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

Visual comparison of sports notability[edit]

Working on this for something else. I wouldn't trust it to be anywhere near accurate unless someone else would be willing to double check it. Thought other people might find it useful. Kevlar (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sport Amateur Participation Professional Participation Non-Athletes Won a Significant Professional Honor Won a Significant Amateur Honor Competed for Professional Championship Competed for Amateur Championship # of Participation # of Leagues Top 10 League Notability Temporary
American football/Canadian football No Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6+ N/A N/A
Association football Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A hundreds? N/A N/A
Athletics/track & field and long-distance running Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A up to 8 7 N/A N/A
Australian rules football N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A
Badminton Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A 6 N/A N/A
Baseball N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 N/A N/A
Basketball N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A
Boxing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A
Cricket Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A 2? N/A N/A
Curling Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A 5? N/A N/A
Cycling Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A 4 N/A N/A
Equestrian sport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A
Figure skating Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A 6+ N/A N/A
Golf Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A 17 N/A N/A
Gymnastics Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A 8? N/A N/A
Horse racing Yes Yes Yes Yes No*

Except historic

Yes No*

Except historic

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ice hockey Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A  ? N/A N/A
Kickboxing No N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A 10 Yes Yes
Mixed martial arts No No N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A 3 2+ Yes Yes
Motorsports Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A  ? N/A N/A
Rodeo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rugby league Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A  ? N/A N/A
Rugby union Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A  ? N/A N/A
Sumo N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2? N/A N/A
Tennis Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A 18? N/A N/A
Triathlon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A 6? N/A N/A
College athletes N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A  ? N/A N/A
Gaelic games N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A  ? N/A N/A
High school and pre-high school athletes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A  ? N/A N/A
Olympic and Paralympic Games Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A

Double-checking[edit]

I tried to double-check the athletics/track and field criteria, but I'm not sure what many of those fields even mean in the context of that sport, and because of the long history and complicated and changing structure of the sport most of them don't have neat yes/no answers.
1) NTRACK covers amateur athletes;
2) NTRACK covers professional athletes;
3) NTRACK covers non-athletes... although the relevant criteria are very seldom applied, and they date back to the dark days when the purpose of SNGs wasn't yet clear.
4) NTRACK covers significant professional honors... today, but not all the way back to the early days of professional running.
5) NTRACK covers significant amateur honors... sort of. It covers championship meets that were amateur-only in the past but are open to both professionals and amateurs today; and while they technically remain significant amateur honors today, winning a top amateur-only meet does not automatically confer notability today, though it did for past athletes. (There is a discussion above about adding NCAA champions to the guideline; that would be a top amateur-only meet today.)
6) NTRACK covers competing for the professional championship... mostly. It covers the Olympics and World Championships, which are the professional championships of today; but non-IAAF professional championships (relevant in the deep past, especially in the pre-WWI era) are not covered. (See answer #4.)
7) NTRACK covers competing for the amateur championship... technically, since the biggest championships available for amateurs are the Olympics and World Championships, which were amateur-only in the past; see points 5 and 6 above.
8) # of participation... I have no idea what this means.
9) # of leagues... nebulous. There are multiple organized tiers or groups of meetings, some of which are vaguely league-like and/or self-identify as leagues (most prominently the IAAF Diamond League and its predecessor, the IAAF Golden League); but not really anything like the various team sport leagues. When I think of a league in the context of track and field, I think of something like the International Track Association, which folded in 1976. So I'm tempted to say the number of leagues covered by NTRACK is zero, though this is obviously up to debate since it does cover the IAAF Diamond League/Golden League and the World Marathon Majors.
10) Top 10... yes, mostly, under NTRACK criterion #8 which covers the top 12 on the world list in Olympic non-relay events. NTRACK does not currently explicitly cover the international top 10 rankings of Track & Field News or Athletics Weekly, which would perhaps be a better equivalent to boxing's criterion #3; but making those rankings is still a very good notability indicator.
11) League notability temporary... see answer to #9. In this context, this should probably be construed as "meeting notability temporary"; in which case, the answer would strictly speaking be "yes" since meetings can jump from level to level (or league to league, if you will). But it would be very unclear to any reader of the table what such an answer was supposed to mean. Sideways713 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow that's a lot of feedback, thank you so much. I think part of the problem is that each of the sports guidelines come from a group of people that use different wording. With the "# of participation" one i knew that was going to be a problem. I was going to at least move that column to the left a bit but didn't. What i wanted to show there was that many sports only require that you participate at all but a few require that you participate 3 or however many times at a minimum. There is a discussion about altering the MMA guidelines to require not participation but 2 victories in competition. I am in opposition to the view that this change will make the MMA guidelines more in line with the other sports listed here, i feel that it would make them even less similar. I think i'll put this in my userspace and also work on some constructive suggestions on re-wording the various guidelines so they are easily compared to each other. Kevlar (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You are aware however, that NSPORTS was created to replace ATHLETE specifically so those differences would happen right? It is completely intended that in some sports the bar is at one level and in others it is higher because one guideline doesn't fit all. It comes down to in some sports media coverage is higher at a lower level than others. Things are working exactly as planned. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, 100%. I'm not suggesting that the guildlines from one sport need to be the same as every other sport. But there are some things in these guidelines that could be made more clear. For example the last sentence of the first paragraph of this page is "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." keep in mind that i changed the bolding but not any of the words. Then in the FAQ which is collapsed by default says that the article needs to meet GNG and Notablility (sports). It's not for me to decide which is worded more correctly, but i think it's something that should be discussed. I worked through American football/Canadian football, Association football, and Australian rules football in my userspace. My goal isn't to change the spirit of any of the guidelines, it's to make the language more uniform so a person familiar with one sport and that sports guidelines would have an easier time understanding the guidelines form a sport they don't understand as well. Kevlar (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The GNG/NSPORT relationship and those wordings have been discussed here many times already, and unfortunately, none of those discussions has yet led to a better wording. Long-term NSPORT editors know what the meaning is, viz. that sports articles need to meet WP:GNG and sport-specific criteria do not provide an alternative to that (nor are they an additional set of criteria that must also met); but that an article meeting the sport-specific criteria can generally be presumed to also meet the GNG, even if the sources in it aren't good enough to demonstrate that directly, and the sport-specific criteria should be tuned so that this presumption is correct much more often than not. Sideways713 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I view NSPORT at AFD as moving the burden of proof from the keep side to the delete side. To delete an article for someone who satisfies NSPORT, considerable effort (beyond basic internet searches) needs to demonstrate no observed WP:GNG coverage. This is why its crucial that our guidelines here correlate strongly with GNG, and why we are often so finicky when voting on proposed new NSPORT guidelines. --MATThematical (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The FAQ doesn't say that two sets of criteria must be met. Sideways713 restates it well. isaacl (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kevlar: For association football, amateur participation does not grant players notability. Only playing in a fully-professional league or playing for their country. The latter doesn't seem to be included so perhaps should. Cheers, Number 57 17:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I just tweaked the Equestrian Sport, Horse racing and Rodeo. The equestrian sport changes reflect the presence of Equestrian competition at the Olympics (which is still, technically, amateur) as well as professionally. Also, there are so many professional organizations, I'm not sure how to count them all... one big international one (the FEI) but then multiple national groups in every country. On Horse racing, I removed the amateur award bit though noted that back in the day, (pre-1900s) many riders WERE amateur, as a social requirement of sorts; we could restore those to yes if that makes a difference. Rodeo has high school and collegiate-level as well as professional competition, and like all college sports, there is that inevitable crossover. Holler if I did something too confusing. Montanabw(talk) 05:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability of UCI teams[edit]

Why are UCI teams considered notable? Looking at Domin Sport and such, I see nothing but a primary-reference based entry that has little encyclopedic use. I cannot find any discussion in archives discussing this criteria. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be surprised if UCI Continental teams were not the subject of a reasonable amount of coverage in the media, thus meeting WP:GNG. I don't speak Polish, but this looks like a good source that would contribute to establishing the notability of this particular team. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
For info, the top level of teams in cycling are the UCI WorldTeams. The Continental teams are a division below. Using the crass comparison, the former is the Premier League of cycling, while the latter is the Championship. Long story short, they're notable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ice hockey leagues notability[edit]

After participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Elsner I'm a little confused about the ice hockey notability guidelines. Criteria 1 refers to existing or defunct top professional leagues which I presumed to mean the top level professional league of any country, with emphasis on professional as only a limited number of countries have fully professional ice hockey leagues. Criteria 2 refers to amateur leagues and Criteria 3 covers, among others, second tier national leagues. According to a user participating in the above discussion top level leagues criteria 1 is applied to are only the ones listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment as top level. This seems to leave leagues like the DEL, the Swiss Nationalliga A and the Slovak Extraliga in limbo as they are neither criteria 1 (not listed as a top level leagues) nor criteria 2 (not amateur) nor criteria 3 (second tier national league). What notability criteria applies to these leagues? Could somebody please clarify? Calistemon (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

All three leagues satisfy Criterion #3: Played at least 200 games or achieved preeminent honors in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues. All three are classed as top-level minor leagues by the league assessment. Salavat (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Minor leagues is a term I have always associated with leagues in North America below top level (below MLB, NHL, etc). I have never seen it used in the context of top level European leagues I have to say. The Wikipedia article on Minor league (I know Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source) mentions only North America in the context of Minor leagues. From a non-North American view the use of minor leagues as a term for leagues in Europe in whatever sport seems incorrect and misleading. Calistemon (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Which is why we're happy to have explained it to you, the way it already had been in the Elsner AfD. None of the leagues you mention are in "limbo" -- they're all listed in NHOCKEY/LA, to which I directed you, and which you've plainly reviewed. We've no control over what terms you yourself find familiar, but I'm sure you can understand that we need a set of common nomenclature, and that the common nomenclature the hockey WikiProject employs is that employed by the North American-based editors who make up the overwhelming number of our active editors.

The reason why we have this ranking for leagues (a practice shared by several other sports WikiProjects, most notably the football project) is basic: we're supposed to be setting criteria which reflect the likelihood of a subject meeting that meeting the GNG. A league deemed to meet criterion #1 ("criteria" is plural) sets forth the premise that every player who has ever played so much in a game in it can meet the GNG. For the DEL, a league with average attendance on par with the mid-minor league ECHL, where even Eisbaren Berlin's attendance is well below NHL standards, and in a country where the popularity of ice hockey is dwarfed by that of football, that's just not a credible claim. Truth be told, this seems less a situation where you're confused by our assessment than that you disagree with it. Ravenswing 02:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Your mistaken in your accusation, I genuinely never had heard of European leagues being referred to as minor leagues. Europe operates on a tier system rather then minor and major leagues, like North America. Criteria 3 mentioned second tier national leagues, that is a term I'm familiar with but I could not find tier one national leagues mentioned. There is the reason for my confusion. In regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment and your comparison to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, it is a very interesting one. The latter one has 191 references and clear inclusion criteria set, the former has none and is quite clearly original reserch with no indication as to why leagues are grouped in different categories. What criterias were taken into account when compiling it? Playing strength, financial revenue, media attention, spectators? I don't think the list, in its current form, is up to standard. There are sources for league rankings out there, like this one or one. As to DEL, attendance in Germany and status of the league, yes, it is dwarfed by football, you are absolutely correct, but it is still has the highest financial turnover of any sports league in the country after the first three divisions of football. And, without having being an expert, I would say that the NHL is dwarfed by the crazy money spend in the NFL (another code of football after all), but that doesn't make it a "minor league". As to attendance in Europe, SC Bern has just been crowned best supported club in Europe for the 15th time running, followed by Berlin and Cologne. My question in regards to notability is, does the list currently provided to determined notability really correctly reflect notability of leagues when it comes to European leagues? I have my doubts. Calistemon (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
... best supported after the first three divisions of German football? Err ... given that there's no actual national league after that step (which is quite low indeed), that's not saying a great deal. In any event, the DEL is well back on IIHF tables of league strength -- you understand we prefer official sources to the blogposts you just cited -- and nowhere near comparable to such leagues as the KHL, the sm-Liiga or the Swedish league. If you would like to argue on the appropriate talk page for the DEL's ranking to be higher, you're welcome to do so, and I'm sure you bring a good level of hockey expertise to the table. Ravenswing 03:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not about the notability of the leagues, this list is about the notability of the players in the league and the media coverage the individual players receive. -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It could very well be a difference of culture. In North America pretty much all of the hockey leagues in Europe are considered minor leagues in the media as none of them are on the level of the NHL. Not even the KHL. And all of them feed players into the NHL. It is the highest league in the world. Thus compared to it, all other leagues are considered minor. So it is very likely a context thing. Yes the DEL for example is the top in Germany, but the top in a small pond, one whose media does not cover every player that ever steps on the ice, which is the point of NHOCKEY, to show when a player can be pretty much assumed to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ravenswing: Don't get me wrong, I mean no disrespect to you guys on the project and I'm certainly not interested in arguing for the point of arguing about this. The point I would like to make is that ice hockey in Switzerland and Germany, the two countries I'm most familiar with, is quite well supported and enjoys a high level of media attention, which is what defines Wikipedias notability criteria after all. The level of play in those countries is another matter but, for the sake of notability, really irrelevant. The IIHF source above makes it pretty clear that Swiss and German clubs are among the best supported clubs in Europe. The Deloitte report makes it pretty clear that ice hockey is the no 2 sport in Germany, after football, and ahead of basketball, unlike North America. I could not find any financial figures for the Swiss league unfortunatly but the fact that this years no 1 NHL draft pick played for the ZSC Lions speaks for itself as to the status of the league. I think your current notability list could do with some tweaking and some improving as to what criterias define the ranking and what the sources for the ranking are. I have no intention of being desruptive and will leave it at this. The much better place for this discussion would have been Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment for the last few posts of this conversation. If you are interested feel free to continue there and, maybe, get some more input from other hockey project members. If not and you think I'm just talking bollocks, that's fine, we can leave it at that. Keep well, Calistemon (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Calistemon, perhaps I'm not making things clear enough. It is not that we gauge leagues based on how much money they make. It's not that we gauge leagues based on how popular they are compared to other sports in any given nation-state. (If NSPORTS did that as a matter of course, we'd be handing out presumptive notability to third-tier archers in Bhutan.) It's not that a 17-year-old amateur played in the Swiss league this past season. It's not even whether leagues generate media attention. (NCAA basketball, for instance, generates insane media attention.) It is -- by way of example -- whether the Swiss league generates enough media attention that every single player who's played so much as a minute over the 36 year history of the league can be declared notable. Those of us familiar with Eurohockey are satisfied that it hasn't. Ravenswing 04:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Ravenswing sums it up pretty well. The idea is that unless every single player who has ever stepped on the ice for even a minute will have multiple sources written about him then its not considered a top level league. And it is not at all true that a player who played 1 minute in Switzerland or Germany will have had multiple articles written about him. Like not even remotely close. There are players who have played a decade and we have been unable to find sources for. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
If you are searching for sources on German hockey, especially before the internet-age, here is your best bets, but you need to speak German and they will be hard to come by:
  • Old Sportkurier editions, published twice weekly from 1945 to 1995 in Augsburg. It was the no. 1 sports magazine for ice hockey in Germany, the equivalent to what kicker was and is for football. After its demise Eishockey News filled the vacuum left by the former.
  • The Eishockey-Jahrbuch (Ice Hockey Yearbook) was originally published by the Sportkurier (Picture of the 1993–94 edition) and, later, by Eishockey News (Picture of the 1996–97 edition). I never owned one so I can't say much about its content or quality.
  • Sportkurier published an annual end-of-season magazine, much smaller then the yearbook but still informative.
  • The Augsburger Allgemeine is a great source as its founder, Curt Frenzel, was also a main figure at the Augsburger Panther club and ice hockey has been and is extremely popular but unsuccessful in the town. With the rise of ERC Ingolstadt the paper now has two DEL clubs in its circulation area.
  • 30 Jahre Eishockey-Bundesliga (30 years of ice hockey Bundesliga) is a great book on the history of the league published in 1988. Its the only ice hockey book I took with me to Australia and I used it when I rewrote the Eishockey-Bundesliga article some years ago. The author, Günter Klein, was also chief editor of the Sportkurier at the time, I believe.
  • As far as Switzerland goes, I don't know quite as much, was just watching league matches on TV back 25 years ago, but an annual Swiss Yearbook was published (Picture here) and I do still own some from the late 80s-early 90s but, again, I don't have access to them at this stage.
Like I said, all these sources are in German only and hard to come by but if you are truly looking for information on past players, clubs and leagues in German ice hockey they are your best sources I know of. Hope this helps, regards, Calistemon (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This issue all comes down to likely coverage of individual players. If you can demonstrate that with these and other German sources, hockey players who have only played one or even just a few games in the DEL are likely to have significant coverage from multiple sources per GNG, I would be happy to support treating DEL as a league consistent with the top leagues in Sweden or Russia. But right now the issue at hand is the AfD for David Elsner, and you have provided one source that I would agree has provided significant coverage, but one source doesn't meet the GNG criteria. And Elsner has played almost 100 DEL games, so if he doesn't have coverage to meet GNG, I don't see how I could support giving presumptive notability to any DEL player, even those with only a single DEL game. Rlendog (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about that, I have moved on from that, I'm not trying to prove anything. Djsass mentioned "There are players who have played a decade and we have been unable to find sources for" so I just pointed out a few (admitandly difficult to get to) sources where information on German or Swiss players could be found. Its all good otherwise. Calistemon (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Village pump proposal - notability additions for eSports[edit]

We don't currently have guidance on eSports, which as a growing field is leading to quite a lot of discussions at AFD. I feel it might be a good idea for us to consider guidelines on it. I've raised this as an issue at the village pump, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports. KaisaL (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Umpires in American Football[edit]

First of all, I know nothing of sports so please excuse what is probably a very stupid question. Reading through the guideline, it seems that referees and umpires are listed as presumed to be notable for some sports and not others. Is this deliberate or just a result of different sections being written at different times? I'm not proposing anything, just want to know. Specifically, this came up in patrolling Fred Bryan who is a NFL umpire. Thank you! Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is by design, NSPORTS is tailored in a way so that each sport is different. You can't assume that because they are in one sport they are in another. In some sports referees/umpires are much more recognized. In some cases it is because there are less of them. In some cases it might be because they impact the game more than they do in other sports as well. This guideline is an attempted to fix the situation that used to be the case where one shoe did not fit all. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Judo Notability[edit]

There seems to be some issues in terms of notability in sports. There also seems to be some notability issues specifically concerning Judo. WP:MANOTE does not address the specific nature of Judo as many people would qualify based on "Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)," but do not. This makes things quite ambiguous. So I am proposing the following guidelines:

1. Participation at the Maccabiah Games, Pan American Games, Goodwill Games, World Police and Fire Games, the Commonwealth Games, Olympic Games, World Championships, IJF Grand Prix Series, or other major international tournament. - Since Judo doesn't have professional leagues.

2. Has fought, as an amateur, in the final of a national amateur championship for an IFJ affiliated and for Women see Medal table or have represented their IJF affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament. (from boxing)

3. Have participated at the Olympic as a player or official team coach Have participated at the Paralympics as a player, driver or official team coach Have participated at the Pan American Games as a player, driver or official team coach (from equestrian)

4. Junior Judoka are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below won an individual gold medal at the junior national championships for any of the following countries: won an individual gold medal, in the junior division, at an elite international competition* won an individual medal at the Youth Olympic Games (from gymnastics)

(From Track and Field) To non-athletes associated with the sport (or athletes whose main claim to notability is non-athletic activity) the following criteria of notability apply:

Coaches that have coached many notable athletes, including at least one (non-relay) Olympic medalist, World champion or senior World Record holder during the time of the athletes' notable accomplishments. Coaches that have been the official head coach of an Olympic track and field team for a country with multiple medalists. Coaches that introduced a notable technique or training method, and is widely credited as the originator. Clubs that have received major international coverage for its successes and has a résumé composed of many successful Olympians over a long period of time (e.g. Irish American Athletic Club). If a club's success is mainly due to one coach, then only the coach is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.99.208 (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: First off, there's a basic principle at hand when coming up with an entirely new set of notability criteria: have you tested various examples for each criterion to see whether the great number of people who meet it can reliably meet the GNG? A pitfall most proponents of new criteria fall into is in substituting their personal opinion of "what's important?" in their sport for this.

    This seems to be the case here. I find it far fetched, for instance, that just about any "driver" from Paralympics judo competitions could meet the GNG, never mind the great majority of them. We also have pretty stringent standards about youth competitions, because outside of certain sports such as figure skating or gymnastics where teenage performers at the highest level are common, not many participants could meet the GNG. Ravenswing 13:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

comment Well the problem is that there isn't any real criteria at the moment for Judo. Basically just GNG. MANOTE is an essay and very ambiguous. It states "Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion)" but this is often ignored. I am open to editing my proposals. There is so much ambiguity in terms of definition of highest level from NMMA to Track that I believe that some thing needs to be done in terms of Judo. 173.52.99.208 19:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • User 173.52.99.208 has been blocked for block evasion. Papaursa (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Seems reasonable to implement these as a policy.2607:FB90:5486:EDD7:96FA:D789:E002:1060 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

2607:FB90:5486:EDD7:96FA:D789:E002:1060 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I would think it is easy to agree with yourself, isn't it CrazyAces? Users notice the IP is just another block evasion by CrazyAces.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Strange that a new IP user would make their first and only edit here. Papaursa (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Criteria for notability already exist for Olympic sports like judo. There are also notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. This proposal was an attempt to change the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Andrianov. The proposed standards are clearly too broad, in that many people would pass them and yet fail to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Golf criteria for minor professional tours?[edit]

There seems to be a conflict or ambiguity in the golf criteria:

Compare item 3: "They have won at least one professional golf tournament (ex: PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, European Tour, Champions Tour)" with item 6: "They have competed as a professional on the PGA, LPGA, European, or Champions Tour for at least one full year"

Are there any full-year PGA or LPGA pros who haven't won a professional golf tournament at any level in the past? Surely they've won minor-tour tournaments in order to make it to the big tour, no?

So I'm wondering if criterion 3 should be explicitly restricted to the parenthetical tours rather than just any professional tournament.

-- Powers T 17:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Many golfers (especially young ones) haven't won as a pro but compete on a top tour. I don't think any change is needed. Tewapack (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I always think more clarification the better and I agree the ex adds needless ambiguity. I think change would be good, but not for the reason you list. Many PGA or LPGA pros are on tour, but never won as a pro. The problem is, as with many of the guidelines, is what is professional. Clearly the four tours listed are professional. I think few would argue that a win on the third tier Alps Tour or Gateway Tour would allow for a presumption of notability. Many golfers win on those tours, but never compete at the next highest tier. One could easily argue that those are more semi-pro tours. The question becomes what to do with second tier tours and women's tours. To me, I think the four men's big second tier tours (Challenge Tour, Korean Tour, OneAsia Tour, and Web.com Tour) are pro for the guideline and should be counted. I think the harder one is what to do with the women. I would think Ladies European Tour would meet WP:NGOLF (and should be added to criterion 6 as well). Harder to decide what to do with the others. This includes top tier foreign tours (ALPG Tour, China LPGA Tour, LPGA of Japan Tour, and LPGA of Korea Tour) as well as second tier tours of the major markets (Symetra Tour and LET Access Series). I would say yes to the top tier foreign tours, but no to the second tier based on the coverage I have seen. That being said, good luck getting any changes these days. Seems like lots of editors like to comment, but no one wants to actually decide what to do (BTW, I commend Tewapack for at least weighing in with a real answer even if not agreeing with me - at least its a clear answer). RonSigPi (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
My personal criteria is if a male golfer wins a tournament that earns him 12 or more OWGR points, I'll create an article for him (PGA, European, Japan, Asian, Web.com, Challenge, and upper-level Sunshine and Australasian, even some Korean and OneAsia) and an article for the tournament. For women golfers, LPGA win gets an article from me and LET maybe. For KLPGA and JLPGA they are probably many notable golfers without articles due to the sources being primarily in Korean and Japanese. (It would be easier if the Women's World Golf Ranking provided more details on tournament strength.) Seniors: Champions - yes, EST - maybe. I've also created articles for golfers for being ranked in the top-200 of the OWGR (and therefore contributing to tournament strengths by their presence or absence). I almost never create an article for a pro who hasn't won but plays a top pro tour, but I'd never AFD such an article - they'll meet GNG. Even though you may (rightly) consider the Alps Tour and its ilk as semi-pro they are now part of the OWGR and are getting more press. Again, just my personal criteria for deciding when and where to spend my time creating articles. Tewapack (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I bristle at different standards for women and men. If Web.com Tour grants presumptive notability, Symetra should too. Powers T 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not a matter of gender inequality, its a matter of general notability - see other discussions on this page (and its archives). Tewapack (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of the justification, but I feel it's insufficient. It's gender bias hiding behind existing gender bias as an excuse, and it rankles. Powers T 21:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Current criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are all gender neutral. Current criteria 3 and 6 are only different in recognition of the European competition and that is a function of coverage. I think for the proposed changes, it is for how to characterize lower level tours and that is done all the time in WP:NSPORT. The common standard is professional. Most players make a livable wage on the Web.com Tour, but that is not on the case with the Symetra Tour. Look at other sports. In Association Football/soccer, the English Football League Two is given a presumption over the League of Ireland. That is not a case of ethno-nationalism, but of league status. Same thing in rugby league. The Super League has an associated presumption, but not the USA Rugby League. Not Eurocentrism, but the fact that Super League is covered much more. The issue of how to handle minor league is addressed differently across sports. For example, the minor league American Hockey League has a number of games played for a presumption, but the same is not given for the equivalent baseball International League. I would understand your case if we were talking PGA Tour vs. LPGA Tour or U.S. Open vs. U.S. Women's Open, but once you get away from the top tier drops in quality in sports leagues can change differently. That is why the third tier Italian football/soccer Lega Pro has a presumption but the third tier Italian basketball Serie B Basket does not. RonSigPi (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, I'm aware of the justifications. But those drops in quality and popularity have different causes. In the case of different-gender leagues, it's due largely to a systemic gender bias in sports. The difference between Football League Two and the League of Ireland is not. Powers T 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)