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)
  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

international games[edit]

Do the Island Games qualify as "international multi-sport event (games)"? My own view is that they don't as it's not full nation states competing. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For the purposes of the notability (sports) criteria, I would say they are not international multi-sport events. They clearly do not rise to the level of other international competitions, so I would not assume notability based on the results of this event. Of course, players who meet WP:GNG as a result of participation in these events are still notable. ~ RobTalk 13:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no presumption of notability for participants in international championships of regional/continental scope such as the Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, or the smaller regional games and championships. Please note what the NSPORTS basic criteria says: "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." You may also want to review WP:NOLYMPICS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability of individuals for swimming/aquatics[edit]

I note that there is no current guidelines for establishing the notability of swimmers/divers, etc. Would it be fair to assume the following:

Swimmers, divers or water polo players are resumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below
  1. Has competed at the Olympics
  2. Has competed at the FINA World Aquatics Championships

Point one is already covered by WP:NOLYMPICS (as are many other sports), and point 2 seems to cover the top-level competition for the sport. Compare with competing at the IAAF World Championships for WP:NTRACK and competed at a UCI World Championships for WP:NCYC. Any thoughts/comments on this? I think it would sensible to add this to the current list of sports based on the above assumptions. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Might want to open up the second point to "Has competed at the FINA World Aquatics Championships, FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m), or the FINA World Open Water Swimming Championships (now defunct)" I think competitors in any of those would be presumed as notable. Either way, I am good with having this guideline. RonSigPi (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Extreme Cautionary Note - Uh, Lugnuts and Ron, don't you think this should have been proposed on the WikiProject Swimming talk page before it was raised here? There have been several variations of specific notability standards that have been discussed for competitive swimmers over the last two years, and the project members have generally decided that a combination of WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources), WP:NOLYMPICS ("athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games"), and the basic criteria of WP:NSPORTS ("sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)") have generally served well for swimmer notability. The last of those being interpreted as including the FINA world championships medalists (senior, not junior). Several regular WP:SWIMMING editors, including myself, believe that it is important that notability for swimmers be backstopped by GNG, i.e., that any and all swimmers deemed notable by a specific notability standard would be 95+% likely to satisfy a strict interpretation of GNG (genuinely significant coverage). We strongly believe that several of the recently amended specific notability standards for gymnasts, track and field athletes, and several others are too over-inclusive; participants in junior regional and world championships infrequently satisfy GNG with genuinely significant coverage. And, as someone who works in the area of Olympic swimmers, I can tell you frankly that it is hard enough to stitch a meaningful article together for old-time Olympic medalists, let alone Olympic participants (non-medalists) who did not advance beyond the qualifying heats. This applies even more so for swimmers who do not advance beyond the qualifying heats of the FINA championships (both long and short-course), and even more so again for non-medalists who participated in the Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, European championships, Asian Games, Southeast Asia Games, Caribbean and Central American Games, and even more so again for the junior versions of those variations games and championships, including the Youth Olympics. Bottom line: there should be significant discussion, including significant input from the members of WP:SWIMMING, before any new specific notability guideline for swimmers is considered. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't propose this, just commented as did you so please be mindful of where you are directing your 'uhs' and review WP:CIVIL. I suggest you keep the arguments on point - we are talking about the swimming notability proposal and no one else mentioned the Southeast Asian Games. If you have a concern on the believed over inclusiveness of WP:TRACK or any other sport then take it up in a more appropriate forum (such as its own section). I also suggest that you only speak for yourself and not the purported group of editors that you say you represent. One could just as easily state that a large group of editors think many of the guidelines are too restrictive (for guidance on that, see some of the fun that goes on for Association football/soccer debates). The logic goes that this is not a traditional encyclopedia with page limits so therefore having tight restrictions for notability is improper. I am in no position to make my argument on their behalf or anyone else - I just make my points for myself alone and I suggest everyone do the same.
Back to the matter at hand, I make the same two assertions I have made before in various other discussions. First, this only gives a presumption of notability - not an ironclad rule. The baseline standard is and always has been WP:GNG. Therefore, I have no problem with a world championship level athletes that represent their nation on the highest stage of major sports having the benefit of the presumption that can always be rebutted. Second, the GNG world goes well beyond typing stuff into Google. Smaller nations have less Internet presence than many large English speaking nations and obviously pre-1990s there was not Internet as we know today. If someone from an Eastern European country competed in the 1952 Olympics, then I think its a good bet that their local/national newspaper covered them. Just because it cannot be found on Google and/or its not in English does not mean the sources don't exist. We should presume they do just as newspapers and the Internet cover those athletes now. In view of this, just as with track and other sports, if you competed at the world championships of swimming, then I think you can be presumed as notable.RonSigPi (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Ron, first, it was presumptuous to propose a new NSPORTS specific notability standard without consulting the members of WP:SWIMMING. Period. My comments are civil. Period. If you think my use of "uh" is uncivil, I am sorry you are offended, but I would suggest you have to be very thin-skinned to be offended by "uh". I am speaking for myself, but I am also recounting discussions in which I was a participant; that should be clear from what I wrote. Likewise, WP:SWIMMING should have been consulted; that should also be crystal clear as a matter of consulting with the most knowledgeable editors on the subject. Nothing I said, or to which you responded, invalidates any of my comments.
As for your statement that "having tight restrictions for notability is improper," well, your statement is both wrong and misleading; we have the General Notability Guidelines, and they are what they are. GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources for stand-alone articles, and that only creates a presumption, not a guarantee of inclusion. The WP:NSPORTS specific notability guidelines for defined classes of athletes are based on the presumption that being a member of those defined classes carries with it a very high likelihood that they will satisfy GNG. When we adopt specific notability standards for athletes which lead to a high percentage of them not satisfying GNG, then those standards are, by definition, over inclusive. You're free to disagree, but those propositions are axiomatic, and are outlined in the introductions and basic criteria of GNG and NSPORTS.
As for small-country media markets, we don't make allowances: we still require significant coverage. What you suggest is at best a "gloss" on our actual guidelines. I also don't buy your underlying assumption, that non-medalist Olympic athletes (and presumptively FINA championship non-medalist participants) always receive significant coverage in their home-country media. Quite above and apart from your 1950s eastern European example, I can point to examples from the largest, most sports-hungry media market in the world, the United States, and I can provide a dozen or more examples of American swimmers who did not advance beyond the qualifying heats of the 1900s, 1910s, 1920s and 1930s Olympics for whom you can find not a single example of significant coverage in,, Google News Archive, etc. Likewise, I can point to dozens of examples of FINA championship participants (non-medalists) from the United States, Australia, Britain, Canada -- all major countries, with English language major media, and strong sporting traditions and sports media -- who did not receive anything approaching significant coverage. Hell, Ron, most participants from those English-speaking countries who did not advance beyond the qualifying heats of the 2015 FINA world championships did not receive significant coverage in their home-country or world media. The basic presumption is faulty because the significant coverage for the event does not exist for most of the non-medalist FINA participants. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but that's reality.
What has been discussed in the past is a presumption of notability for the FINA medalists and perhaps the the non-medalist event finalists. That's a viable option, but extending a presumption of notability to the B-standard qualifiers who finished in the bottom third of the first-round qualifying heats is based on the faulty assumption that significant coverage exists somewhere. It's a bad assumption. If you believe that significant coverage exists, I suggest that you pick the bottom ten finishers from the qualifying heats of each individual event at the 2015 FINA championships, and then start searching the internet for significant coverage of their participation in the 2015 qualifying heats in independent sources. Then we can talk about the meaning of "significant": it's supposed to mean more than one or two-sentence mentions.
Frankly, I don't think a specific notability standard for competitive swimmers is necessary, but I am more than willing to discuss one, and there's no harm in adopting one if it maintains existing standards. That said, if we're going through the exercise of adopting an NSPORTS SNG for swimmers, then my position is that we should not repeat the mistake of obvious over-inconclusiveness of several other NSPORTS SNGs, and it should be firmly rooted in empirical evidence that demonstrates that 95+% of the defined classes of swimmers satisfy GNG. That's what all NSPORTS SNGs are supposed to do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: I did post a message at WP:SWIMMING (here), along with a few other projects to point them in the direction of this discussion. The swimming project looks a bit dead (IMO) with only a few posts since Christmas, hence why I alerted the project to this discussion. There are currently no guidelines on notability of swimmers (that I could see), so I got the ball rolling with this. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Olympic sport World Championships/World Cups[edit]

We now have a swimming guideline proposal. One thing I have noticed is that a lot of sports have competing in their world championships as conferring a presumption of notability. Is it now to the point that we could change the last part of the second sentence in basic criteria to state:

"...for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics or World Championships/World Cup for an Olympic sport during the time of the sport being an Olympic sport)."

I think this change does a few things. First, it can remove a lot of lines from the current sports specific guidelines (see first criterion of Athletics, Figure Skating, or Gymnastics). I think the shorter and more concise guidelines can be then the better. Second, it stops the immediate need to create more guidelines for each an every sport if the sports are just going to say Olympics and World Championships. This way the community does not have to go through the effort of creating guidelines for each sport when the result is likely to be the same. Third, it takes care of some WP:CRYSTALBALL issues - e.g., when someone like Andy Hrovat qualified for the U.S. Olympic Team, one could argue that he could not get an article until he actually competes (he didn't have this happen, but I have seen these types of arguments before). This way, coverage in anticipation of the Olympics can be a bit more clear-cut for at least some top level competitors that have not actually competed. Fourth, it saves the community time. I don't see guidelines for Archery, Fencing, Judo, Weightlifting, or Ski Jumping just to name a few of many Olympic sports without guidelines. As opposed to evaluating all these sports when someone gets around to proposing them, these sports can have de facto guidelines outside of just Olympic competition.

I am aware that this is not a simple proposition. Some sports do not seem to have been addressed such as wrestling - this proposal if passed will address it for the first time. In addition, some sports appear to step away from this stance, such as triathlon or boxing (though I think specific sports reasons may be at the heart of those - triathlon being a newer Olympic sport (and the time limit I put in takes care of that) and boxing being the only sport to still have only amateurs). However, keeping in mind that these guidelines only create a presumption, I think an across the board look at the World Championships/World Cup may be in order.RonSigPi (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I think this is an ill-conceived proposal. There are many non-medalist participants in the Olympics Games -- the premier world championships in most sports -- who do not satisfy a strict application of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (i.e., significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). This is especially true with the adoption of new qualifying standards and expanded qualifying rounds of competition for "B standard" qualifiers. There are numerous examples of non-medalist participants from small countries, in sports that receive lesser degrees of media coverage, who come and go in the space of single Olympic four-year cycle that never receive significant coverage sufficient to build a meaningful biography article. This is even more so true for non-Olympic world championships. For example, qualifying heats swimmers in the FINA world swimming championships (long and short course) are highly unlikely to be notable on that basis alone. The FINA "world cup," mentioned by you, was relatively obscure, did not constitute a world championship, and non-medalists received virtually no significant coverage for their participation. And competitive swimming receives a lot more media coverage than some other sports. Personally, rather than expanding/loosening/diluting our standards for inclusion even further than we already have, I think we should be reviewing many of our existing NSPORTS specific notability guidelines to see what percentage of those subjects included thereunder actually satisfy GNG -- which is supposed be the backstop and underlying standard for all of our specific notability guidelines. Several are already grossly over-inclusive. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I simply disagree. I believe that when someone competes in the World Championships of a major sport, then we can presume that their local/national media covers them in a significant manner. As for the swimming World Cup, you are mixing discussions. I did not expressly mention the FINA World Cup, I added World Cup because typically that is what team sports call their championship. If a World Cup is not he same as a World Championship, then that part can be stricken. That is why things can be proposed, so things can be discussed and language can be improved. If the term World Cup adds events that are not intended, then say "World Championships or their equivalents" or just "World Championships" and let it be figured out as needed. Further, even if you think the guidelines are grossly over-inclusive (a point I do not agree with across the board), that is not really relevant here. A World Championship is just that - a world scale event. Adding World Championships for every sport does not mean that lower bar criterion cannot be eliminated. These are not mutually exclusive and should be discussed separately. RonSigPi (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Ron, you're free to disagree, but we don't "presume" coverage exists. We adopt specific notability standards for defined classes of subjects which we know that historically a very high percentage of class members satisfy GNG; that creates a presumption of notability under the NSPORTS specific notability guideline. This is all very basic to the operation of NSPORTS.
With regard to a new WP:NSWIMMER specific notability guideline for competitive swimmers, you have said you believe we should include all participants in the FINA championships, even those who only participated in the qualifying heats. Here's my challenge to you: find significant coverage of the bottom 20 participants (39 through 59) in the qualifying heats of women's 100-meter butterfly event at the 2015 FINA world championships. Please be prepared to demonstrate the notability of each of those 20 women athletes with multiple links to significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. And, again, by "significant" we mean more than one and two-sentence mentions. Good luck. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The reverse of that would be to take Dirngulbai Misech (for example) to AfD and see what happens. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Lugnuts, here's the Google search for "Dirngulbai Misech: six pages, 51 non-duplicate results. Most of the results are listings of her name, event and times -- in fact, there's not a single instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. The only example of anything that approaches the level of significant coverage is a from, which is a website run by several of the Pacific islands national swimming organizations, that is to say not an independent source. I regularly participate in AfDs for sports-related topics, and frankly, this article should be sent to AfD for lack of notability per GNG. And Misech is just one of 20 examples that I suggested below, most of which are red links because they're not notable. When 40 to 60% of the subjects included in a proposed specific notability guideline fail a critical GNG analysis, then it's not a very good candidate for an SNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
So you're a deletionist then! I'm clearly wasting my time trying to draft this notability guide as you clearly know better. I'll leave it in your expert hands. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You're clearly wasting your time, indeed, if you believe flinging slurs at those who disagree with you is the best way to convince folks of your good faith. Ravenswing 13:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hardly a slur based on the info already posted. You speak of good faith, but show none yourself. Brilliant! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Guys, I'm not really interested in engaging in a rhetorical exercise. I am interested in upholding the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources), and possibly in adopting an NSPORTS specific notability guideline for competitive swimmers which comports with GNG as described above. Not sure where the "deletionist" epithet is coming from; I'm hoping it's a joke of sorts, and I am happy to compare my AfD track records on sports-related topics with anyone. I believe that notable topics should be included, and non-notable topics should be excluded; that does not make me a "deletionist." It simply means I believe that our article topics should satisfy one of our core guidelines, and I would hope that Lugnuts would understand and appreciate that, given his 7+ years of experience working on Wikipedia sports-related topics. Presumably, I'm not saying anything here that he does not already understand from his own reading of the notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
So what's your opinion on this article, for example? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Well, it strikes me as a little shaky notability-wise, but I have no real experience in judging the notability of cricket players and I would not presume to make a snap judgment without reviewing the applicable specific notability guideline and 25+ of the most recent AfD hard cases for cricket players. I usually do my homework first, and I suspect that the outcome may be determined by non-internet, hard-copy references to which I don't have access. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm with Dirtlawyer: the whole premise behind SNGs like NSPORTS is that they are reliable predictors of whether a subject will meet the GNG or not, not that they hit marks of what a plurality of sports editors think are important, or whether particular sports SNGs conform to others. I rather like his challenge, and similar ones should be applied to any attempt to broaden NSPORTS language. Ravenswing 10:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q5 is this thread in a nutshell.—Bagumba (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 100% agree with Dirtlawyer1, notability alone should determine whether an article merits inclusion in Wikipedia, the guidelines should be used only in the case where the vast majority of articles of players taking part in a certain competition would be notable (such as players of the modern NBA for example). They should be cut down even further in my opinion to only include events where something like 90% at least of the participants would answer notability. Call me a deletionist if you want but I don't think stubs should even be allowed on wikipedia, they tell us nothing more than what we could find on the first page of a google search. In my eyes if you're creating an article then you should not do a half-hearted effort, if you can nothing else to write that such is an athlete that played in such competition than don't write the article, simple.

By the way, I did start an AfD for Dirngulbai Misech, perfect example of what shouldn't be on wikipedia (no notablility, no sources or research in article). --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think stubs should even be allowed on WP, then get busy with 1.92 million AfD listings. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @ArmstrongJulian: Per our notability guidelines, the question should not be whether the present condition of an article is stub-like, but whether sufficient references exist to demonstrate the subject's notability. I don't think we should digress into arguing over whether Wikipedia should permit stubs; that horse has already left the gate, and she's not coming back, so it's a very unproductive discussion to have. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD for Paulauan swimmer[edit]

As an outgrowth of the two discussion threads immediately above, the following swimming-related article has been proposed for deletion:

The participation of editors is requested. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed the non-neutral term which has already been brought to the attention of this user. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add note to WP:NFOOTBALL[edit]

As there appears to be a consensus, I propose modifying point 2 of WP:NFOOTBALL.

Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league; or in a competitive match between two teams from fully professional leagues; will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.

Hack (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)