stands any player that played for one of the 6 nations at any time is automatically considered as notable including a player for Italy long before it became a HPU. The problem comes from the fact that the new definition of high performance union includes 10 permanent teams and 10 teams that are "floating" depending on when you look at the rules. For the moment Canada is not qualified for the next RWC so is not considered as a HPU as of today so should all the players that don't meet the other criteria be taken out of Wikipedia and if and when Canada qualify they can be reinstated? As it stands a player that doesn't meet the other criteria but who has played one match for the USA against any team in the world at any time is considered notable despite the fact that their performance at the RWC is not particularly good and they are classed 18th but a Georgian player that doesn't meet the other criteria but has represented his country any number of times is not considered notable. Georgia is the 12th nation in the rankings table and is considered a HPU now and the USA is not. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of new pages other sports that are "niche" sports have much laxer rules. e.g. Aussie Rules football criteria say that any player for any club at any time is considered notable. There are tens of thousands of Aussie Rules players with their own pages. As it stands the criteria are unfair to nations that have an excellent level of rugby and are recognised as such by the IRB but not by WP criteria. Do you have another suggestion to rectify the situation? Domdeparis (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
We could have a list of "played for country X between years Y and Z: automatically notable". Or we could simply go with the GNG. Fram (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Everybody in WP:NSPORTS should be GNG. In WP:NSPORTS we try to define groups of people who meet automatically notability, so I prefer defining "played for country X between years Y and Z: automatically notable". Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 12:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
That's fine but that will require a lot of maintenance and discussion. the period between Y and Z would be what exactly? As the IRB defines a tiers 2 HPU as being one that has qualified for the RWC a Canadian or American player that does not fulfill the other criteria and have their first caps this year are not yet notable and once the teams qualify (as I'm sure they will), they become notable. For certain tier 2 countries this is relatively easy as they have been qualified every time or like Georgia 4 times consecutively. The difficulty comes with countries like USA that did not qualify for the 1995 RWC and only qualified for the 1999 RWC on the 22/08/1998. So a player that was only played between 1992 and 1998 would not qualify...it's a logistical nightmare...
New suggestion the idea is to suggest that players from a nation that has a good track record of being a HPU according to the new criteria be included. This would involve setting a minimum number of qualifications. For exemple 3 appearances at the RWC. And of course keeping any player that actually played at the RWC as being a criteria. Just as a reminder any player who has played in 1 international match is considered as notable for the French speaking Wikipedia community. Domdeparis (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I know from experience that it is sometimes hard to get something in WP:NSPORTS because someone will always point to an exeption within the 1000s of people where the definition is about (usually an athlete from long long ago), from someone who usuallo don't know anything about the sport. And I can say for most of the sports WP:NSPORTS is not covering all of the notable people, only the obvious notable ones. I would prefer something of the French Wikipedia, and think it's fair. So I would say something like "A player who played at least 1 international match is considered as notable (but this might be questionable for people [a few aspects when the player might not be notable while having played an international match]. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Rugby is only a big deal in a handful of countries and even in those places, it can be difficult to demonstrate that an international player meets WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Humm there are 4.5 M rugby union players world-wide (20% increase between 2007 and 2011) and almost 20 000 clubs. 34 countries have more than 10 000 registered players each and 8 have more than 100 000 players each, it is watched by hundreds of millions of people, 6 countries have it as their national sport...in England alone (not the UK) there are almost 2 million players. It's true that as with many sportsmen outside their sport it is difficult to prove GNG but it would be unfair to say that it is a big deal in just a handful of countries and that's why we should be careful about not being too restrictive with the notability criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the criteria should become just tier 1 HPU. Most players in tier 2 would then meet one of the other criteria (play in a RWC, a fully professional team or a notable Sevens tournament) and, if they don't meet one of the other criteria, they probably also fail GNG. Mattlore (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Definitely against just tiers 1 that because that would be mean restricting massively the number of eligible players and the aim of changing the criteria is to allow more players to have their pages. As we said sportsmen often fail other GNG at the start of their careers but that doesn't make them less notable as players. Domdeparis (talk) 08:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Given the amount of consistency in which nations make it to the RWC, surely a list of noteworthy teams could be assembled. Clearly all Six nations and rugby championship sides would be included (England, Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland, Italy, New Zealand, Argentina, Australia, South Africa) without any debate. Then you would look at the Pacific nations, who have only missed one RWC each (Fiji in 1995, Tonga in 1991 and Samoa in 1987)and include them. Then you look at USA and Canada who have qualified for every one bar USA missing out in 1995, and you can safely assume they're a consistent force in Rugby and deserve notability also. Japan have made every RWC, so they'd be in. Then you'd look at the top European sides; Romania (who have made it every time) and Georgia who have qualified 2003-2019. Namibia have gone 1999-2015 also. All these sides should easily walk in to a list of notable rugby nations. Then there would be room for debate around countries such as Russia, Uruguay and Spain, who have not been so consistent in their RWC qualification. For me, this simple list of what countries automatically qualify as notable teams would be the simplest way to solve this issue, the list can be reviewed and adapted in response to changes in rankings or in major competition results. The current situation where Georgia are not recognised in their own right is ridiculous. They have been the 6th best side in europe by the rankings for a while now and are higher than several other nations that find themselves with notable status now. BulgarianBoy21 (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Weightlifting[edit]

I copied this unfinished discussion from the archive. Maybe it's time to finish it :) Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to establish the notability guideliness for weightlifting. Weightlifting is the oldest Olympic sport (since 1986). I would like to propose the standard guideliness that are also for the other Olympic sports.

Weightlifters are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below
  1. Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships,
  2. Medalist at an elite international championship / Games (for instance: continental championships, continental Games, Commonwealth Games, Mediterranean Games)

For the competitors at World Championships, I looked into the bottom athletes in the 2015 World Weightlifting Championships – Men's 105 kg event.

If you want to see more examples, please ask :) Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I had actually thought there may be a benefit to doing some sort of pan-Olympic guideline. Include wrestling, judo, and Taekwondo. I know this does not include all the sports without guidelines, like archery and swimming, but from my experience these sports are pretty similarly situated as they have coverage mostly focusing on the Olympics or world championships (NCAA wrestling champions are the only others I would see being notable). Thoughts? RonSigPi (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason why 24, 25, 27, 28 are skipped? For example is it because you couldn't find articles or because you chose a random sample? If so did you use a random number generator? Could you do the same for example for a womens 2001 event?--MATThematical (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I did it randomly. For red links at the 2001 it's harder because not relatively less news from 2001 is online. But I did a search on all the red links of the 2001 World Weightlifting Championships – Women's +75 kg, and yes, that appear all te be notable:

Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk)

It seems that e.g. for the 1907 World Weightlifting Championships, we don't even have the names of all the participants. Declaring them all de facto notable seems like a rather big step. The name "world champiosnhip" seems like a misnormer for these old ones in any case; in 1911 there were four(!) world championships (1911 World Weightlifting Championships), with participation in total from four neighbouring countries. It seems unlikely that all these competitors would meet the WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: You can't create articles of unknown people. If you find the name of a person in an old news paper for instance (only there it can be found I think), it would make him notable. The names that are known are the medal winners. They are notable. WP:NCYC also states that for instance all participants at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships and UCI Road World Championships are notable. Same issue there. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please read WP:BIO. Finding a name in a newspaper does not make anyone notable. If you would find a newspaper from 1911 listing the complete results for one the four championships of that year, you could add those names to that championship article, but it would be wrong to create articles for these people if that is all you have. You need evidence that all or nearly all competitors in these old championships are notable in the Wikipedia sense (i.e. have significant, indepth coverage about them in reliable independent sources) before such a rule should be added to NSPORTS. NSPORTS is not meant for "they are not notable by normal standards, but we want to have articles about them anyway". Fram (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
And another example WP:NGYMNAST with the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships. In my opinion we can't speak at the moment for people who are unknown. Let's have that discussion if these people are known. Otherwise all these examples of WP:NCYC, WP:NGYMNAST and probably others should also be reverted. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
But you want to add a rule that already states that these unknowns will be notable as soon as we know their name! As for other sports, some may need to be made more restrcitive (I have done the same in the past for NCYCLING already, and argued against loosening the rules for Paralympians as well). For e.g. cycling, there are multiple encyclopedic works covering all or nearly all cyclists competing in world championships. E.g. the "Velo Gotha" contains information on these cyclists. Fram (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Same with cyclists and gymnasts. So far they are unkown at Wikipedia, but all participants that are known are notable. Would be very appricated if you have it and can give us the data of riders of the old world championships. Maybe it will change WP:NCYC. But untill that time, they are also unknown. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
And in addition, most people agree with WP:NOLYMPICS, however look for instance at Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics: Many possibly non-notable fencers with no other details apart from their name, in most cases, only their surename. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For background to this request, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Henderson (weightlifter) (2nd nomination). Fram (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply why listing this article? I fails the notibility guideliness I'm stating above. This article is about whether or not the person meets WP:GNG. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
"he won the silver medal at the 2015 Commonwealth Championships": does this not meet your second line, "Medalist at an elite international championship / Games"? Fram (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a junior championship he competed in.Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Then you really need to make that clear in that article, as it stands it is highly misleading (that championship is also for seniors, so it's not obvious at all that he won only a medal in the junior category). Fram (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)