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


This RfC was closed because of a prevailing consensus to OPPOSE the RfC and to be against a revision to established Wikipedia guidelines and rules on Notability. Future change recommendations to Wikipedia guidelines and rules, here or otherwise, should follow general policy recommendations for addressing the Paralympic Games following comparable guidelines used for the Summer Olympics and the Winter Olympics. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:53, 7 January 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.

Current language on notability of athletes includes:

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 have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan.

Should this be changed to:

Individuals who have competed at any modern Olympic Games and who have either won a medal or won at least one heat or match in their event shall generally be considered notable. Any individual winning a medal at a Paralympics may also be generally considered to be notable.

Collect (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


  • My position is in the section preceding the RfC. I find the use of "coming in dead last" (the actual example giving rise to this proposal) making anyone notable is an example of using negative publicity about an unfortunate athlete almost in a sense of shaming them. The current system makes 10,000 athletes "notable" every four years - which is more than the total number of BLPs in Category:Educators and Category:Scientists (as far as I can tell) -- every four years. By saying they must have beaten someone at the Olympics, we are not going to be too onerous at all and will allow several thousand new entries instead of 10,000 at a time. Also the named examples for the Paralympics might not be considered representative, and do not belong in this standard, in my opinion.Collect (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think it should stay as is 100%. Before explaining why, its important to remember that this just creates a presumption of notability - it's not ironclad. I also question the logic of using one athlete as the springboard for this change. Even assuming that athlete cannot be shown to meet WP:GNG that does not mean that whole standard is wrong. It simply means that one person is part of the exception to the presumption. I think any change would need a far deeper study.
Returning to why I think it should stay, as said above the Olympics are the major athletic competition - bigger than any World Cup, the Super Bowl, etc. Virtually every nation is represented and sends media to, if nothing else, cover their own athletes. For the example given, and I see two main issues that will carry throughout this debate.
First, he competed in the 2000 Summer Olympics. That was 15 years ago. While yes the Internet as we know it was around then (lets set 1996 as a start date for the Internet) it was nothing like it is today and many things posted at that time have been long taken down. The fact that there is not an Internet presence 15 years latter has little influence on a lack of notability. One of the reasons I always felt these presumptions were useful and important is that they cover what no one is doing. Has anyone actually gone through the 2000-2001 newspapers in Uganda to see if there was coverage? I am going to assume not. While one might say "just because we haven't looked doesn't mean coverage is there." Of course, but the opposite is true that because we haven't looked it does not mean the coverage absent. Since the Olympics are so big, I think we can presume that the coverage does exist. I don't think the standard should be as it has all too often become "I looked in Google and didn't find anything." For all pre-1996 athletes, about 80% of the athletes, a negative Google search will tell nothing.
Second, these types of discussion always have the stench of WP:BIAS. Its one thing for English Wikipedia to discuss Major League Baseball players, Super Rugby players, and All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship competitors. But to sit here and say "you African athlete from a nation I have never been to, native language I do not know, and culture I am unfamiliar with, you certainly are not notable" always has a rub to me. Feels like we are being high and mighty in a prejudiced manner towards other cultures and countries and simply deciding what is notable and what is not because they don't have much of an Internet presence.
If we want to discuss other sports, then that is fine. Maybe there are some guidelines that need tightened. Does finishing 3rd in the Bogotá Half Marathon really make someone notable? How about a golfer that made the cut line and bombed after the cut at the 1990 Tradition, is he notable? Is someone that played one game in the one year of the Union Association deserving of being given a presumption of notability? We can talk about any of these, but we are talking about the Olympics here. No question there should be a presumption.RonSigPi (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment on other sports: Personally I feel each Wikiproject should have input on determining notability based on sport-specific standards, as they vary so much from sport to sport. Gymnastics has a very specific notability guideline. МандичкаYO 😜 00:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - No. Being an Olympian is one of the greatest honors someone can achieve. Even NBA players who have been Olympians have said it's more prestigious to them. Anyone who is an Olympian is notable so long as we have the reliable sources confirming they competed and enough info to make at least a stub. We do not have 10,000 new bios each Olympics - the majority will already have bios because they didn't just become notable the day they entered the Olympics. Others will have articles created randomly, because people take an interest in doing so. And saying people who finish last at the Olympics shouldn't be notable is just ..... The Olympic creed is all about taking part, NOT winning. There are athletes who break their bodies and compete on torn ACLs, stress fractures in their legs, just to get a chance to say they were Olympians. Derek Redmond finished LAST in 1992 and it was one of the greatest Olympic moments of all time... Who gives an effing eff that he didn't beat anybody. МандичкаYO 😜 00:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced any change is needed; but if any change is needed, this is the wrong change. Take swimming, the sport that apparently prompted this. Winning an Olympic heat is a very suspect criterion for swimming notability because the weakest swimmers are put in the same heats; you can place very high overall and never win a heat, or you can place very low overall and still win your heat. (Eric the Eel won his heat. Yes, Eric the Eel is notable... but not for winning his heat.) Or take sailing – I don't see how this new wording could be applied to it at all.
If there are Olympians who don't meet GNG, the problem will be that they represent countries with a very small or uninterested national press; otherwise they'll get significant coverage in independent sources at home. Winning a heat or a match won't do much to solve that problem; it just makes them less likely to get international attention in the Eric the Eel way. Sideways713 (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey folks- the problem is that an absolutely un-notable person is asserted to automatically be notable by virtue of being an Olympian even though the BLP is exceedingly negative towards him entirely and to others. Ought we make "automatic notability" the rule here - or ought we find some version which would say that the "presumption" is not absolute? How would you suggest wording this to avoid the "let's shame this person who is not notable at all in any international press?" By the way, by 2000 the "technology age" was already upon us, so I find the "2000 was back in the dark ages" to be a weak position here. CSPs go back to the early 1980's - and included news services. Saying 2000 was before the Internet was pretty well established is weird at best. Collect (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Though I realize those closing article deletion requests are often ignoring this, this guidance already states that the standards specified for each sport are not absolute: they are rules of thumb to suggest that the general notability guideline can be met. Repeating this again for one area might undermine its applicability to other areas. isaacl (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: First off, I am entirely unmoved by Мандичка's panegyric about how great an honor participating in the Olympics is and the nature of the Olympic creed. Bluntly, what in the merry hell does any of that have to do with Wikipedia notability standards? (If they did, one might reasonably assert that the Olympic creed encompasses competition for the sake of honor alone, and that suggesting that a Wikipedia article is a suitable reward for the same perverts it.) Our sole criterion for judging notability standards should always be whether they are likely to accurately reflect a subject that will meet the GNG. However ... my objection above applies here: has there been any comprehensive attempt to gauge what Olympians, in which sports, at what level of competition, will reliably fail to meet the GNG? I've seen none, and that has to be the starting point before we just barge in to change the language. Ravenswing 16:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - "The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." We are basing this on the likelihood of satisfying WP:GNG. All Olympic participants will automatically receive significant coverage by virtue of their participation. There is simply too much media reporting the complete results, much less doing profiles on the individual athletes to fail to satisfy GNG. Beyond that (and the argument really shouldn't go beyond that), any athlete selected to the Olympics must have a career that leads to the selection. In rare cases, the selection process is corrupted, but wouldn't the story of the localized cronyism itself be newsworthy? The issue is in finding sources reporting the historical backstory of a selected athlete. "Prove the negative" Over years of challenges, others have made categorical statements like Collect's statement above. So far, when I have looked, they have been proven wrong. So all they have proven is "When you assume ...". They might eventually find one example that cannot be proven by deep Google (so far nobody has), but that does not win the argument. All they have proven is the inadequacy of even a methodical search. How can you, from a First World position possibly hope to understand the contents of historical third world journalism? Who are you to criticize an athlete based on their lack of exposure in media that is not relevant to their country of origin? Before a certain point in time, a lot of sources are only available on paper, in libraries, even for first world Olympic participants. You can deny the existence of that supporting material only to the point that it is discovered. We have this guideline in place to prevent the needless dance to keep re-proving the point. Joe Atuhaire is the latest example. Please save me the legwork. Accept the guideline as written. Trackinfo (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - first, this is something best handled by the Olympic Wikiproject. Just as the baseball project determined the best threshold so that it wasn't embroiled in countless notability RfC's and just as the tennis project had to make the same choices, this is an olympic project problem. Most of these olympic athletes get a lot of coverage in their respective countries. Sure some are there simply as a placeholder, but wikipedia looks at not just notability but a working implementation of the notability guidelines. Things get pretty subjective in our RfC discussions and grey areas are everywhere when so called "evidence" is brought from both sides. As it stands now this is a very easy non-arbitrary line that editors understand. The entire Olympic event is about the most notable sports event in the entire world. Heck there are several other international events like the Commonwealth Games games where many of the competitors have their own articles, some based only on their Commonwealth Games participation. That event is a pebble compared to the mountain that is the Olympics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - FIVB considers Summer Olympics as the top event, along with World Championships and World Cup. Is the first event taken in account withing the world rankings. As per volleyball, any athlete taking part have achieved the top event participation, and that notable enough. Being an olympic in any sport is a big deal from Russia or the US or South Sudan. They all will have media coverage from the official International Federation, from the official site, interantional and local news and should just met WP:GNG. Being olympic is forever, like WP:NTEMP recall. Anyone having ever participated in any olympic wears an important outcome in any sport. News will mostly cite this feature, because this is really important. Osplace 18:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Those who talk about the honor (not a notability criteria), how much they won to get there etc ignore that some Olympians are there because of political connections or just because they asked to be there (see example above of the Egyptian "ski team" member). Yes, going to the Olympics is cool, but are you truly notable just because your dad was born in Sudan and you ask to be the Sudanese luge team? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
As I noted, when the appointment is political, the person is still the subject of coverage. Nothing in the guideline states that the coverage needs to be limited to their athletic performance. The appointment to the Olympics itself brings notability to the individual both domestically and abroad. That is why all Olympians have to be notable. Trackinfo (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the political appointment getting coverage? So if Saddam Hussein put his nephew on the Iraqi track team, would there be coverage that it was a political appointment? Of course not. He'll be on the roster, but that isn't significant coverage. No, coverage doesn't have to be about their athletic achievements, nobody said it did. Making it onto a team is sometimes a matter of gaming the system. This article shows some of that[1], as does the example I gave of the Egyptian skier. Most of the argument to keep it as is hinges on the notion that there must be coverage. The fact is that if that standard disappeared, many of these people would not pass GNG if we have to actually prove the coverage. Apparently WP:V just doesn't apply if you made it on the Olympic team of some country. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a distinction between being notable and being good/talented. I do think political appointments/novelty appointments gain coverage. That is why we know about them - because they are rare/obscure. Eddie the Eagle is notable not because he was good, but because he was bad - so bad in comparison to everyone else that he gained a lot of coverage. Kwame Nkrumah-Acheampong wasn't very good, but because he was from a country that has little Winter Olympic history he got coverage. For those rare examples that someone gets to the Olympics through non-conversational and sometimes controversial means, they are usually notable for that fact alone. They may not be good, but they are notable. Therefore, they strengthen the logic for keeping the presumption. RonSigPi (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
If Saddam Hussein's nephew was on the Iraqi Olympic track team, that would definitely get lots of coverage, no matter how he got there; but in any case, even if the current guideline isn't perfect, the new guideline proposed here is worse. The suggested wording could only be sensibly applied to maybe half of the many Olympic sports; and nearly all the sports where it could be applied (tennis, most team sports etc.) are sports in which the athlete (or at least the team they play for) has to qualify for the Olympics (which is difficult and tends to receive plenty of coverage); they can't just be entered at a whim, though admittedly that was not always the case in the past. Sideways713 (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Wojdan Shaherkani, plenty of coverage about an 82 seconds judo competitor? But what is behind all this? ..."because Saudi Arabia strongly discourages women from participating in sport"... she "was invited to compete by specific invitation of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)". This is a good example, no medals, important to have it here. Osplace 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While the existing guideline may occasionally rope in someone who would otherwise fail GNG, we must remember that NSPORTS is a guideline, not a policy; here we say "presumed notable," but that is a rebuttable presumption; some losing athletes, like Eddy the Eagle or the Jamaican Bobsled Team are notable, but who remembers who won the skijoring competition back in the 20s. I think it's fine as is. Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose My understanding is that these individual notability guidelines are to help us reconcile a person, or article, with the GNG. They basically say that because a person meets this guideline they are likely to also meet the GNG. While there will always be collateral damage, usually both ways, the current wording is probably likely to have less. AIRcorn (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ravenswing's comment from November 7 asking if there is evidence that the existing guideline "will reliably fail to meet the GNG" rings true here. No evidence has been offered that there has been a problem. As others state, this is a guideline, which states that notability is presumed—not absolute—if the conditions are met. Use WP:IAR for the rare exceptions that are bound to come up on occasion.—Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nope, those people would be better served just by going with WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I've long had a problem with the idea that simply making it into the Olympics, ever, confers notability. That's essentially the same as saying that having a tiny bit part in a Hollywood movie or TV show makes you notable. It doesn't. It just makes you competent. GPG will still apply; the purpose of topical notability guidelines is not to contradict GNG, it's to provide rules of thumb that obviate the necessity to do hundreds of GNG analyses per day. We know that anyone who came in near last place in some Olympic event is not really notable on that basis. If they also happen to be notable because they're the CEO of a major company, or a top-ten recording artist, or were just convicted of being a serial killer, or (more realistically) they have a slew of national and international awards other than their Olympics appearance, then bring out the GNG analysis to buck the rule of thumb that a minor athlete doesn't get auto-notability.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - wording is fine as it is (competing at the Olympics is a fairly solid claim to notability) and if they don't meet GNG they should be be deleted anyway. GiantSnowman 20:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The training and dedication required to qualify for an Olympic event is admirable, not notable. Atsme📞📧 03:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support.  Many athletes qualify for being on their country's Olympic team simply by being in a very obscure sport and/or by being from a very small country. Simply competing in the Olympics should not automatically qualify someone as "notable." I believe the suggested change is at least a step in the right direction.
    Richard27182 (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikimandia and Trackinfo. Also this is currently at the same bar as other individual sports of an individual appearing in a notable fixture (compare with football, baseball, cricket, etc). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, basically as per Atsme, and based on my personal view that this "encyclopedia" already includes too many basically non-notable peripheral people entries and topics in far too many fields (i.e. not just sports). We need high "notability" bars across the board, IMO. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:22, 6 January 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.

Boxing clarification[edit]

In view of the discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Notability guidelines it appears some ambiguity exists on criterion #2 under WP:NBOX. In view of the result of that discussion, I am proposing the following change:

"Has fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title for of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF Latino, WBA Pan African, WBC International, or WBO European) or an affiliated organization of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated (NABO))"

While there was also some discussion on criterion #3 being changed, I think for now the focus should be making what is out there clear. RonSigPi (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this is much different from the existing criteria. It seems both generous and vague. Equating a U.S. or European championship with losing a Lichstenstein title bout seems wrong to me. There are so many organizations and titles that the previous criteria of world title bouts, while restrictive, was clear, precise, and a true indicator of notability. Jakejr (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
It is different in that addresses regional titles of the world sanctioning body. As an example, this would put the WBO Asia Pacific title on par with the OPBF title - both are major regional titles of recognized bodies, but one is more clearly part of an affiliated organization and one is less clear. The way it is currently worded, it is not clear on what to do with the WBO Asia Pacific title, so it would eliminate vagueness. Is there a specific Lichtenstein title associated with the IBF/WBA/WBC/WBO you have concern about or was that just hyperbole to illustrate you think the guideline is too broad? To my knowledge, no such title exists and the vast majority of national titles of those bodies are the U.S. and the U.K. (it might exclusively be U.S. and U.K., but I don't want to assert something I am not 100% on). RonSigPi (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
My example was hyperbole, but my concerns are not. I looked at recent boxing discussions and found national titles being used as notability indicators for boxers from New Zealand, Australia, Poland, and probably others. Jakejr (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
If the New Zealand, Australia, and Poland titles were sanctioned by IBF/WBA/WBC/WBO affiliates, then according to WP:NBOX the contenders would be considered notable. As far as I can see, New Zealand, and Poland are not, whereas Australia is a member of OPBF. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's why some people think the standards are too loose because there are too many champions. I just went to the WBA website and they currently list 42 world champions[2]! That doesn't count any champions from their 9 regional affiliates or the many national organizations under those. If you combine that with all the different boxing organizations, I think it's easy to see that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of champions at any one time--and the criteria doesn't even require winning one of those thousands of championships! Jakejr (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Since when does a number of people notable matter? WP:NAFL can introduce a presumption of hundreds of new subjects of notability each year all for a country of only about 24 million? There are currently 14 recognized golf majors per WP:NGOLF and all someone has to do is make the cut at one of them to meet the presumption. Using your logic, about 70 make the cut so every year over a thousand of golfers meet the metric. Why does a number of fighters meeting the standard matter? What matters is if it appropriate to presume coverage exists for WP:GNG purposes. Boxing is a major and worldwide sport that receives significant coverage. You called out the WBA and their 42 champions - well those champions are from about 17 different countries. That is a pretty broad base for coverage. Also, as is clear from the guideline, its not "any champion" of regional bodies, but only the full champion. This was addressed previously regarding the actual concern of too many champions (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 19#Boxing - interim titles). The problem is that there is actual vagueness in the criterion that should be clarified. RonSigPi (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If an article for a professional is created from scratch, and they have only fought for e.g. a WBA Fedelatin, IBF Pan Pacific or WBC International title, I would say that they are not yet notable enough to warrant an article. Notability should arise only when they fight for, at minimum, an interim or WBC Silver title. Or, if they already have significant amateur credentials. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

When the WP:NBOX had its last major update, consideration was given to avoid US/UK-centric, or English language restrictive notability. Consequently, of the fifty, or so, European countries (only two with English as a national language), only the national boxing titles of those organizations affiliated to the European Boxing Union (in-turn affiliated to the World Boxing Council (WBC)) are considered notable. In the intervening 2-years, I don't believe there has been the creation of massive numbers "non-notable" boxer articles on Wikipedia. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the difficulty with boxing is the hierarchy is not as clear as in, e.g. association football (soccer) which has one (albeit corrupt) world governing body (FIFA), and one administrative body per continent (Africa, Asia, Europe, North/Central America & Caribbean, Oceania, and South America). Perhaps the relative notability of boxing titles could be indicated by identifying the world-ranking of the current holder of those boxing titles; as identified by, e.g. BoxRec, and if a title hasn't been fought for a (yet to be specified) period of time, it could be considered non-notable, unless it is considered to have historical significance. We could then be prescriptive as to those titles that are considered notable, and those that are not. The downside with this could be is it is just a snapshot, a title that is currently held by a low-ranking boxer, may have been held historically by boxers of a significantly higher ranking, or vice-versa. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to use rankings to determine which titles are notable, why not just use the rankings themselves? At one time boxers had to be either ranked in the world top 10 or have fought for a world title. That was clear and consistent. Jakejr (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
1. Are the historic top-ten rankings readily available, e.g. who were the top-ten middleweights in October 1964? 2. Why does a boxer have to have fought for a world title, while a Mixed martial artist has only to have fought three professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization? The British Boxing Board of Control is a a top-tier boxing organization, but three professional fights under its auspices does not indicate notability under WP:NBOX? I'd prefer notability indicated by some percentage of BoxRec's all-time lb-for-lb, or more than a certain number of points on BoxRec's all-time lb-for-lb. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Annual rankings are available from Ring Magazine going back many years. Pound for pound rankings are incredibly subjective so why use them? I'm not saying we must limit the rankings to the top 10, my point was that we need clear guidelines and that it's very difficult to deal with the thousands of titles that the current criteria incorporates. I agree the MMA rankings are too loose, feel free to vote to toughen them in the discussion below. Jakejr (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The Ring Magazine rankings may go back many years, but their historic rankings don't appear to be available on their website, or any other site that I can find. I'm not sure the BoxRec lb-for-lb are subjective, the higher ranked the opponent is, the more points are awarded to the winner, the more bouts taken part in the more points are accrued, at whatever weight a boxer takes part in, which is more helpful for boxers who move between weights. Every boxer is in there, so why not top-2%, or those with more than 50-points? Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Boxrec has Ring's annual rankings going back to 1924.[3] Jakejr (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the links to the annual ratings. It's interesting that in the, e.g. The Ring Magazine's 1964 Annual Ratings ~ middleweights; №7 Hurricane Kid (Johnny Bird) from Samoa doesn't appear to have Wikipedia article, and wouldn't otherwise be notable under WP:NBOX. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The bar for notability of boxers is already set as one of the highest of any Notability criteria that I have read through. I believe it is unwise to raise it even further. --

Donniediamond (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Kickboxing requires a title match for a major organization or a top 10 ranking by a major independent source and there's an AfD going on for Robin Haley where it's being argued that twice finishing second at the U.S. judo championships is not enough to show notability, so I don't think boxing's notability criteria are terribly out of line with other martial arts.Astudent0 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Robin Haley was deleted. Jakejr (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
With respect to kickboxing, a sport I have a lot of respect for, it is an extremely niche sport in comparison to professional boxing. The notability for MMA is to have participated in just three fights sanctioned by a major organization. Again, whilst MMA is gaining in popularity it would be very difficult to argue that is anywhere near as big an international sport as boxing. We recently had the AfD for Maciej Sulęcki. I found really disappointing that it was deleted, but WP:NBOX was completely ignored. Are we really going to argue that he is less notable than someone at the UFC that has had three undercard fights? Again, it is my belief that when compared with the criteria for other sports, not just combat sports but sports like Baseball, Basketball, Curling or Cricket (who I have merely selected as they are either side of WP:BOX) the bar for professional boxers is way too high. I remember that the old criteria was that a pro boxer had just one professional fight and they got automatic notability, I am not advocating that we go back to that but I do think things have swung far far too much in the other way now.--Donniediamond (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to see a clearer explanation of what titles confer notability. I don't think either the current or the proposed really is clear.Astudent0 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
In the case of Maciej Sulecki, I believe he did meet the criteria for WP:NBOX №2… ' Has fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title for an affiliated organization of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g. IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated (NABO))' … as Poland is an affiliated federation of the European Boxing Union (EBU). Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
My reading would be that he did not meet WP:NBOX number 2. The national titles need to be of an affiliated organization. The Polish titles are affiliates of the affiliates. For example, in ice hockey, low level minor league hockey teams would affiliate with higher level minor league teams. For example, a United Hockey League team would affiliate with an American Hockey League team. Similarly, the American Hockey League team would be an affiliate of a National Hockey League team. However, this did not necessarily mean that the UHL team was affiliated with the NHL team. Similarly, a lower title under the EBU would not be a national title of the EBU's parent organization. However, a national title of the parent organization, such as the USBA to the IBF would be. So while I think it did not, I think you are showing the need for more clarity to WP:NBOX. RonSigPi (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
All recognized national titles in Europe are EBU affiliates that includes the BBBoC, BDB, BUI, FFB etc, not just the Polish. My reading of WP:NBOX Criteria 2 is that he does pass it, and rightly so as Criteria 2. A national champion of a major boxing country is rightly notable.
I also propose that in line with the MMA criteria, boxing should have a criteria which states that if a professional boxer has had 10 pro fights (or 10 pro wins) or more then they become automatically notable. This is in line with the logic used for the majority of other sports for which the criteria is based on playing a single game of professional Curling or Cricket. --Donniediamond (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you're a bit confused about other sports notability criteria. Other sports require competing at the highest level (see the basics at WP:NSPORT). That means baseball players must play in the major leagues, not just as a professional, and the same is true with other sports. Also, MMA requires competing at the highest tier--not just as a professional (which is what you're proposing for boxing). I do think the boxing criteria are remarkably loose and certainly confusing.Mdtemp (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not in the slightest confused. Just look that the criteria for WP:NCURL, WP:NHOCKEY, WP:NMMA to see the bar is much much lower for those sports. I understand that the 'two fight rule' for MMA effectively means two fights in the UFC now, but are we really saying that an MMA fighter with two untelevised fights on the preliminary card of a UFC Fight Night bill is more notable than a professional boxer who has is 20-0 and had a number of fights in the Premier Boxing Championship?? Because at the moment until a boxer has have fought for a significant title then they are pretty much locked out.
I realize the lack of structure in professional boxing makes it difficult to define the criteria for notability but I believe the bar for notability is highest for boxers than pretty much any other sport and it needs addressing and the bar to be lowered.--Donniediamond (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll admit I find boxing titles a bit baffling. How can one organization have multiple world champions in the same division at the same time? Even if consensus says all of these lesser titles are notable, I think that the requirement should be winning the title. Other sports, like athletics, require competitors to at least be national champions. I would make an exception for boxers who lost world title bouts. I'm beginning to understand the point of view that would eliminate SNGs and rely solely on WP:GNG for notability. Papaursa (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this type of belief goes more toward pointing out the criticisms of boxing as a sport rather than notability. The common argument is "boxing has too many titles and too many weight classes, it should go back to eight classes with one title." This has been echoed for years by the UFC on why they are superior to boxing. Fair enough to anyone's opinion, but that really does not matter to notability. The determination is on notability and that is based on type of coverage. I would also admit that I am confused by your point. At first you say the requirement would be winning the title, but then say an exception would be made to those losing the title. Then why not have fighting for a world title as the standard? RonSigPi (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
My point was that if lesser titles (national/regional) are deemed by consensus to confer notability, I would like to see the requirement be winning those titles. If finishing second at the U.S. track & field championships or U.S. judo championships is not considered enough to show notability, then why should losing a national title boxing match do it? The exception I made was for world titles, when I said I was willing to agree that merely fighting for one was enough to show notability. Have I clarified my position? Papaursa (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, now I think it is clear and I think your stance is very reasonable. RonSigPi (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Lets look at raw numbers. Their are 88 boxing world champions according to List of current world boxing champions that come from 24 different countries. Most world champions on average fight about twice a year. So that means each year, at best, 176 challengers would become notable under SNG if this were limited to just title fights (and that assumes all 176 fighters have never challenged before). By contrast, nation specific sports such as Australian rules football and Canadian football would only be able to produce 7 notable athletes under SNG (1/24th of 176). The numbers would be lower if we tracked all the nations of world title challengers (e.g., that include nations not already on the 24, such as Australia). This shows how strict only world title bouts would be for SNG. Add the fact that similar to tennis and athletics, boxing truly is a worldwide sport (note the 24 nations). Further, boxing is a major sport - it is in the Olympics and its superstar athletes are as notable as any other sport. One could easily say Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson are in the same breath as Pele, Michael Jordan, and Tiger Woods for notability. This is also more historical - look at comparisons of Babe Ruth, Jack Dempsey, and Red Grange. Plain and simple, without regional titles or something outside of just world title fight, boxing would be FAR tighter than other sports.
So why this all matter? This matters because in 24+ nations boxing is being covered - and covered extensively. Examples in English include sports specific sites such as ESPN and BBC Sports as well as boxing specific pages such as Boxing News and Ring Magazine (I will not go outside of English in view of WP:BIAS). That means very extensive coverage exists for fighters in the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. This coverage does not go just to world title holders, but to other fighters not fighting for world titles. For an example, just look at what some of these sites produce each day (especially the boxing specific ones).
For context, let's look at track/athletics. They allow many regional and similar competitions to count while still being "at the highest level." So a bronze medalist in the Asian Games (a regional competition) is notable, but someone who fights for a world title might not be? Also, athletics crowns multiple world champions - one in indoor, one in outdoor, a golden league champion, and an Olympic champion. How is that significantly different that four light heavyweight champions? The guy finishing 3rd in the Ottawa 10K is notable (not even an Olympic event), but a Canadian fighter that fighting on HBO that wins the NABF title would not be? I just don't see how a sport with the worldwide reach of boxing, an in turn the worldwide coverage, can be forced into such restricted SNG (or worse yet, not have any). The only reason I see is that people want to knock boxing's ills (e.g., too many titles, UFC is better, etc.) and ignore its reach and coverage. I cannot see how the community can downplay a sport with such a worldwide reach, historical and current relevance, and and clear coverage. RonSigPi (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

MMA fighter notability proposal[edit]

I moved this discussion here from WT:MMA. Jakejr (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the notability criteria for MMA fighters be changed slightly--from having 3 top tier fights to having 2 top tier wins. This would require that to be notable fighters must have shown the ability to compete at the highest level instead of just being signed to fill up fight cards. Fighting for a top tier championship would still show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I like this change, but perhaps we could also add the criteria that any world top 10 fighter (say, by Sherdog) would also be considered notable. That would bring this criteria in line with the criteria for boxers and kickboxers. Papaursa (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm willing to go with Papaursa's suggestion. It makes even more sense when you look at his comment at my proposal for the notability of MMA orgs. Here is the proposal as I now see it.

Proposed Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they

   1. Have won at least two (2) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or
   2. Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization; or 
   3. Have been ranked in the world top 10 by Sherdog (other rankings can be added after discussion at WT:MMA). 

Mdtemp (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse This means notability will go to those who have shown the ability to successfully compete at the highest level and brings the notability criteria more in line with other fighting sports. Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is very exclusive and underepresents MMA when comparing to other sports such as the NFL, NBA or MLB where people are assumed notable if they played in just 1 game! CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
MMA is a minor sport compared to the ones you mention, so applying the same criteria doesn't make sense. Jakejr (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
A big difference between MMA and the three sports mentioned is the coverage of "up and coming" athletes. If someone plays one game in the NFL or NBA, then that means they likely had extensive college careers that produced significant coverage. Same can be said for MLB players and their minor league systems/the towns they played AAA and AA ball in. Unless you can show otherwise, I have not seen that kind of up and coming coverage for MMA athletes before they reach the top tier. Therefore, I think you need a few fights to presume that such coverage exists. RonSigPi (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually the only sports to not have a "actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition" criteria listed are Boxing, Horse racing, Kickboxing, Mixed martial arts, and Triathlon. Every other sport listed has a criteria that does not require a victory or specific number of times they need to have participated, only that they have once meet the criteria. Kevlar (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse Showing an ability to compete at the highest level seems like a reasonable standard for notability and in keeping with the spirit of WP:NSPORTS. Jakejr (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's put it to the test - @Mdtemp and Jakejr: Can you provide four or five examples of MMA fighters who satisfy the minimum requirements of each of the three proposed criteria above, so we may compare the coverage for each of the examples under the WP:GNG criteria? Also, I would not support any language that permits a WikiProject to unilaterally change the NSPORTS SNG for its sport, such as the parenthetical language in criterion no. 3 above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse: Sounds quite reasonable, although I've no objection to Dirtlawyer's test. As far as Dirtlawyer's other suggestion goes, I see no merit at all in a restriction requiring editors with limited to no knowledge of MMA to pass judgment on the accuracy and sport-wide acceptance of MMA sources, and am entirely comfortable with the decision resting with those actually knowledgeable in the sport. Ravenswing 06:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we have a reasonable demonstration that the proposed SNG criteria render similar results to an analysis under the GNG criteria. WP:MMA has had repeated problems with attempting to gain acceptance for their project-level notability standards at AfD. As for the attempt to incorporate by reference any future change that the WP:MMA editors may come up with in the future, we would not accept any such future changes without review by any other sports WikiProjects, either. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not my proposal, but I have no problem with just using Sherdog. I assume Mdtemp was just laying the foundation in case Sherdog stops ranking fighters. The proposed criteria are more restrictive than the existing ones that were already approved here and are currently in use, so the GNG issue is already addressed. Anyone meeting the GNG is notable and doesn't need any SNG. Am I wrong about that? Jakejr (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this proposal takes into consideration the sort of fighters that some may be matched with. So you could have 1 fighter in Bellator or Pride who loses 3 times because his opponent was better and didn't win until his 5th fight also seems like the rule would not have any consistency as it would vary from fighter to fighter. I think the current rules are better because it makes it clear if a major organisation keeps someone for 3 fights, then they are notable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
How does requiring two wins "vary from fighter to fighter"? Fighters new to an organization usually get paired against each other and are often signed for 3 to 5 fight contracts. Requiring two wins against their peers seems fair, consistent, and objective as well as showing the talent to compete at the highest level. Jakejr (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • endorse A toughening up of the MMA notability criteria would bring them more in line with other martial arts and would also seem to help bring this notability criteria more in line with WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not opposed to change but I would like to point out that the proposed guidelines are uniquie or different from the 26 other sports listed in 3 ways. The "this page in a nutshell" states that: 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... A: Right now of the 26 sports listed only 5 (Boxing, Horse racing, Kickboxing, Mixed martial arts, and Triathlon) require that you participate more than once at the highest level. B: Mixed Martial Arts would be the only sport that required you to win at the highest level, not just participate. C: Of the 26 sports listed only 6 (Athletics, Boxing, Cycling, Horse racing, Kickboxing, Sumo). Maybe one solution would be to create a sub group of "Combat Sports" within WP:NSPORT with it's own "this section in a nutshell" that reads something like: A combat sport athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has won 2 or more matches major professional competition, has been ranked in an appropriate "top 10" list, or won a significant honor, as listed on this page... On a side note, of the sports that have wikigroups Mixed Martial Arts already has the lowest total number of articles at 3625, the next lowest would be Figure skating with 4460 total articles. Kevlar (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, having the fewest articles out of that set makes sense given MMA is one of the youngest sports on the list, in most cases by a matter of decades or centuries. Resolute 17:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • What was point C? RonSigPi (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Often times with sports 'notability' is equated to 'good.' One can be bad and notable. In MMA most fighters are not covered on their own, but in the context of their fights (previews, fight summaries, 'who will they fight next', etc.). The coverage focuses on both fighters - winner and loser. I don't see a fighters that win gaining that much more coverage than a fighter that loses. As the guidelines stand now, if you fight 3 times we presume enough coverage exists. I don't see how winning two fights would be that different from losing two - coverage is generated from two fights. Winning those fights may mean someone is better than someone that loses two, but I don't see them becoming more notable. If the guidelines need changed, then I am open to it. However, I don't think making the metric based on winning or losing for a sport with the structure of MMA makes sense. RonSigPi (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that if someone is bad, then notability needs to be achieved through WP:GNG not any SNG. There are boxers who were found notable because they became notable for being little more than a warm punching bag, but that was through GNG not WP:NBOX. I would also disagree with your statement that winning doesn't make someone more notable than losing--winners will almost always receive more coverage, especially in the long run. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment If this proposal is defeated, then the current SNG will still be in use. Those who oppose the new criteria range from CrazyAces489 who has proposed multiple times that MMA fighters can become notable without fighting at the highest level (something I see as definitely contradicting the basic premise of WP:NSPORT) to Dirtlawyer1 who wants proof that the new criteria would be essentially equivalent to WP:GNG. I appreciate this view, although I suspect that SNGs came into being because it was difficult for certain fields to show the GNG was met. However, it seems to me that the new standards for MMA fighters would be more likely to align the GNG and SNG, than using the current standards. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it counts for anything, but the majority of editors involved with MMA topics who voted endorsed this change.Mdtemp (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Endorse I also think 'Holds, or has previously held, a belt in a second-tier organisation.' would be make a mixed martial artist notable. Zaostao (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said earlier, claiming notability for success at a second tier organization has never been accepted for MMA fighters and seems directly at odds with the basic criteria at WP:NSPORT which says "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". BY definition competing in second tier events is not competing at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Papaursa: Reaching the pinnacle of a second-tier organisation makes a mixed martial artist more notable than being a nobody who went 1-2 or even 0-3 in a top-tier organisation considering MMA is an individual sport. For example, this will obviously seem biased since I am using a draft I have created as an example but, compare Eric Reynolds and Draft:Justin Gaethje. It is clear which athlete is of greater notability outside of some arbitrary notability guidelines. Zaostao (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe you've made my point as to why the new criteria are better. Under them, Reynolds would not be notable because he hasn't won two top tier fights but Gaethje would be as a top 10 ranked fighter. Papaursa (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disputed changes to WP:NCRIC (notability, cricket)[edit]

I changed that part (diff, giving reasons for removal in the summary. It was reverted quickly because it had not been discussed, but 'no arguments were made against the removal. (diff). The material removed was based on a term that is not strictly defined(Major cricket) and was possibly too inclusive, as many players with few first-class cricket matches have likely no coverage beyond some statistics databases (and those usually do not constitute significant coverage) .--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you point to where you've discussed this with the cricket project? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I am discussing this right here, where it belongs, and members of the cricket project can partipiciate in this discussion. Where is the problem?--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I never said there was a problem, but the assumption of you making such a change would mean you've already discussed it at length with those concerned. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
In my addition, I included a mention and a link of WP:BOLD to indicate that I did not partipiciate in any previous discussions, and I never intended to re-revert if I would be reverted(that was someone else). This discussion, however, should be continued on my talk page if you have further comments regarding my behaviour in editing this page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse change. The current version promotes the creation of articles based entirely on bare statistical entries. As demonstrated in a recent AfD, there is a problem with stats sites getting the identity of obscure players wrong. They can occasionally conflate two players with similar names, or divide someone who's played for multiple teams into two apparently distinct people. This means problems regarding our verifiability and biographies of living people policies. I think any notability guideline for cricketers should demand at least some prose in the sources, so that we can have some confidence of getting the player's identity right. Reyk YO! 14:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cricket notability has been discussed many times at the Cricket Project over the past 10 years and more to my knowledge, with widespread participation and many differing views. For editors who have never before seen fit to participate in those discussions to seek to alter the whole basis of the project without informing the project on the project talk page seems to me to be highly discourteous. Johnlp (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure sparing the feelings of a wikiproject's participants is reason to avoid concerns over Wikipedia-wide policies like WP:V and WP:BLP. After all, the Cricket wikiproject does not own this disputed guideline. Reyk YO! 14:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)WP:CANVASS forbids me sending alert messages to groups that I think to have a predetermined opinion on this matter. This edit indicated that this might be the case.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    In addition, there has been not a single argument directed against this change directly at all.--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm talking about common courtesy here, another policy that I thought was meant to be Wikipedia-wide. Johnlp (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    Hang on here, Müdigkeit -- are you seriously suggesting that you declined to notify the cricket WikiProject that you were unilaterally changing cricket notability criteria due to fears of a CANVASS violation?? At the most charitable, that's a profound misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS. As far as arguments directed against the change, you made that first change just eight hours ago during the holiday season. Is there some deadline for comments of which we should be made aware? Ravenswing 15:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    No, there is no deadline. However, I would have expected arguments right at the time of the revert, because reverts should normally be followed by reasons beyond "no discussion"(which is no argument against a change at all, per WP:BOLD.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Leaving aside the sheer highhandedness of unilateral changes to notability criteria because you're not enthused by the result of a contentious AfD -- behavior I hope and trust won't be repeated -- cricket is hardly the only sport on the NSPORTS list where notability is considerably more complex than can be expressed in an NSPORTS soundbite (as witness the lengthy exposition at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket#Notability_criteria_guideline_for_article_inclusion), and something better understood by those knowledgeable in the sport than the average drive-by editor. I agree with Reyk that notability criteria is generally too loose for sports figures, and that lacking substantive biographical information beyond a player having played a single match in 1854 should mean that an article cannot be sustained. It does not therefore follow that the cricket WikiProject cannot be trusted to have a voice in cricket notability criteria, and I'm startled at the implication that an editor who apparently knows nothing about cricket believes himself better equipped to set notability criteria for the sport than those who do. Ravenswing 14:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
    What of these changes I made do you not want and why? I am open to discussion, and if you think that the criteria should be changed, but not in the way I did, please make your suggestions.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
What I think is that you should head on over to the WP:CRIN talk page and open a dialogue there with what portions of their commentary you disagree and how you think they ought to be changed. So far, it doesn't appear that you've attempted to do so, and given that you haven't made a single constructive articlespace edit in cricket-related articles to date, I'd be ready in your shoes to defend your qualifications to do so. (I admit concern that in all that time you have fewer than 300 edits to articlespace, the great majority of which is tagging of articles you've AfDed.) Ravenswing 16:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The cricket notability guidelines, surely, should not be the "whole basis" of WikiProject Cricket; if they are, then that basis badly needs altering. The cricket notability guidelines, like all sport-specific guidelines, should reflect the general, Wikipedia-wide basis (WP:GNG) and not try to create a new one.
Going back to 1697 (the starting year of the existing guideline) and looking at the article on cricket's early history, one match from that year is mentioned; it doesn't seem to even be known which teams played in that match, so the notability of the individual players on those teams (or the umpire) based on their appearance in that match seems very dubious to me.
That said, while WikiProject Cricket editors don't own the cricket notability guideline, they are undoubtedly better placed than most others here (and certainly better placed than me) to estimate what is likely to make a cricket figure meet GNG. Sideways713 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I am going to echo Sideways here. It is not about ownership. We should be wiser to defer to people who are experts in a particular field. To go against commonly held opinions (as expressed over a decade) goes against wikipedia principle. and would need some overwhelming rationale to overturn it. Trackinfo (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry. Not the "whole basis", indeed. But a fairly fundamental part of the project, and one that has been endlessly discussed on its talk page over the years. Johnlp (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC).
Sideways713The reason for using 1697 as the startpoint is that the match in question is clearly not village cricket (i.e., minor standard) and is the earliest known major or "great match" (as the report says). We know of only two players who were active at that time: one is the Duke of Richmond who was principally a patron, the other is William Bedle who probably did not play in this particular game. Research into early cricket is ongoing and information is being rediscovered. It is unlikely, given constraints on sports reporting before the 1730s, that we will discover much more about early players than we know already but the possibility exists and so we need a startpoint, based on current knowledge, for the standard of cricket necessary to meet the SNG. We know that a match which is classified as "great", "important", "major" or (the equivalent of the post-1894 official term) "first-class" was played in 1697 so that is the date we have agreed at CRIC to use in WP:CRIN which is the basis of NCRIC. If you wish to recommend a different date then by all means do so but I think you will have difficulty deciding on one that is suitable without being exclusive. Hope this helps. Jack | talk page 10:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This change is under inclusive. It amounts to saying that no number of such cricket matches can indicate notability, even if that number is large, since it rips out the entire criteria instead of modifying it. I am particularly not impressed by alleged counter-examples from LEDCs where languages other than English are spoken, because notability depends on the existence of sources, not on our ability to find them. I strongly oppose any attempt to use notability as a vehicle for imposing BLP sourcing requirements on dead people to whom BLP does not apply. If we had to be confident that we are not conflating two long dead people, we would not be able to have an article on Homer! So that can't be right. James500 (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The bone of contention here is the cricketer currently at AfD, not if the benchmark/sources for cricket biographies are "good" enough. All the sources are created by humans, and as such can lead to issues, errors or conflicts between reliable sources. There's no doubt the person in question did play, but do two current sources have a mis-match of info? To then say that "major cricket" can't be defined and should be removed is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And as a side note, thanks to James for linking to the article on Homer. From the second paragraph - "When he lived, as well as whether he lived at all, is unknown." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change to NCRIC. Müdigkeit complains that no arguments were made against the removal, but his remaining 2 point criteria focuses entirely on associate/affiliate country cricketers. Almost all of whom, despite playing for their national team, actually have even less notability than most players of "major cricket" due to cricket being ignored by most people in those associate/affiliate countries. Hence we'd be left with a guideline that doesn't cover virtually every player from any of the major cricket playing countries!
In my opinion, the criteria doesn't need to be changed at all. What needs clarifying is the age-old disagreement over whether GNG trumps/outranks/overrules NSPORTS or vice versa. And we all know that views on that are generally split and entrenched. The-Pope (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that analysis - and given the entrenchment of views nothing short of an RfC is going to even come remotely close to helping - in all probability that's also a complete waste of time. But, yes, it's the interpretation of how sport specific criteria in general need to be applied which is the problem. To my mind that's simple (the FAQ at the top of the page with WP:NCRIC on it is very clear about the point you make) but I appear to be in a minority and will probably just give up bothering. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal. As it is, Major cricket is admittedly undefined. Without that, we fall to the WP:GNG absent one of the other criteria. I would support a list of particular leagues instead since "major cricket" tells us nothing at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC
  • That is a completely false statement. Since the 1940s, "major cricket" is very well defined by the ICC and other controlling bodies. It is a just shorthand for first class, List A and official twenty20 games. Prior to the 1940s it is less well defined, but all games have been retrospectively allocated as either first class or not by the controlling bodies or statistical societies. The definition of major cricket should in no way be questioned. I think we have a cultural misunderstanding issue regarding the explanations on the major cricket page, between the understated British/academic way of being cautious in definitions, rather than the brash certainty which is the American way. The-Pope (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The-Pope Could you provide some links to the ICC or other controlling bodies using and defining the term "major cricket"? For the life of me, I've never been able to find any. Harrias talk 07:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't, because, as I explained above, and Jack did below, make cricket is a shorthand single term to cover the modern 3 types of cricket (6 including internationals) as well as the historic games that have been now considered first class. Up until now, it was a very convenient short cut that most people easily understood. The-Pope (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The-Pope Harrias Guys, I think we ought to discuss this point over at WT:CRIC. "Major cricket" now is a loose term only as was "first-class cricket" before 1895. Using "first-class cricket" in the criterion would be strictly incorrect as it is a particular form of the sport (i.e., double innings, eleven-a-side, at least three days, etc.) and it did not exist officially before 1895. The SNG must also encompass pre-1895 cricket of what was de facto "first-class standard", historic single wicket, modern limited overs matches known statistically as List A and top-class Twenty20. It is a difficult point but the loose term major cricket does encapsulate all the requirements. I will raise a discussion at CRIC and the outcome of that may have a bearing on this one. Jack | talk page 10:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per James500: removing the points suggested more or less defeat the purpose of having NCRIC in the first place. The players that are covered by the points left are minor international cricketers, playing at what is generally a lower and less notable level than most domestic players. I don't like the use of "major cricket" which is a term I've never come across outside of Wikipedia, but there is no easy way to define matches otherwise, so I'm unsure what alternative could be used. Harrias talk 07:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Removing the key sentence means that only cricketers who have played in a ICC World Cup Qualifier or an ICC Trophy final a World Cricket League match are notable. It would mean that all other major players, including those who have taken part in Test, LOI and T20I as well as first-class and so-called List A matches, should have their articles in AfD. If there is to be a review of NCRIC with a view to preventing articles about the one game only players, discussion needs to focus on the wording of the key statement itself: "A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". The term "major cricket" is essential because "first-class cricket" is an officially defined form of the game that began in 1895 and therefore excludes all major matches before then as well as excluding limited overs and Twenty20 matches played by major teams. The term does not itself have an official definition but if you read the article carefully you will see that the sources include ECB and MCC who do use the term in a semi-official way. The problem which opponents of NCRIC have is fundamentally about the "one match" criterion. So, should it be two matches, ten matches, 857 matches or what? One match does the job because it sets the standard: this man or woman was good enough to play in a major cricket match of whatever type and so has met that standard. Jack | talk page 08:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, your first point is based on a false assumption that only the SNG carries weight. Even if this change happened, most articles would be safe, based on GNG. Harrias talk 09:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course, thanks for clarifying that. The change would, however, make a total nonsense of the SNG. Jack | talk page 09:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Harrias talk 09:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - my views on the Major cricket article are established and I see no official or even semi-official use of the term that makes it useful. For what it's worth the ICC does a pretty good job of defining Official Cricket (PDF). Given WP:NFOOTY I would think that a less ambiguous way of defining what constitutes a "major" cricket match might be worth considering and, given the ICC. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Blue Square Thing, you're missing an important point. The ICC's Official Cricket dates from 1947 only (current version is dated 2010) when they defined "first-class cricket" globally (it already existed officially in GB from 1895). Their definition of first-class cricket includes the express ruling that it has "no retrospective effect". Therefore, there was no first-class cricket before 1895 in GB or before 1947 elsewhere. There was cricket of the same standard, of course, but it was not "first-class" because it was not officially so. Therefore, we have to rely on loose terminology within substantial sources to determine which earlier matches meet that standard. The loose terms in use in GB before 1895 included "great", "important", "major", "top-class" and "first-class". Like many other people and organisations, including ECB and MCC, we use "major cricket" as a convenient term to signify which matches including those which are officially first-class were played at the highest international or domestic standard. I suggest you join the discussion which I've launched at WT:CRIC to try and resolve this wording issue. Jack | talk page 11:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. I've launched a discussion about this at WT:CRIC as input is needed from the cricket project which created WP:CRIN and, thereby, WP:NCRIC. Interestingly, the opening criterion at CRIN is worded differently to that at NCRIC although, strictly speaking, it has the same meaning. At present, CRIN begins with:
(The) following guidelines for notability of a cricket person to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia:
  • has appeared in at least one cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire, played at the highest international or domestic level (for convenience referred to as a major cricket match)
Conversely, NCRIC opens with:
A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she:
  1. has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire
NCRIC is missing the essential point that the match played was "at the highest international or domestic level" and does not qualify the term "major cricket" as "for convenience only". Would it help if we replace the NCRIC line with the CRIN one? Jack | talk page 12:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Wrong venue I think this should be properly discussed at the Cricket WikiProject, not here. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Anyone interested should go to this discussion. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 13:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that the main discussion should be held at WP:CRIC, but it's also important to recognise that there are two inter-related issues here. One is a NCRIC/CRIN definition/description of major cricket to include pre-1895 and in terms that non-cricket people can readily understand; the other is the long-standing practice that all players who have appeared in a major cricket match qualify as notable under NSPORTS. The second part of this isn't just a cricket issue: there are other sports such as baseball and football where the NSPORTS criteria similarly confer notability on individuals with limited careers and often limited information. I note that the instigator of this discussion has put Hillebrand (baseball) up for AfD: this is the baseball player I cited a couple of times in the Perera AfD as pretty analogous in terms of short career and sketchy details. The result of that AfD may bring us back here to discuss NCRIC within a broader context of NSPORTS; and in any case it's worth keeping an eye on this page in the mean time.Johnlp (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
John, I think reference to a similar case in another sport is an excellent approach. As you say, this discussion is not just about NCRIC. It impacts probably the whole of NSPORTS. Re football, the last paragraph of NCRIC is actually based on NFOOTY. I added it a few months ago after we had a plethora of u-19 players going to AfD and I thought the NFOOTY wording fitted the bill for us too. Jack | talk page 07:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Note. With the Hillebrand AfD re NBASE now in progress and given that part of NCRIC was derived from NFOOTY, this discussion is adopting a broader scope and I think the baseball and football projects, at least, should be aware of it as it may ultimately impact their SNG definitions. I will write to those projects and invite them to take part. If anyone wishes to invite other sports projects, please do. Jack | talk page 07:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe there was a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BOLD by the editor who unilaterally changed NCRIC. For changes to an individual article, being BOLD is perfectly acceptable. For changes to notability guidelines, being BOLD is not acceptable; any changes to such guidelines require the consensus of the community and of any concerned WikiProjects. I agree that the standards of some sport-specific guidelines may not be strict enough, but NSPORT does include the caveat that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept" (emphasis original), and several articles on association football players have been deleted even though they technically met NFOOTY but had a career which spanned only a few games in a fully-professional league. There is a discussion currently ongoing at WT:CRICKET regarding the wording of NCRIC, so I will make this my last comment here unless pinged. — Jkudlick tcs 01:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Development. Despite the best efforts of Müdigkeit, who was completely unsupported, the result of the Hillebrand AfD (see comments above) was a resounding "snow keep". One interesting contribution was a reference to WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, which states: "Athletes and other sportspersons are subject to outcomes which vary according to the sport in question. In general, professional athletes in major sports are always kept, players who fail to play in top level professional leagues are often deleted. Participants in sports at a national level are more likely to be kept as notable than participants at a local level. The notability standard for athletes is Wikipedia:Notability (sports)". Meanwhile, the discussion at WT:CRIC continues and we have set a deadline of Sunday, 17 January, when we will bring a proposal back here based on a new definition for WP:CRIN. Jack | talk page 05:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The time limit on the discussion at WP:CRIC has been reached and a new wording has been adopted for WP:CRIN which takes into account many of the points raised above. The key sentences in this wording have been used to update WP:NCRIC. It is essential that CRIN and NCRIC are in synch. Jack | talk page 15:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Boxing proposal[edit]

For criterion number 2, in view of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Boxing clarification I propose the following:


A boxer is presumed notable if he or she:

2. Has won a regular/full top-level non-world title for an affiliated organization of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g. IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated (NABO)). This includes regional titles of major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF Latino, WBA Pan African, WBC International, or WBO European). This does not include lower titles or regional organizations (e.g. the NABA is included since the NABA is directly affiliated with the WBA, but the NABA-USA title is not since it is a lower title of the affiliated organization). This also does not include national titles that are only directly affiliated with the affiliated organization and not the major sanctioning body itself (e.g., the BBBofC English title would count as the BBBofC is directly affiliated with the WBC, but the Boxing Union of Ireland title would not as the Boxing Union of Ireland is only directly affiliated with the European Boxing Union and not the WBC or WBA itself).

RonSigPi (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Endorse I think this meets the middle ground and the overall consensus. Clearly world title bout fighters are notable. Even with four sanctioning bodies and the WBA awarding commonly 2-3 titles per weight (something they will stop doing soon - see [4]) its of little those fighters are notable. However, due to the number of regional titles, the de-centralized nature of the sport, and the difficulty in obtaining and evaluating non-English sources in a worldwide sport the current criteria was causing confusion. This makes it more clear what titles count (e.g., see [5] for WBC affiliated organizations). It also takes out the more liberal reading, so that way every nation that awards a title does not confer a presumption of notability. It also requires winning the title, a requirement some thought would be best considering the overall number of titles. I think it takes care of most of the reasonable concerns raised. RonSigPi (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The guideline is already too restrictive and this appears to make it even more so. In terms of British boxing, many boxers are notable who don't get to fight for a British title or higher. This effect of this change appears to be to limit notability to those that won British titles. This is out of step with the guidelines for every other major sport. Many British boxers who never get to fight for a British title get plenty of coverage, are 'well known' enough to be included, but this guideline would suggest we only accept the national champions, completely out of keeping with the guidelines for other major sports such as rugby, football, cricket, etc., none of which require subjects to be 'world class'. --Michig (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Just because it needs said, the guidelines are not a death sentence for notability (though many editors treat it as such). If someone does not meet WP:NBOX, then all one has to do is show WP:GNG is met. If a well covered British fighter never wins (or fights for if my proposal is broadened) the British BBBofC title, then they just means WP:GNG need to establish notability as opposed to relying on the presumption. Again, I agree what I proposed is restrictive (more so than I would have liked), but I thought it started at capturing the overall consensus. I may be wrong. RonSigPi (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. That will just result in muddying already muddy waters. I agree with much of what Michig has stated above, why hold the bar for notability of boxers higher than any other comparable major international sport?
Also the BBBofC English title is a regional title to the BBBofC British title and I wouldn't necessarily consider that you obtain notability by winning that and the Boxing Union of Ireland title is a full national title and affiliated to both the EBU and the WBA which I would consider automatically notable. RonSigPi's proposal seems to be suggesting the opposite.
Let’s say that each of the four sanctioning organizations have on average 10 title holders at one time between World, Interim, Intercontinental, International and Continental titles over the 17 weight classes that is a total of 680 notable boxers at any one time. The reality is that it will be much less more like 4-500 when you take into consideration vacant titles and boxers who hold more than one title at the time. By comparison look at the FOURTH tier of English soccer alone, who all gain automatic notability for playing one single game in that league, that one strata of one football league in one country have more automatically notable participants per season than the totality of global boxing. Just let the sheers numbers of that seep in for a moment.
I’m sure I have more to say on the issue but raising the bar higher for notability for a sport that ALREADY has the highest bar for notability of any major established sport seems a bit bonkers to me. My thoughts would be to simplify the boxing’s notability criteria to a more inclusive level and if there are queries over notability after that then let WP:GNG sort it out. --Donniediamond (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Because I linked the Football League Two, out of interest I then clicked on the link to the league and picked a team at random and found an article about Aidan Hawtin. He has played ONE game for Oxford United, so I looked at the match report for the game and he played ONE minute of that game. ONE minute in ONE game of the FOURTH tier of soccer in England = automatic notability. Compare that the current AfD for Ahmed Elbiali, a 14:0 pro boxer, who previously fought in the World Series of Boxing and is now signed with the most powerful promoter in professional boxing - that AfD currently has 4:3 'votes' in favour for deletion. Something is wrong here and the balance is out of kilter.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
That indicates a problem with Football as much as anything else (classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Also members of team sports is not really a comparable metric. If we are to compare one should consider other individual sports and more specifically other fighting sports. Compared to kickboxing or MMA for example I don't think the bar for boxing is much higher - all aim for the principle of competing at the highest level and there has to be some indicator that an individual is actually doing that. A undefeated record does not do that - just means his promoter is doing his job, nor does it matter who their promoter is. Title fights really are the best option for boxing.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
We should be aiming for a balanced coverage of different sports across the project. I agree that the football, cricket, American football (etc.) guidelines can be too inclusive at times but they have a pragmatic approach which avoids time discussing hundreds of articles at AfD. Boxing is *nothing* like kickboxing and MMA - they are not mainstream international sports in the way boxing is. Anyone who gets close to fighting for a national title in one of the major boxing nations is going to be notable enough for inclusion, and even being ranked in the top 10 in some of these countries will pretty much guarantee enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. There are plenty of boxers whose careers don't really get anywhere - we should exclude those unless there's some other good reason for inclusion, but this proposal sets the bar way too high. --Michig (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes Peter, other stuff exists. How does one determine where to set the bar without comparison to other bars? Is it reasonable to sweep an argument aside by quoting a shortcut to an essay? As for your comparison to other sports - 1. Kickboxing is such a niche sport it is impossible to compare to boxing, you might as well compare tennis to real tennis. As for MMA, three fights, even three losses, on an untelevised portion of a UFC undercard gets you past WP:NMMA. I would hardly consider that a higher bar than for boxing. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yet both define what top level competition is and neither use number of overall professional fights understanding full well that getting paid to fight is not a key to notability. The argument for notability above revolves around which titles indicate competition at the highest levels. Some regional titles do, some don't. Amateur national titles do a reasonable job, professional less so. I would like to see the criteria clarified for regional and national titles and am not to bothered if there is some loosening or tightening. I am not opposing or endorsing the above but again would certainly want some indication what is meant by top-level competition.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Yet 'getting paid to play soccer is a key to notability', even if it was just once, and for a single minute.
Today I quickly drafted a new notability criteria for boxing HERE. I would really welcome some feedback on it in it's talk page before I officially propose it.--Donniediamond (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that's better but there will still be a lot of boxers who are notable and worthy of inclusion that don't meet any of those criteria. --Michig (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree Michig but it is a step in the right direction. What or who have you got in mind and how could these be included?--Donniediamond (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I think both are not great options. For A, point 2 is a moving target. Someone isn't presumed notable now, but if tomorrow his countryman fights for a world title that would change the presumption? Similarly, if someone fights for a title tomorrow from a country that never had someone fight before, than someone all the way back to the 1960s all of a sudden becomes presumed notable? Under that logic Oswald Sampson [6] and Oxley Agard [7] are presumed notable due to the success of Andrew Lewis fighting 50+ years later. Seems like a very far reach. I think we need a relatively fixed standard. For B, the way rankings are manipulated I think you would get a lot of fighters not notable presumed as such and likewise lose a presumption for an even larger number of fighters that should be presumed notable. I think your best bet is option A without point 2. Its clear and easy to follow, won't change much over time, and have reasonable certainty for notability. I think fighters only fighting for national titles/nationally known should just have to be with WP:GNG because I just don't see a better way. RonSigPi (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding A#2 being a "moving target", don't we already have a very similar rationale the current guidelines under criteria #4 "fought in the final of a national amateur championship for an AIBA World Amateur Boxing Championship medal winning country." However, to take on board your point, maybe to tighten A#2 up we could say introduce the word "prior" or “previous”. Thereby showing that it is likely to be an already established boxing nation. I really think we should include National titles in there because they are often have more history, validity and authenticity than some of the major sanctioning bodies ‘sub world title’ titles.
Regarding A#3, I agree, rankings can be manipulated, but I think you are maybe overstating the level of manipulation, especially these days. Usually the manipulation is bringing a boxer ranking #15 to #9 or from #4 to #1. Generally the Top 20 is the actual Top 20 but the order across the sanctioning organisations can change for political reasons but the makeup of the Top 20 varies very little. As a quick exercise I went through the heavyweight rankings for the WBO, WBC, IBF, BoxRec, The Ring and and there was a only total of 37 boxers. That show a high level of agreement across the recognised bodies. All 37 of those boxers already have a Wikipedia article except one, Andrey Fedosov, and Fedosov would pass notability under A#1. So, whilst there may be cynicism over rankings and I am cynical myself at times, the facts bare out that it is a very strong indicator of notability.
Another reason for including the rankings is that it is clearly defined and there are historic records available. It could potentially also do away with the cumbersome wording of what titles from what organisations and from what affiliates qualify or don’t. It could be an easy, pragmatic and definitive way to stop a lot of arguments.
I have made a second draft of Option A now to reflect the above.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I like the idea of rankings, but not as an exclusive criteria as you had in option B (i.e., not ok without regional titles also). I would, however, limit it to top 15 since that is who can fight for a world title in the major organizations and I think only the WBC goes beyond 15 in rankings. Also, I would think about adding the TBRB. Far as the nations go, yes #4 is a moving target as well and I am not thrilled about it. However, at least that has a more limited time frame of about 40 years than 120+ years. For the professional national titles, what do you think about something like "national titles of nations that claim at least 8 distinct world champions". This way nations that have solid histories are included, but not every nation that has an obscure title holder (the number 8 since there are 8 original weight classes, so in total the whole spectrum can be considered as represented). I just think the Guyana example I raised before would allow for too much, but the eight limit would include many nations like US, Canada, Australia, many European nations, etc. With eight world champions, it can be fairly presumed boxing is a big sport in that country, is well covered, and there is significant coverage for national titles.RonSigPi (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no issue with limiting it to the Top 15 instead of the Top 20, as you said, that entitles a boxer to fight for that world title so there is at least some rationale behind that figure and it is not a completely arbitrary figure. I will also add TBRB to the list but like The Ring I doubt there is anyone in their Top 15 that isn't in at least one of the major alphabet titles Top 15 rankings already. But I'm happy to add them even as a mopping up exercise.
As for upping the number of world titles that a nation would have to have under their respective belts to have their national title recognized as an established boxing nation's world title, I am certainly open to discussion to that. The football project have a list of all Football leagues that automatically make players in those leagues notable, I don't see why we couldn't do the same sort of list ranking Nations by their number of world title holders. I know Boxrec have already undertaken a similar project so it would be easy to use their work as a jumping off point. Instead of my suggestion of 1 champion and your suggestion of 8 champions, would you agree to a compromise of 4 world champions?
I have made a third draft HERE to reflect these changes.
I am good with four (half of the original weight classes) and good with your proposal (i.e., I will endorse). RonSigPi (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I've commented on the AfD in question. It should easily pass GNG, esp. on the coverage of him missing the Olympics due to the Arab Spring. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I do want to address this notion of "competed at the highest level." People saying that is world level are, in my mind, being narrow sighted and ignoring other guidelines. I will even look at other individual sports. In athletics, finishing top 8 in a major regional games or top 3 in a lesser regional games makes you notable. So there you don't even need to win. In Motorsports, I think Xfinity Series drives meet metric one, and that is not top league. For tennis, you can win a Challenger (men) or top Futures (women) and never compete on the ATP/WTA tour and be presumed notable. And as other have said, lots of team sports do not require top level participation. I think the "highest level" means the quality and therefore coverage of the competition. The Commonwealth Games and European Athletics Championships are at the highest level because of the prestige, coverage, success of nations involved, nations send top athletes, etc. Does not matter if it limits competition to certain nations. Similarly, fighting for the EBU or commonwealth title (and many other similar titles) would make someone presumed notable. RonSigPi (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – At European level, I believe notability should be granted for any boxer who has fought for at least the European Union (EBU-EU) title, as well as the Commonwealth title. BBBofC English title I'm a bit unsure on, but then that would be the equivalent of the EBU-EU title which is a regional title of the full European (EBU) one. BBBofC Southern Area title (and others similar)—no. I also disagree with notability being granted for a boxer who has only fought for a regional-level title of the Big Four sanctioning bodies; e.g. Fedalatin, Asia-Pacific, Inter-Continental, International, etc. Interim titles I'm fine with, as they often get upgraded to full world titles anyway. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mac, I think we broadly are in agreement. I also wouldn’t consider a holder of the BBBoC’s English, Welsh, Celtic, Southern Area, Central Area title etc. as a notable title holder but I would consider the British title holder automatically notable. My new proposal HERE would give the national titles of the established boxing nations automatically notability. I agree with you on the EU is a notable title but I am not sure about the Commonwealth anymore. Historically, yes, but now? Not so sure. I would consider Inter-Continental and International titles more notable than the Commonwealth these days. I would consider an EBU title holder automatically notable and I would also consider a EBU-EU title holder notable, but I’d be less wed to the EBU-EU title holder. I’d be interested on your further thoughts.
I do understand your point about regional-level titles like the Native American, Youth, Oriental, Latino, Fedalatin, Asia-Pacific etc. These are often relatively spurious and they don’t even guarantee you a Top 15 ranking with the sanctioning body that you have been awarded it by. What I think we need to be aiming at it is an easily verifiable way of demonstrating that a boxer is in ‘world class’. I think that a criteria whereby a boxer must be ranked in one of the majority bodies Top 15’s is extremely useful.
If you are in the Top 15 you are qualified to fight for that organisations world title. I would consider that to get you over the line of being ‘world class’. Winning one of the Asia-Pacific type titles will not automatically get you a Top 15 rankings. An Inter-Continental or International title would however. Rankings can be looked upon with suspicion at times but actually they are a very useful tool for proving notability and my reply above stamped ‘11:09, 2 February 2016’ outlines my thoughts on this. I would be happy to strip out all reference to Fedalatin, Asia-Pacific etc. if we all agreed on Top 15 instead.--Donniediamond (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm feeling you on the rankings idea, at least as far as International/Inter-Continental titles. They do seem to catapult titleholders to bigger things. I would, however, be quite disappointed to see Commonwealth titleholders demoted in terms of notability—they often go onto bigger things after winning it. Also, will the new criteria still grant notability for boxers who have fought for e.g. a British title, but not won it? Yesterday I made articles for Tony Hill and Damon Jones, based on their having fought for Nick Blackwell's British middleweight title. Will that still be OK to do? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Jones would become would become automatically notable under the new proposal having fought for an established national title. Hill would fail and you would have to prove your case going down the GNG route if the article was contested at AfD. The problem I have with the Commonwealth title these days is that is has been largely devalued over the course of the last 15 to 20 years mainly due to the cost of Visas and flights but also because promoters are more interested in Intercontinental titles. Historically you would generally have had to win a National title (Canadian, Aussie, British, SA, NZ etc) to have gone on and fought for the Commonwealth title. All those boxers will be automatically notable under the new Criteria #2. These days it is less well regarded and pretty much a filler until you get a British title fight and is almost exclusively fought for by British fighters. I think having the National title criteria and having the Top 15 criteria covers the need to include these titles specifically in the new proposal. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)--Donniediamond (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem I have with the existing guidelines and the proposals is that they are really only describing boxers that are 'highly notable'. It doesn't follow that everyone else is not notable, but that is very often the interpretation of such guidelines. I'm not sure we are going to be able to come up with a broad statement that applies in every country. In the UK, for example, anyone ranked top 10 in their weight class is pretty much guaranteed to be notable enough to have an article, and it would be fairly easy to show that they satisfy the GNG. Historically boxing was probably even more popular in Britain than it is today, and domestic contests even more significant, so the same should apply to historical boxers for which coverage can be harder to find. Many outside the top 10 in the UK will also have received enough coverage to justify an article. Every other country will be different. The Commonwealth (and previously British Empire) title is prestigious enough that anyone who has fought for it is pretty much guaranteed to be notable. In terms of World ranking organizations, generally the top 30-50 (at least) in the world in any weight class will be notable enough, but because this may not *always* be true we end up with a guideline that people will use (and have used) to get articles deleted when someone is outside the top 10/15 and the article is under-sourced. As Donniediamond noted above, when talking about the top 10-15, these are not just notable boxers, these are world class boxers - we shouldn't limit Wikipedia to only world class boxers - we don't do that for any other major sport. BBBofC Area titles were discussed above - my feeling is that many Area title holders will be notable enough but it's not enough to make notability a certainty - in some weight classes there have been area champions who were pretty much novices who have never gone any higher and haven't received much beyond a bit of local coverage. English title - probably notable. --Michig (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Its rare that the WBA, WBC, WBO, and IBF rate the same 15 fighters (I think only the WBC goes beyond 15 and ranks 40). Collectively we are talking 40-50 fighters ranked per weight class. Add in the regional title contenders and the like (as Donniediamond proposes and that probably adds another 40-50 or so fighters. The accounting for national titles, we can add another 20 or so. Over 17 weight classes, that puts it at about 2000 notable fighters with a fair amount of movement (new fighters added and old fighters removed). I think that is equal in number to other similarly situated sports (historically significant, individual sport, worldwide coverage/appeal). I agree that many editors use these as stone guidelines, where an athlete failing = no article. That is unfortunate, but nothing these guidelines can magically fix. However, with the fractured nature of boxing I think what Donniediamond proposes is as good as we can get. RonSigPi (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)