Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability for a discussion from January to March 2022 which reached a consensus to revise various aspects of the sports-specific notability guidelines.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Relation to general notability guideline

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?

A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?

A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?

A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then they meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if they do not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.

Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?

A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given.

Proposing revisions to Notability (sports)

Q5: I want to create a new sports-specific notability guideline or revise an existing one. What approach should I take?

A5: Consider what criteria that, if met, means that the sports figure is highly likely to have significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources. Test your proposed criteria by trying to find persons who meet them but do not have appropriate secondary coverage. It's best to keep your criteria fairly conservative, since for most contemporary persons, establishing notability via the general notability guideline is straightforward enough and the additional buffer time provided by a sports-specific notability guideline isn't needed, so trying to draw a more liberal line isn't worth the effort.

Many discussions on rules of thumb start with, "This league/championship is important," or "This sport is popular in country X." While these arguments provide indirect evidence, a much better way to reach an agreement is to double-check if everyone meeting the proposed criteria has appropriate sources meeting the general notability guideline. For example, for an individual championship, you can list everyone who has won the championship and, for each person, the corresponding sources that show they meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.

Subsequent to the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, proposing a guideline for the notability of an athlete purely based on their participation in a non-championship final or non-Olympic event is likely to meet opposition.

Note the "nutshell summary" and the "Basic criteria" section are high-level descriptions of the type of criteria used by each sport. This does not mean that any criteria that fit these descriptions are suitable. You must demonstrate that the proposed criteria are effective as a way to determine if a subject meets the general notability guideline.

Q6: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?

A6: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information.

Q7: But these athletes have won championship X; surely that makes them notable?

A7: For better or worse, discussions in Wikipedia use the term "notable" as a shorthand for "meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia". As a result, there are many subjects that can meet the everyday meaning of notable, yet fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article.

References

^ Request for Comments discussion that established the sports-specific notability guidelines: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4 § RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline
^ Discussion in June 2011: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8 § Applicable policies and guidelines
^ Discussion in October 2011: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 9 § Relation to GNG (again)
^ Discussion in February 2013: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 16 § Second sentence

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Harrison, Stephen (26 July 2021). "How to Use Wikipedia When You're Watching the Olympics". Slate. Retrieved 30 July 2021. Wikipedia has a general rule that any athlete who competes in the modern Olympic Games is presumed to be sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia entry. Tchir told me that Wikipedia's notability policy is itself controversial with both new and old Wikipedia editors.
Stephen Harrison (August 4, 2024). "This Researcher Is on a Crusade to Correct Wikipedia's Gender Imbalancey". Slate. Retrieved August 4, 2024. The site's current rule for sports notability reflects the change; instead of the old rule where an athlete was presumed eligible for a Wiki article if they "competed" in the Games, the presumption now applies only if they "won a medal."

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

IAAF is now World Athletics

Regarding the Athletics/track & field and long-distance running section, the IAAF has renamed itself World Athletics. (The IAAF page has also been renamed.) Zatsugaku (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's happened to NFOOTBALL?

I'm looking for guidance on notability criteria for professional (association) footballers, but WP:NFOOTY seems to have disappeared from this article. I've found some old discussions about it and proposals for change but can't see what the current guidance is? Can anyone help? Orange sticker (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find multiple sources of significant coverage about the subject? Then he is likely notable. If he doesn't, he likely is not Alvaldi (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I was just hoping there was clearer and easier criteria as in other sports, as this player did play at international level and in a World Cup (see this Article for Deletion). Thanks! Orange sticker (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no. I would try to Google his native name in South Korean sources (i.e. " 박철진 site:.kr") but if that doesn't turn anything significant up then he's all out of luck. Alvaldi (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the section it now redirects to, it reads:

Sports which are not listed on this page should defer to the § Basic criteria for guidance. This includes both those which were never listed, and those which were but have since been removed, most recently following an RfC from January–March 2022.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs)

There was consensus in a 2022 RfC to remove solely participation-based criteria. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability#202203070648_Wugapodes_2. There was then consensus while implementing the RfC to remove NFOOTY because it was solely participation-based, and discussion regarding an alternative was tabled. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobsleigh and skeleton

Recently, I've been looking through articles of winter sport atheletes and doing a quick copy-edit on them, especially bobsleigh and skeleton. However, I noticed every one-time Winter Olympics participant has been documented even if they're not notable. A lot of them are also poorly-sourced or poorly-written stubs. I was wondering if there was clearer and easier criteria for these types of atheletes; otherwise, we may assume their articles pass WP:SPORTBASIC? Specifically, even for two or four-person bobsleigh, do they need to be in top ten of every bobsleigh tournament according to IBSF to be considered notable? CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge

I propose the following for inclusion to the main article.

I will ask other Bridge editors to comment and add.

Bridge

Shortcuts

(Note: I am not sure how to create Shortcuts, nor how to check with conflicts with other shortcuts on other topics. The shortcut WP:BRIDGE refers to physical bridges)

Significant coverage is likely to exist for Bridge players if they

Have won a medal at an international event at the senior, open, womens, mixed, youth or junior level. International events include the European Championship, World Championships and North American Bridge Championships (NABCs).
Have placed first or second in a major North American Bridge Championships. Major events are Vanderbilt, Spingold, Soloway or Reisinger.
Have won an open, mixed, senior or women's North American Bridge Championships.
Have been elected to the Hall of Fame in their National Bridge Organization (NBO)

Discussion information: European and World events award medals. NABCs do not.

Other National Bridge Organizations (NBOs) may have appropriate qualifications. For example someone in the Hall of Fame for a NBO.

Oppose The proposal shows no evidence that individuals with these honors have recieved significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For new guidelines we need extensive evidence that SIGCOV can be presumed for >90% of individuals. Nothing here indicates any work has been done to establish this evidence. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I used guidelines from other less well known sports, for example, curling, orienteering as a equivalency and mapped Bridge events to other sports.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ numbering

BI noticed here that the FAQ numbering skips 5. I'm thinking we should probably renumber the questions, but I wanted to check and make sure 5 wasn't being excluded deliberately before BOLDly making the change myself. If we're keeping the same numbering for historical reasons, we ought to make a note to that effect rather than just not having a Q5 at all. Ham tech person 00:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it up. I forgot to renumber the questions when I deleted one that was no longer relevant. I've renumbered them now. isaacl (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Speedway

Hi all, not sure if I am in the right place but would like to nominate some standards of notability for motorcyle speedway, maybe in the Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Motorsports section, which I cannot seem to find existing at present. The sport is worldwide and extremely popular, in Poland for example it is the national sport (ahead of association football) and was once the most watched sport in the United Kingdom behind football. A simple Google search shows how popular the sport is. The two main competitions suggested for notability are the Speedway Grand Prix (previously called the individual world championship) and the Speedway World Cup/Speedway of Nations (the team world championship). Any help about how I go about this would be appreciated, many thanks Pyeongchang (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's essential that you understand that special notability guidelines do not confer notability, they are guidelines for editors to understand when a subject will likely meet notability. While a speedway criteria could be implemented, and would require a discussion between editors familiar with the area to decide on criteria, based on the recent events at AfD I am extremely doubtful that the criteria you nominate would be fit for purpose. It appears that even at the pinnacle of the sport, many riders receive very little coverage which could be used to pass the GNG. Although they may be important to fans of speedway, that does not necessarily mean they are of encyclopaedic significance. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I understand that special notability guidelines do not confer notability but is this the right area to nominate to start a discussion? Looking at the list of sports in the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) there are many that are clearly below the level of motorcycle speedway. Rodeo for example is pretty much restricted to North America and yet has countless guidelines. Surely motorcycle speedway which is pretty much worldwide merits at least one guideline!. At least if I can nominate then other editors can give an opinion on the subject. Please advise, many thanks Pyeongchang (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would probably be best to start the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycle racing to get input and draft a proposal. Then come back here with the proposal for an RfC to endorse. That would be my approach. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current criteria, like rodeo, are essentially only here for legacy reasons since they were created before NSPORTS2022. None of them were actually tested to demonstrate positive predictive power toward meeting GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One sidebar thought, wp:NGeo can also affect wp:notability decisions on facilities like this. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The proposal is not about speedways, as in racetracks, it's about a particular discipline of motorcycle racing called motorcycle speedway. oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, any attempt to add anything here is just going to be a waste of time. The editors who dislike sport will never allow any additions to this criteria. See e.g. proposals with 100% GNG compliance being shot down. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should just mark this page as historical and get it over with. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an active NPP'er. I was a strong advocate of getting rid of the "did it for a living for 1 day" criteria for athletes because IMO it set the bar too low. But overall I would WELCOME expansion of the special notability guideline to provide more clarity on sports-related articles. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put together what could be a draft of a replacement guideline and I welcome feedback. - Enos733 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an effort....that's quite a bit of work! It would be a few days before I have the wiki-time to review. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I still think the same of the draft as I did in archive 56: that won't work. An American football player must be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (i.e. one of the greatest 300 figures ever, when there's probably 50,000 notable figures) to be considered as "likely" to have significant coverage? That is only going to result in nominations for deletion like "isn't in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not notable" or "only was a starter in the NFL for six full seasons, not notable" – which are plainly ridiculous. The players in the Big Four leagues having presumed notability for playing a game is the only thing that made sense (especially post-1930, that criteria really worked); and although I know the anti-sports editors will never let this page return to sense like that, restricting it to only the greatest ever would only encourage silly time-wasting deletion nominations. Not to mention the biggest issue with NSPORT that isn't changed: the value of meeting the criteria suddenly becomes wholly worthless and irrelevant solely by one typing the two words "fails GNG" – no matter what the circumstances are. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, but the community discussion that nearly led to the deletion of NSPORTS went the other direction - namely that participation is not sufficient for a stand-alone article. My goal is similar to yours - a desire for more clarity than this existing text and also to give guidance on how to evaluate sources based on the circumstances of the subject (prep athletes have the highest bar to clear, second-tier professionals a higher bar to clear, and professionals in a top-tier league the lowest bar to clear). Ultimately I see the sport specific text as useful outcomes for sports people, rather than a pass/fail bar. But at the same time, I also do not share your fear that an editor would attempt to nominate an NFL player post 1930 or an Olympic medalist. - Enos733 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have an Olympic medalist likely to be deleted at an AFD right now – and several others who've already been deleted. My main issue with the current NSPORTS which seems to stay the same with the draft is this: every single person meeting it can have their accomplishments / satisfaction of the criteria made wholly irrelevant and useless solely by someone typing the two words "fails GNG" with no real effort to find sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that is an expectation that can be made. I don't think we can expect that an editor won't bring any article to AFD and claim there are not sources or who will not do an adequate before search. I do agree with you that very few athletes that play in a top-tier league would fail GNG. That said, I can't think of a standard that is not participation-based that would meet the community's guidance. - Enos733 (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, after twenty years' worth of sports articles at AfD passing solely by someone typing the two words "meets NSPORTS," with no real effort to find sources, I'm unmoved by the inclusionists' dismay. 2022 never would've happened without the unreasonableness of the one-game-equals-notability clergy, spearheaded by the likes of the cricket and footy projects, and if they now feel hard done by, they need only look into mirrors for the culprits. Ravenswing 13:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, a comparison with Wikipedia:Notability (sports). isaacl (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an unusual view of the sports SNG. Most view it (being a way to bypass GNG) only as a way to make the criteria more lenient. But in the fuzzy world of GNG on sports, it could cut both ways. Another gorilla in the living room on sports is that "coverage" is usually itself a form of entertainment rather than than "just getting it/them covered" and so can be less indicative. The current defacto "GNG only" criteria can result is somewhat arbitrary decisions in both directions. On some where included coverage is very weak, certain advocates just say "of course coverage exists, it just hasn't been found yet" (including in some presumed search of non-english sources, and no addressing on whether it is GNG coverage ) In the other direction, an extremely thorough / strict reading of GNG is applied, which is stricter than the norm. IMO more clarity and guidance along the "middle ground" in this SNG would be helpful. Not only would it affect the SNG "route in" but it would also influence edge case GNG decisions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that most view the sports-specific guidelines on having an article as a way to bypass the general notability guideline. Many discussions have found a consensus that they are used to help predict if the general notability guideline is likely to be satisfied. I agree that there is a promotional dimension to a lot of sports journalism, and so this has to be considered when evaluating the suitability of a source in demonstrating that the general notability guideline has been met. isaacl (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is a promotional dimension to a lot of sports journalism, and so this has to be considered when evaluating the suitability of a source We already have WP:INDY that precludes use of sources written by or affiliated with the athlete or the team. We also exclude fan blogs and such that do not qualify as WP:RELIABLE. Those are reasonable safeguards. However, we do not and should not exclude sports journalism in reliable, independent sources on grounds that sports journalism has a "promotional dimension". Cbl62 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[OriginalRfC-1] Request for Comments discussion that established the sports-specific notability guidelines: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4 § RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline

[GNG-June2011-2] Discussion in June 2011: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8 § Applicable policies and guidelines

[GNG-October2011-3] Discussion in October 2011: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 9 § Relation to GNG (again)

[GNG-Feb2013-4] Discussion in February 2013: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 16 § Second sentence

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]