Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Proposal to remove or replace line from WP:BASEBALL/N, point 2

(and other suggestions)

WP:BASEBALL/N's second point reads as follows: "[Players are notable if they] appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)." The most controversial part of that point appears at the very end: "...or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)."

That line is too ambiguous, leaving it open to multiple interpretations - does "top level" mean in comparison to the world's other leagues, or the top-level league in a country? If it refers to the former, then it is unnecessary because the world's top-level leagues are already mentioned - there really are no other "top-level leagues" in the world today (save for one, more on that momentarily). If it is the latter, then it elevates all players in top national leagues to equal or near-equal significance and article-worthiness. This leads to a jumbled can of worms, which causes raging debates. The winter leagues in Venezuela and the Dominican Republic are technically the top-level leagues in those nations. Yet, they're still just winter leagues, where major leaguers go to stay in shape and where raw, developing players go for extra conditioning. Are players from those leagues equally deserving of articles? How about players from the top league in Spain? Or Bulgaria?

What we have to look at in determining what is a "top-level" league is where the best-of-the-best of that league ultimately end up. For example, the best-of-the-best players from the Caribbean, Central American and South American leagues, by and large, end up playing in the Major Leagues. The Major Leagues are an advancement for them, it is the next step up - a promotion. Conversely, in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, the best-of-the-best often remain in their home countries, choosing not to travel overseas to play in the Major Leagues - the move is not necessarily a step up for them. It is more of a lateral promotion. Therefore, the players from the leagues that players move up from would not be inherently notable, while the leagues that players move over from would be.

As it stands, the lateral promotion leagues are the handful mentioned in WP:BASEBALL/N. My ultimate suggestion would be to remove the controversial end line from WP:BASEBALL/N, point 2, which would make players who haven't played in the leagues already mentioned have to pass WP:GNG. To ensure that players from the predecessors of the top leagues mentioned in the rule are also covered, I would add something so the rule would look like this: "[Players are notable if they] appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or their predecessors."

International players would then have to pass WP:BASEBALL/N point 6 ("Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable.") I would also alter WP:BASEBALL/N point 6 to read "Players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires from the minor leagues and all leagues not mentioned in WP:BASEBALL/N point 2 are not assumed to be inherently notable..."

Lastly, I would also suggest adding the Cuban National Series to the list of leagues specifically mentioned above since the top players from that circuit usually do not - or cannot - play in the other leagues. It also does extremely well in international competitions, meaning its players tend to stack up against the best from Japan, the United States, South Korea, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela.

I hope you take my thoughts into consideration. Thanks for your time. Alex (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's start off by listing the leagues that are most in question, as I see them: – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I might suggest adding the CBPL to that list. Alex (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue. Obviously the NPBL is a higher level of competition than the Australian Baseball League, but it is also not quite the same as Major League Baseball. From what I understand, MLB front offices treat NPBL stats as equivalent to AAA in the States.

If we are to choose among the top-level national leagues for automatic notability, we should be very clear about the criteria for determining which of those leagues deserves that status. I understand your point about Asian players more often sticking in their home countries than Latin American playrs, but that may also be affected by other things (like quality of life in Japan vs. the Dominican Republic, language, etc.). Something more "egalitarian" might be to consider whether someone has appeared on the team's national baseball team in the Olympics or the World Baseball Classic, for example.

Also, I'm curious whether anyone knows of similar discussions with American football notability. It seems the guidelines also mention "any ... top-level professional league," even though the NFL's quality of play (and league exposure) is much higher than any other league. --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Then again, this analysis from Baseball Prospectus in 2002 concludes NPBL deserves to be called a major league. [1] Still, I don't think it's quite accurate to call it an equivalent league in terms of talent. Japanese replacement-level players and MLB replacement-level players are certainly not equivalent. And there is probably a bigger gap in Korea and Taiwan. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
What we need is a global WAR, dammit. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I also think looking at international competition performance as a deciding factor in what "top-level" means may be a good idea. Not surprisingly, the teams that perform the best in international competitions come from the specifically mentioned "top-level" league nations, (South Korea, Japan, United States) or whose top players end up playing in the major leagues (Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Puerto Rico). The only nation that dominates international baseball competitions whose "top-level" league is not specifically mentioned in the rule is Cuba, which is why I think it's league should be specifically mentioned as well. Looking further at the international performance of certain nations, I think the CPBL should be dropped from the list of assumed top-level leagues. Alex (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Question - is EVERY player in the Japanese, Chinese and Korean leagues actually notable? When I have tried to add leagues for the basketball guideline (to eliminate a similar ambiguous statement), I have been told that I need to test the leagues to ensure they had ample coverage to include them in what is a de facto blanket notability (players can still be challenged on notability grounds in theory but in practice they pretty much always pass if the league is explicitly included in the guideline). I have tried to add significant leagues such as the Greek Basket League and was basically asked by admins to perform fairly extensive news/source research (in Greek mind you) to ensure the league was sufficiently covered. As a result I said to hell with it and the guideline still has the ambiguous statement in it. In truth, for many pro leagues stars are notable but end of the bench guys aren't. The way this is done is a precedent setter for other sports (and frankly basketball is more of a global game than baseball or American football). Seems like in footy you just have to have played one game in a "fully professional" league, but other sports have a tougher row to hoe. Rikster2 (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm actually surprised that the national team thing isn't in the guideline, I thought it already was... That should certainly be added... I'd say that none of the leagues mentioned above should confer automatic notability.. and of those already listed I have serious doubts about the Taiwan league as well.. I'd limit it to just MLB, NPB and KBO as the qualifying leagues and then add anyone who has competed in a major international competition as a member of the national team. Spanneraol (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's an interesting summary of one person's observations of talent equivalents, FWIW. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe that players in the KBO, NPB and MLB are more than likely sufficiently covered by their media to be explicitly stated in the rule. Not so sure about CBPL, nor do I think it is a level of competition high enough to match the KBO, NPB and MLB. I especially agree with this part of what Spanneraol said, "I'd limit it to just MLB, NPB and KBO as the qualifying leagues and then add anyone who has competed in a major international competition as a member of the national team." Though there are other things I'd change and fix about the rule, I think that would be a good start. Alex (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Top-level has generally always meant the league at the top of the pryamid in a given country. Its not about skill relative to other leagues. The idea being that the top league in a given country would probably get lots of coverage in their own country whether or not the skill level compared to MLB. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That is what I believed as well, but recent AfD discussions have suggested that some believe or can be led to believe that "top-level" refers to top-level in comparison to other leagues throughout the world. Hence, players who have played in the top-level national leagues in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela have had their articles deleted. Alex (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
@ DjSasso but many of those leagues, especially the European ones, baseball hardly get coverage at all. I agree with Spannerol, just limit it to those three leagues and international competition and that's it. Secret account 16:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new wording for #2:

  • Two things, one are you then removing the Chinese Professional Baseball League which is currently listed? Secondly. You would be removing the wording which allows for leagues which are now defunct but would have been at an equivalent coverage level which the current wording allows for. Was this intended in your proposal? -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm removing the Chinese league as I and others in the discussion didn't feel that one should remain listed. The defunct leagues that are relevant are included in #3. Spanneraol (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I like it. But of course, the next debate is going to be what defines a 'major international competition' outside the ones specifically mentioned? If we alter the wording for point 2, however, point 6 may need to be changed as well. Alex (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say we need to call out the exact competitions as those can be decided on a case by case basis using commonsense... Point 6 refers to the minor leagues, dont see how that would need to be changed unless you want to add "other international leagues" to that one.. Spanneraol (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think something about other international leagues should be added to #6 so that international players that don't meet the previous points are included somewhere. I might also suggest adding the former Baseball World Cup to the list of major international tournaments. Assuming the use of common sense is risky - if common sense were used as it should be, we wouldn't have kept articles on players whose claims to notability were that they played in Italy's or Mexico's top leagues. Alex (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Revised proposal

  • 2.Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team.
  • 6. Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires (as well as other international players who do not meet the criteria set forth in #2 above) are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.[1]

-Spanneraol (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good. Alex (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
What is meant by "team sites"? MLB.com and MiLB.com are written independently of MLB and MiLB, respectively, and shouldn't be discounted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't change any of that stuff, which is a carryover from our original Baseball notability discussions ages ago... I'm fine with getting rid of everything in there after "the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" as the rest of it was someone's opinion as to what a reliable source is and probably doesn't need to be listed in the guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
In terms of notability team sites aren't independent of the subject because they are still owned by and controlled by those teams. So it is in their best interests to write up and talk up their "product" which is the players. They are perfectly fine sources for referencing information, but they can't be used towards proving notability which is what that sentence is talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really in favor of including the KBO—I think the U.S. and Japan leagues are much better—but my objection is not strong. And I certainly agree with the inclusion of international competitions. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the main thing in regard to this guideline is the level of coverage those countries have for their baseball teams. Baseball is a big thing in both Korea and Japan and their players tend to get a lot of coverage in the local medias. Spanneraol (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I'm just not sure how much that matters when discussing the notability criteria for English Wikipedia. In general, Japanese baseball is more well-known to the Anglophone world, I would think. Or is that not supposed to be a major factor? --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources to determine if the standard for inclusion has been met does not require that the sources be in English, or part of the Anglophone world. As a practical matter, it's simpler for the English Wikipedia community to maintain an article if most of the sources are in English, of course, which contributes to the systemic bias of English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, a fair point. OK, I strike my objection to the inclusion of Korea. I'm on board with Spanneraol's language. --Jprg1966 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Déjà vu. Looks neutered even worse than last time. Let me guess: this started because one or a series of AFDs failed because the player was from the top professional league in somewhere like Venezuela? Last time it was something over Triple-A minor leaguers or something of the sort. I still feel like we're on the long road to making baseball notability guidelines so high that a player needs to be in a minimum of 1000 MLB games or have a certain stat-line to stay on this site, kicking off players like Hobie Landrith because he's a player that only baseball historians would vaguely know. while those that had only 1 at-bat will be removed. I'm sure the changes will be pushed through anyway, and we'll be stuck with this double-neutered notability guideline until someone else fails to get their way when a series of AFDs utterly fail. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 17:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Topics to include

Everyone, please feel free to strike these out as they get covered.

Sports persons
  • a general guideline for discipline notability! I'm thinking of the many sighthound breeds that almost without fail have their specific racing schemes.

--Pitke (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that these sports do not get the coverage as the major sports listed, so there's very few criteria that can be made that create presumed notability. That doesn't prevent anything that is supported by the general notability guideline (at WP:N) from having an article, just that there's no shortcut way of doing this for these sports. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Note horse racing is second only to soccer in the UK and tops cricket: [2] and [3] and for the rest, c'mon! You've got badmiton and curling already on the list! Hardly scintillating events of worldwide import...other than in an Olympic year...
Games such as chess have routinely been rejected as part of this page. As for the others I have to agree, there isn't enough coverage of any of these to make a sport specific guidelines for any of them. They would fall under the general guideline in the basic criteria section and WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not particularly convincing to suggest that competitors of a sport should get added to NSPORTS when the sport in question is a red link. For the blue links, I also doubt sufficient coverage exists and would need to be persuaded. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding games, note this isn't to say that appropriate notability guidelines couldn't be created, but the particular set of editors who are interested in this article have chosen not to be involved in their creation. For any of these subjects, you can work with an appropriate Wikiproject on drafting a proposed set of guidelines, and then go through the Request for Comments process to establish community consensus. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little confused; are we talking about Guidelines for presumed notability of people? We have a ton of articles out there already, particularly in the Equestrian at the Summer Olympics disciplines (Dressage, jumping and eventing) already. I believe that WP Horse racing has a sense of general notability for jockeys and race horse trainers. (Pitke, may want to ping those folks too?) Horse racing, in particular, has huge viewership and interest (see above), as do the Olympics. I can say with some certainty that in the Olympic sports, anyone who has competed in an Olympic games should be presumed notable, (most already have articles) as would anyone medaling in equestrian competition in the Pan American Games or the World Equestrian Games. I would add people who compete in FEI non-Olympic disciplines such as reining and combined driving to the above -- world champion riders/drivers would be presumed notable. In horse racing, given the worldwide impact, I think WP Horse Racing already uses the criteria of winning the equivalent of a USA "Grade I" race as sufficient. There must be an equivalent for harness racing. I wouldn't fight to have people in horse breed-specific disciplines listed here, though my understanding is that WP:NOTABILITY will cover most we have already, such as, oh, Helen Crabtree or Sheila Varian - plus others we may want to add later. Montanabw(talk) 19:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I just boldly aded criteria for Equestrians who compete at the international level -- Olympics and World Championships, borrowing concepts from the other Olympic sport sections in the guidelines. That's the low-hanging fruit and I don't see it being controversial. I'm not ready to go further than that, i.e. figuring out national-level notability and such, but I like what they did at Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability for additional detail. We could do something like that at WPEQ and ping WP Horse racing about theirs, too. Montanabw(talk) 05:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As for ^^ I do insist that equestrian sportspeople AND sportshorses need to be included. --Pitke (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I am personally OK with discussing if/what we need to expand upon what I added (and restored, BTW - does anyone here object that what was included was too much???) but I didn't feel OK about adding more on my own initiative - probably it should be done at the wikiproject level, should anyone else care beyond myself and Pitke. Pitke and I usually reach a real workable consensus with a lot of good faith, even where we start out quite a ways apart, so I see no real "drahmah" problem on the horizon. Montanabw(talk) 17:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
AND I am curious to know how the rest of the folks here would view our horse "biographies" -- in the race horse area, Wikiproject Horse racing has thousands and thousands of them. In the sport horse area, not so many, but a few hundred, at least. We also have horse articles like Clever Hans that are notable outside the realm of sport. Complicated issue. Montanabw(talk) 17:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I had a read of that figure skating notability essay and thought it was good. The banner at the top of the article does say that projects are encouraged to write their own notability guidelines and the horse racing project ought to do that. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Do note that Wikiproject-level notability guidelines will be overridden by en.wiki-wide guidance. If a WProject decided that "all caber tossers are notable", that likely will not stand up as an argument at AFD. WProjects can write proposed amendments to these subject-specific guidelines and seek broad consensus for inclusion so they are expected to conform to existing guidelines. Also remember, the goal here is to provide considers that allow an standalone article to be created on the presumption of notability and that additional sources can be found or will be created to build out the encyclopedic article within the open-wiki way of doing things. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Trust me, I survived the infobox wars, I know the limits of wikiproject power! Also survived a couple AfDs where people thought that horses in general were not notable. Been there, done that, oh yeah.  :-P LOL! Montanabw(talk) 17:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Was there consensus to include this stuff? I don't see it above.. Not sure that equestrian athletes receive the level of coverage that you are implying here... I would think the existing guidelines or olympic athletes should suffice... as the other competitions you reference in your listing are ones that don't seem to get the level of coverage necessary. Spanneraol (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I would value seeing what you deem a "level of coverage" necessary. Rodeo is already on the list and has been for years, probably with less extensive worldwide coverage than FEI-level equestrian sport. Is being broadcast on NBC network on a Saturday good enough (seriously, when was the last time anyone watched curling in prime time? And it has a separate entry on th list): i.e. NBC broadcasting the 2010 WEG Montanabw(talk) 18:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC) and More: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZDw1Bf3IZo NBC 2010 WEG promo.
Is there in depth coverage about the competitors at the FEI championships or the Show Jumping events you mention? That means something about them other than just that they competed in this event and how they did. The level of coverage would be what GNG implies "the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" Spanneraol (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course! coverage within the equestrian press is extensive, and I am also sure that the various championships are covered by things like ESPN: To give you an example of the more obscure and esoteric of the main Olympic events, note what comes up (beyond the Olympic coverage) at http://search.espn.go.com/dressage/ There is also stuff such as http://www.hrtv.com/english/ and hundreds of magazines and web sites, plus mainstream newspaper coverage. So I'm curious what you want - and a link to the relevant specific guideline - as we have dozens, if not hundreds, of these articles already, which have easily qualified under WP:NOTABILITY. (Examples, David O'Connor, Anky van Grunsven, Beezie Madden) I think that Pitke's idea here is that we are just asking to have this sports project add a general guideline to explain for newbies what is already happening. Montanabw(talk) 19:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is that level of coverage. Several horse magazines exist to cover the various disciplines, and they are independent of the various subjects. Barrel racing (part of rodeo) is covered by a number of magazines - see here for one. Dressage likewise - here and here. Also rodeo - here and here. There are a LOT of horse magazines out there - they will cover most aspects of horse sports. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And, as we enjoy saying around here, "moar" examples of non-equestrian press coverage of not-Olympic but national and worldwide equestrian sport:

  1. BBC coverage search (scroll past the stuff on Zara Phillips, though, LOL...)
  2. New York Times' coverage of show jumping
  3. Australian coverage of Eventing

Need more? Let us know! Montanabw(talk) 19:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No one is denying that at times there is definitely significant coverage of these topics to meet the GNG. The question that has to be shown is that if you have a criteria such as "Winning this specific event", does that nearly-always lead to secondary coverage (more information about the person than just the fact they won the event)? Olympic winners (and participants) nearly universally get this (moreso from their local countries), so that's a reasonable one, but how about for these other sports that do not have a significant interest at the worldwide level? That's what needs to be judged. Remember : the GNG always works if these criteria aren't otherwise added to the work. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess I'm puzzled, but perhaps we horse people have been unclear: Equestrian sport has individual "stars" - both human and horse. It is far more worldwide in impact and extensively covered than many sports already in here separately, like relatively new things like Mixed Martial Arts or obscure stuff like (my favorite) Curling. Let me explain: In the Olympics, the Equestrian events include Dressage, Show Jumping and Eventing (also Modern Pentathlon has an Equestrian component, but WPEQ has never dealt with that much). The governing body for these sport is the FEI and the IOC basically uses FEI rules and FEI qualifiying events, just like they use the various international federations for other sports. There are also Equestrian events in the Pan American Games and Paralympics. Outside the Olympics, the FEI sponsors events all over the world every year, and the World Equestrian Games every four years in off-Olympiad even-numbered years and assorted "World Cup" events annually. The FEI adds reining, vaulting and combined driving to its list of recognized equestrian sporting events, even though those are not yet Olympic events. All of these events award individual awards and many also award national teams. These individual people often become "stars" in the equestrian world just like elite atheletes in skiiing, golfing, or what have you: They have stories written about them, they have product endorsement deals, and so on. Again using Dressage (probably the most obscure to non-horse people) I'll take Anky van Grunsven as an example: over 300,000 google hits, She has a named line of saddles and a clothing line, she has been covered by the New York Times, and so on. Does that answer your question? Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Remember that again you still can fall back on the GNG , so for Grunsven, she'd be notable by that type of coverage. The question to ask is that is there any condition in equestrian sports that may happen to a rider or the horse that will assure that coverage of that rider or horse will come about? Arguably, one could argue any horse that wins the Triple Crown will likely be covered, for example. But if there's aren't that many conditions, then we probably don't need to have additional criteria, and just reliable on the GNG for the sport's coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
"is there any condition in equestrian sports that may happen to a rider or the horse that will assure that coverage of that rider or horse will come about? " --Well YES, didn't I just provide a significant number of examples? We already have HUNDREDS of horse and rider articles already in WP. Pitke just seems to be asking that we list the basic outline HERE as well as GNG - one reason is because (from my view) we've had trouble with folks getting all butt-hurt when we prod tag their non-notable articles about various riders, horses and farms; it's helpful to have this to point to. Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, curling is well covered by mainstream media in Canada. Most of the criteria listed are related to events and persons that receive significant, notable coverage in reliable Canadian sources. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, curling certainly isn't obscure in Canada! Thanks for being non-Canadian-centric, Montanabw! -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL! But that's kind of my point; I am truly puzzled why some folks here seem hellbent on excluding equestrian sport from these guideline- which is international in scope and not just confined to the Olympics - when both rodeo and curling - primarily of interest in North America - have been here for ages. Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to it myself, Equestrian has just as much right to be here as curling. I just had to defend my sport ("represent" as the kids say). -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Varsity

I would like clarification on rugby union player notability. Would players who have played for either Oxford or Cambridge in The Varsity Match be considered notable for an article? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Would every player on those teams be expected to be covered in multiple sources? I don't follow the sport so I can't answer. But my gut feeling suggests they probably wouldn't be. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
They could be, given that the match itself is covered by numerous sources including ESPN and the BBC. I think clarification would be beneficial. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable leagues maintained by WikiProjects

I saw the recent change to NHOCKEY that effectively moved the specific leagues from this guideline to an essay maintained by a single project. I'm sure there are likely more specific sport experts in a WikiProject, but is this a direction that is generally supported for all sports in NSPORTS. We get enough debates here about what to add that, at the risk of WP:BEANS, this could be used to circumvent tight controls, for better or for worse.—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The best way to look at that list is as a supplement to WP:NHOCKEY and the discussion began as a result of a series of AFDs where it became obvious that a list of what leagues each of NHOCKEY's criteria generally reflects was necessary. As always, these SNGs and their supplements still only presume notability, and reliable sources must exist. Failure to meet certain parts of it does not necessarily mean an article should be deleted, nor does meeting some aspect of the criteria mean an article must be kept. Resolute 01:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolute's Ravenswing's essay containing a list of ice hockey leagues sorted by level of play is incomplete, subjective, misconceived, and inaccurate. While I agree that a list of ice hockey league's could be useful for the purpose of establishing a presumption pf notability (I suggested the idea about three years ago, only to be rebuffed by the Ice Hockey Project), the purpose of Resolute's essay has not been fully discussed, nor has "the list" itself been fully discussed or vetted. Dolovis (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not my essay. But since the AFDs I mention were mostly from incomplete, subjective and misconceived crap you create, I am not at all surprised you aren't happy about it. Resolute 03:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Several WikiProjects not only maintain such essays, but those essays are integral parts of the NSPORTS criteria: association football, figure skating, tennis and American collegiate football among them. The particular inspiration for this essay was the Footy WikiProject's list of notable leagues, which has been part of the NSPORTS criteria for four years now. As far as "tight controls" go, I'm all for that, which is why I set forth this assessment list in the first place. It was first discussed on the Hockey WikiProject talk page eleven days ago, a period in which Dolovis has made several edits to the talk page; if he wasn't paying attention to what others beside himself were posting, I can't help that. I agree that the list did not receive Dolovis' personal approval, but it did receive the unanimous approval of every other participating editor.

I freely admit that I would prefer not to need such a list. The notion, however, that this list is somehow illegitimate, but the previous list is sacrosanct, is darkly amusing: as the Ice Hockey WikiProject editors know, I'm the original author of the NHOCKEY notability criteria, and that laundry list of leagues (however much vetted by the editors at the time) is mine. I suspect that Dolovis' intransigence stems not so much from his belief that we've suddenly become incapable of gauging leagues, but from a string of AfDs I've recently filed on fringe player articles he's created, gaming the system (and, in some cases, making outright bad faith characterizations of the NHOCKEY criteria) to exploit leagues not heretofore listed. We wouldn't need to come up with a more comprehensive and thorough list without such actions.

That being said, I invite any editor with the expertise to gauge the relative merits of professional hockey leagues to take a look for themselves. Ravenswing 08:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Being that there was no change at the discussion in the last few days and that the only opposition was from Dolovis and in accordance with the standard practice (from the origin of NSPORTS itself) that changes in specific sports can be discussed at the relevant projects or NSPORTS, I have reverted his revert. Any further discussion on how to refine the list itself even further is more than welcome to continue happening at the discussion linked to by Ravenswing. -DJSasso (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The process to follow before changing NHOCKEY should be: 1) Formulate a list of "top leagues" (as started at Ravenswing's essay); 2) Post the list of "top leagues", along with a proposal that to change NHOCKEY, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey so all interested members of WikiProject Ice Hockey will be informed and have the opportunity to take part in the discussion; 3) Post the proposed changes, as determined by the talk page consensus of WikiProject Ice Hockey, to this page so it may be discussed by all interested members of the Wikipedia. 4) Make changes to NHOCKEY according to the consensus of the discussion on this page. Until an open and inclusive process has been followed and accepted by a consensus of all interested editors, the current reading of NHOCKEY should not be altered. Dolovis (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It did happen like that. #1 happened, #2 happened through a link on the WT:HOCKEY. #3 happened through a link on this page. All of which is standard. You are the only one who has objected in over two weeks now. If you truly want a list of this sort as you claim to, then instead of wasting yours and our time fighting like this, go to the discussion and start discussing any tweaks you feel we need. The discussion was open and inclusive, it was linked to from multiple pages where interested editors could see. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Djsasso does make a telling point -- the only person opposed seems to be you ... and you've yet to proffer a concrete alternate proposal other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ravenswing 17:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely untrue. What I am saying is that it is premature to change NOCKEY. What is first required, and which has not yet taken place, is a full and proper discussion on the WikiProject Ice Hockey talk page, which encourages all interested editors to participate. When I made my comments[4] on “the list” suggesting that objective criteria should be established, I was hit with a barrage of uncivil responses including Resolute's “Don't waste your time” reply, and Ravenwing's reply accusing me of “wikilawyering and outright lying”. Such bullying tactics do not serve to encourage other interested editors to participate, and without a full discussion it cannot be said that there is a consensus to change NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I've left notification at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#WP:NHOCKEY_changes to address the concern raised about participation.—Bagumba (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
There has already been a discussion at WP:HOCKEY. In addition, I personally added a link within that section to the talk page for the league proposal and copied the discussion on the main project talkpage to the proposal talkpage, so I struggle to see how someone can say it wasn't discussed at the main talkpage. This was all done within a few hours of the proposal being raised. Patken4 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup. I appreciate your aims here Bagumba, but Dolovis' complaints are both without merit and not in good faith. Resolute 23:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
How dare you question my motives or challenge my good faith. You do not own the Wikipedia Ice Hockey Project, All that I have suggested it that objective criteria be used to establish a list. Your attempts you censor my input (and by extension the input of all other editors who are afraid to challenge your "admin authority") is pitiful. Shame on you. Dolovis (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Spare me your crocodile tears. I ran out of assumption of good faith with you long ago. And it only took the creation of hundreds of garbage sub-stubs, sockpuppetry, long-term blocks and topic bans for abusing the system before it happened. As to the rest of your bitching, you continue to ignore the fact that notability is defined on Wikipedia by the quality and abundance of sources on the subject. Yes, I realize you're pissed because you can't just go down a list of players who managed to appear in 100 games in random low-level leagues anymore. But now, as always, you are free to create articles where you can show the existence of multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and cover them in non-trivial fashion. Just like how the notability of every other article on Wikipedia is defined. You're not being "censored". You're being told to stop wasting everyone's time. Having to deal with the multitude of crap pages on non-notable subjects you create via AfD and the like only takes quality editing time away from those of us who care about crafting articles of merit for our readers rather than just wanting the ego hit of being the creator of a page.
If you really want to show that a certain league should be added to these lists, then stop being lazy and show us why a presumption of notability may be warranted. And by that, I mean that you need to show that enough sources exist that we can presume most or all players at that level are notable. Resolute 23:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I am comfortable in accusing you of bad faith because that's what you've been practicing. When you create a sub-stub claiming that someone's played in a league that he hasn't, or you oppose an AfD claiming that the Central Hockey League is covered under criterion #3 when it was explicitly listed in criterion #4, or you claim that playing 100 games in bottom feeding semi-pro leagues is equivalent to playing 100 games in the AHL or the Allsvenskan, and you do these things over and over and over again, and you have a history of such antics (which has led to permanent topic and page move bans for you in other areas, as well as multiple blocks for sockpuppeteering)? That's how we dare to question your motives and challenge your good faith. Indeed, no one "owns" the Hockey WikiProject ... and that includes you. We are free to debate issues without begging for your input, and we are free to establish consensus without your approval. Ravenswing 00:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
No editor should have to put up with your attempts at bullying. Contrary to your rant, any editor who reviews my edit history will find no edits that are not verifiable, and will find no edits which are not not made in good faith. The only reason you are trying to discredit me on this page is because you are unable to reasonably assault my argument that NHOCKEY is being changed without due process. Dolovis (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually everything he said happened in edits you made to Afd's in just the last week or so. So it is 100% provable that you have not been acting in good faith. Secondly we have had to fix numerous one line stubs you created listing players as playing in a given league when in fact they had never played a single game in that league. Whether you do it on purpose or out of incompetence I don't know. But you do do it. Then there are the hundreds of incorrect links you make where you create pages and put a "reference" on the page that is a completely different player. At best you are an extremely sloppy editor, at worst you are likely a vandal/troll that thrives on making a mess here. Your last sentence is ironic, because that is exactly what you are doing. Because you can't debate the issue at hand you are attacking the people. You have no argument against the change, nor anything to back up your position. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a .sig I use on VBulletin-based forums: "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying." Contrary to your rant, coming up with examples is easy. Want to see a few, in articles you created? In this AfD, you falsely assert that there are notability criteria covering inline hockey. This article and this article, both of which you created and edited, assert that the players performed in leagues they haven't actually played in. In this AfD, you assert that the Central Hockey League falls under criterion #3 when the NHOCKEY criteria explicitly states that it falls under criterion #4. In this AfD, you make the amazing assertion that a player who actually performed in an exhibition for college club hockey teams had played for the "national team." And this is just in the last two weeks. Djsasso is right here: either you are acting in deliberate bad faith, or you are editing with a level of carelessness and/or incompetence that would make me look favorably on a topic ban enjoining you from creating new articles. Which characterization would you prefer? Ravenswing 21:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
You didn't just suggest an objective criteria be used. You edit warred to try to get your way against a clear consensus. And then what prompted to try and help tweak and adjust the list as needed you have so far refused and instead continued arguing, making disparaging remarks against other editors such as suggesting you are being censored. No one is censoring you. You have been asked multiple times now for your opinions on what might be needed to adjust the list. You have so far refused. If anyone is censoring anyone, it is you censoring yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Guys... ignoring the obvious personal animosity at play here between Dolovis and the others.... What is the rationale for removing the list of leagues from this page and putting it in a project essay? All the other sports list the qualifying leagues on this page so your removal of the leagues from here seems to be against the overall tone of the page and consensus hasn't really been established to do that. Spanneraol (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ravenswing is correct, there is lots of precedent for it. The soccer one has been evolving for 4 years now. And discussions are always ongoing on it tweaking it where necessary. Hockey unlike baseball for example has high popularity in a number of countries around the world and has a correspondingly higher number of leagues that would get people pages. So many so that listing them all on this page would get cumbersome. We used to get around it by saying "other such leagues". That stopped working when some editors started using that phrase as an excuse to include just about any league that paid players. So it was decided that we should take the soccer approach and model ours after theirs (I believe the first draft was literally copied from theirs). Being as how their list has been in NSPORTS since the very beginning I would say there is ample consensus that we handle it like that. -DJSasso (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Rodeo

We seem to have a dispute about notability for rodeo and disagreement with my simultaneous tightening and expansion of that section. So taking to talk. Bottom line: As one of the people who assisted with the FAC for Calgary Stampede, I am fully aware of its size and significance. That said, it still is a rodeo that most anyone can enter, so the mere fact of showing up does not create a presumption of notability, though certainly being named a champion there is. In contrast, the US and Canadian finals are only open to people who qualify based on a stringent and competitive set of criteria, so merely being allowed to compete in those venues implies a clearer presumption of notability. It is POV to include just one big rodeo when there are at least five or six others that are of similar stature in the rodeo world. So that was why I changed the section; we really don't need the entire List of rodeos in there, but Calgary isn't the only one that's special. Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about rodeos. However I have no problem with removing Calgary Stampede if enough entrants are found to not meet WP:GNG. Also, being that any subject can use GNG to establish notability, any addition to NSPORTS needs to establish that it is warranted based on numerous past debates of specific articles. Remember, WP is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY needing more rules.—Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, here is the proposal that is causing heartache, material removed indicated by strikeout and new material added is underlined

Athletes who compete in Rodeo competition are presumed notable if they
  1. Have participated at the highest level of national competition such as the Calgary Stampede, Canadian Finals Rodeo or National Finals Rodeo, where entrants must pre-qualify to participate based on accumulated points, purse money, or similar winnings.
  2. Have been inducted into a national hall of fame for rodeo competitors such as the ProRodeo Hall of Fame or Rodeo Hall of Fame
  3. Have won national-level championships at rodeos sanctioned by groups other than the PRCA, such as the College National Finals Rodeo.
  4. Have won championships at major rodeos sanctioned by major organizations such as the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) and Women's Professional Rodeo Association (WPRA) that draw national and international competition such as the Calgary Stampede, Cheyenne Frontier Days, Pendleton Round-Up

The bottom line is that fans of the Calgary Stampede are very strong fans and that's fine, but just showing up creating a presumption of notability should not be done where competition is basically open to all comers, even if the reality is that only the best tend to show up. I would view evidence that entry into Calgary is predicated upon invitation, previous winnings or some other prequalifier would change my view, but I could not find evidence of this. Montanabw(talk) 21:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The Calgary Stampede is certainly not "open to all comers" as suggested by Montanabw, who clearly has no understanding of what the Calgary Stampede means within the world of professional rodeo. It is not an understatement to describe it as the “Super Bowl of Rodeo”[5] To perform at the Calgary Stampede means that you have proven yourself to be one of the of the best rodeo athletes in the world.[6][7][8] As the world's richest and most famous rodeo event, of course athletes must qualify to be invited the Calgary Stampede.[9][10] With a prize of $100,000 to the winner of each major discipline and $1,000,000 total on championship day alone, it also offers the richest payout. Only 20 athletes for each discipline (bull riding, barrel racing, steer wrestling, tie down roping, saddle bronc and bareback riding) and 32 professional chuckwagon racing teams - which is the event's largest attraction, will qualify to compete at the Calgary Stampede. Dolovis (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You fail to assume good faith, and you need to stop hyperventilating. I helped on the FAC for Calgary Stampede and am familiar with rodeo in general and that rodeo in particular. So, is your beef ONLY with my not putting Calgary on par with the national championship rodeos, or do you have complaints about the other things being added? Let's separate this out: I appreciate that you pointed out that the rules apparently changed in 2006 when they struck out on their own. But I still think that just like not every horse that enters the Kentucky Derby is presumed notable, even though it too is limited to 20 entries each year, I still question if everyone who simply attends is to be presumed notable. I already suggested that anyone who is a champion there IS presumed notable. The Stampede has the most prize money for a tournament -style rodeo, yes, but other rodeos also can claim the title of "richest" of their type. But more to the point, the Stampede is not the "super Bowl" -- the Calgary newspaper is hardly a neutral source for that claim (!) - the NFR and CNFR are the "championship" events for the USA and Canada. (Note: "The National Finals Rodeo is essentially the Super Bowl of rodeo. ") If it will keep the peace, we can put Calgary with the national events (even though I disagree), but I'd like the other criteria to be added. Do you have a problem with the other material? Montanabw(talk) 05:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
When push comes to shove, rodeo is a highly regional sport. I would question whether participation in any rodeo generates enough coverage to warrant a presumptive claim to notability. This is one of many sports that really should rely on GNG, not an SNG that allows certain editors to create poorly referenced sub-stubs on the basis of arbitrary criteria. Resolute 06:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Point acknowledged as to regional nature (though the "region" is much of the United States), but there has been a rodeo entry here long before this discussion arose. I must also note that the same "regional" argument is true of Curling (which I picked on a lot above, not to be critical of curling), or, for that matter, Cricket (Cricket is not played in America, to speak of). And I would agree with Dolovis that rodeos do get a LOT of significant coverage; CBC covers the Stampede extensively and NBC Sports, CBS Sports and ESPN all cover rodeo. Montanabw(talk) 02:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Curling and cricket are widely followed in entire nations. Rodeo, much as I enjoy the Stampede, does not have a significant presence beyond Western Canada and pockets of the US. That is what I meant by regional. I'm not saying that athletes in this sport aren't notable - many are - merely that I don't think an SNG is really appropriate here because the RS coverage varies far too wildly to be able to grant that presumption on the basis of appearing in any specific event. Resolute 03:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd really like to see the stats on curling! LOL! (Now Hockey, yes, I would agree...). But seriously, rodeo has significant coverage in the United States, not merely "pockets" - unless the entire nation west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line is a "pocket." I mean, seriously, let's just add Badminton, Australian Rules Football and even the Gaelic Games to the list of sports that rodeo can probably top in terms of fans, prize money, and economic impact. I do not support deleting any of these, but I'd like to know what is considered in marking something as "notable"? TV coverage? Prize money awarded to top competitors? I suspect rodeo will easily compete, even with Curling... My point is many things are here that rodeo can match by the statistics used to justify them. this may be useful Montanabw(talk) 05:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Revised proposal for NRODEO

Athletes and others who participate in the sport of Rodeo are presumed notable if they
  1. Have participated as athletes at the highest level of professional competition such as the the Calgary Stampede, Canadian Finals Rodeo, National Finals Rodeo, or National Finals Rodeo (Australia);
  2. Animals, athletes and other people involved with rodeo are presumed notable if they Have been inducted into a national or international rodeo hall of fame such as the ProRodeo Hall of Fame, Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum Rodeo Hall of Fame, or National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame.
  3. Are college rodeo athletes who meet the criteria of WP:NCOLLATH.

I have omitted Montanabw's proposed criteria #3 and #4 because they are redundant to Criteria #1 and 2 above. I have found no example of a notable athlete who has won a major national event, who has not also competed at one events listed in criteria #1 (WP:GNG can still be used to cover a notable exception - if there is one), and the College National Finals Rodeo champion is redundant because they are already presumed notable under the criteria of WP:NCOLLATH. Dolovis (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts:
  1. I can live without #4, as your argument that the person who wins, say, at Cheyenne Frontier Days is probably going to wind up competing at the NFR is probably true. That said, I am not so certain about the guys who win on the PBR circuit or who do those "bullfighter" (aka rodeo clown) competitions ... the smaller leagues might be notable at the highest levels, but they may not have perfect cross-over to the other group? Dunno. GNG could cover it, haven't really run across a deletionist issue there
  2. I think it best to keep equine athletes out of this discussion, at least until we discuss it at WPEQ and have a criteria to insert - and, note there is a draft notability guideline for horse racing animals and people going over at WP Horse racing right now. There are about 9,000+ articles tagged for WP Horse racing, the overwhelming majority of them people biographies or horse "biographies;" they've had a clear but informal guideline there for a long time. Of the 3000+ articles tagged by WEPQ, maybe half are "biographies" of horses or people. But there, we also animals famous but not necessarily for athletic pursuits (for example, see Prometea, Bamboo Harvester, Clever Hans, etc...). So I think it's just a can of worms that doesn't need to be raised here, given that I've run into some very nasty deletionists a couple of times who basically have an "animals are stupid" attitude.
  3. I disagree about excluding #3; for one thing, things like the CNFR do not necessarily translate into Pro Rodeo ranks, though a cross-ref to NCOLLATH would do the job, I suppose: "Rodeo competitors in college rodeos sanctioned by the NIRA such as the CNFR, shall be deemed notable under similar circumstances to NCOLLATH??"
  4. Frankly, I support expansion of the guidelines a bit because I have had enough deletionist discussions over the years about assorted topics animal and agriculture, so it would be nice to have a guideline to point them to. I like this page, and I like the disclaimer that GNG can also be used, but it's a pain to always have to craft the same stupid argument over and over again to the trolls who live in their mommy's basement and wouldn't know the front end of a horse from the back end (sigh). Montanabw(talk) 18:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Establishing objective criteria, which is reasonable and not overly inclusive, results in clear guidelines which should result in less room for subjective debate over what NRODEO means. Trying to address you concerns, I have made changes to my above proposal (new edits shown in italics). Dolovis (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree completely with reasonable, objective criteria... On the right track, methinks. That said, not overly inclusive also must be balanced with not giving the deletionist trolls a club for being overly exclusive, either. Thoughts:
  1. NCOLLATH is a little football heavy, and I have a minor fret that the reference to the NCAA would be used by some troll against college rodeo athletes, as I think they are still governed by the NIRA, not the NCAA (but I could be wrong??)
  2. Could you handle a piped link for [[National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum|Rodeo Hall of Fame]], as that's the "real" one, odd as that sounds (it's the one that includes the historical figures, etc.)
  3. Should we also note historic rodeo competitors inducted into the Cowboy/Cowgirls Hall of Fame, with the caveat that they must be rodeo atheletes, or is that a can of worms that brings in trick riders (thought they too are remarkable athletes) and even the pickup riders? Just a thought.
  4. I see there is also a high school guideline there as well, so perhaps, due to the popularity of High School Rodeo (and even Lil' Britches rodeo, but let's just NOT go there unless there is a similar guideline for Little League and Junior football...) we could note a ref to the High School athletes section as well under #3.

Back to you! Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no qualms about adding the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame to the list of hall of fames. As for the issue of high school and college athletes, it becomes more difficult to argue for the presumption of notability based on an amateur record. As I have already mentioned, NCOLLATH covers such athletes, and I would further argue that it is redundant (and perhaps even counter-productive as you have pointed out) to list NCOLLATH as a criteria. I would prefer if we leave NRODEO with Criteria #1 and #2 (with the addition of the Cowgirl Hall of Fame) to put this issue to bed for now, and post the changes to NSPORTS. Nothing is written in stone, and this issue can be revisited at a later date if the need arrives. You might also want to think about a proposal to change NCOLLATH if you think that the wording there does not suit the Wikipedia's needs. Dolovis (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but humor me, I see no problem making a note of college rodeo. I deal with a lot of trolls when I work on the horse-related articles who think that anyone from west of the Mississippi is simply not worth the air they breathe. This will provide a guideline to prove that the issue has been discussed and a consensus reached specific to the sport. How about something like "College rodeo athletes in NIRA competition will follow NCOLLEATH and young rodeo competitors will follow WP:NHSPHSATH? Montanabw(talk) 02:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh and we could tweak to note PBR and other non-PRCA, I still think my #3 is needed in some form. Montanabw(talk) 02:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Professional Bull Riders and notable non-PRCA competitorsare covered under criteria #1, and even though it is redundant, I am not against including “College rodeo athletes in NIRA competition will follow NCOLLEATH and young rodeo competitors will follow WP:NHSPHSATH.” as criteria #3. Do we have now have agreement to post this to NSPORTS? Dolovis (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
We can put in 1, 2, and 3 as agreed, so go ahead and do that. I do not think, however, that #1 covers non-PRCA or PBR, as my view is that just showing up at a not-as-major national competition doesn't necessarily mean someone is notable; I'd like to note that WINNING is what makes them notable. But that won't interfere with the way things are worded now, and I suppose if someone wants to argue for being second in the PBR making them notable, I guess there's GNG. Montanabw(talk) 00:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done Dolovis (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Single Named Individuals

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) concerning baseball notability. There are quite a few players who would normally fail WP:GNG since little to anything has ever been found about them in reliable sources beyond their last names and the minimal stats they generated in their brief careers. This discussion may have an impact on WP:BASEBALL/N's assumption that everyone who has appeared in at least one game of Major League Baseball is notable. Other sports with similar long histories might have had comparable issues arise. The people involved in the discussion would likely benefit from the experiences of editors who have expertise in these sports that have already addressed this issue. Thanks Kinston eagle (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Won't really have an impact on WP:BASEBALL/N because NSPORTS wasn't written to catch 100% of cases. It specifically mentions at the top of the page that meeting it does not guarantee an article and not meeting it does not guarantee being deleted. In then end GNG needs to be met either way. Athletes in many sports are often deleted that do meet these guidelines. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The AfD was closed as "Delete". WP:BASEBALL/N makes a presumption of notability, not an assumption. Thus, a few failures is not abnormal.—Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cricket Guideline 1

WP:NCRIC has guideline 1 which states "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire." However, when you click on "major cricket" you are sent to the page Forms of cricket. At no point is the term "major cricket" defined nor even mentioned. After searching I found a semi-definition on major cricket on the WikiProject Cricket page. I recommend changing the link in guideline 1 to that of the Wikiproject Cricket page so that the link is more useful. RonSigPi (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To be consistent with other sport-specific sections, it should point to an essay with the Template:WikiProject notability essay disclaimer placed on top.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The link should point to WP:CRIN. The use of the term major cricket has been the subject of much debate. There used to be a standalone mainspace article at Major cricket. Hack (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The project definition is lacking the disclaimer that it is not a WP:GUIDELINE, as Template:WikiProject notability essay does for similar project-level definitions.—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

NHOCKEY #3 and #7

There's long been support for tightening up NHOCKEY's Criterion #3, which currently provides for presumptive notability for players who've played 100 or more games in a top-level minor league. This amounts to a season and a half, which isn't very much, and I propose the following change:

"Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues."

200 games represents three seasons' worth of play and would eliminate some of the unimprovable sub-stubs we've been seeing. Rolling the "preeminent honors" clause into criterion #3 would also cover the possibility of someone setting the AHL on fire one year and have his career end the next, situations for which GNG-worthy coverage could result. Explicitly naming a different standard for goaltenders, who play far fewer games than the average skater, is also overdue.

While I'm at it, I propose a small tweak to Criterion #7, to read "Are an honored member of a national or multinational hockey Hall of Fame." As currently written, someone in a Tiddlywinks Hall of Fame could meet the criterion. Ravenswing 21:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I would also support any stricter standard, including deletion of NHOCKEY and all sports-specific guidelines. In practice, they primarily serve to bloat this encyclopedia with a never-ending supply of non-notables. Even if WP can physically store it, the dross impedes the usefulness of this encyclopedia. WP ≠ the Internet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 200 games is an arbitrary number... why are minor leaguers or second tier national leagues even included in the guideline? The hockey project has an inflated view of their sport. You should just go with the preminent honors thing and not create some arbitrary number of games limit for minor leaguers. D League Basketball players and minor league baseball players don't get admitted based on some game limit, and they get as much, if not more, coverage as minor league hockey players. Spanneraol (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply: Because we don't fall into the fallacy, as some other WikiProjects do, that there's something about the minor leagues or second tier national leagues that's automatically non-notable. The NHL had only six teams as late as 1967, and before then -- and for many years thereafter -- minor leagues have had franchises in major metropolitan areas. Beyond that, the NSPORTS criteria are nothing but arbitrary. We arbitrarily presume, for instance, that someone who's played so much as a single game of major league baseball is notable, but presume that someone who's played a thousand games of minor league ball isn't. We arbitrarily presume, for instance, that someone drafted in the second round of the NBA draft is notable, but presume that someone drafted in the third round (back in the day) isn't. And so on. Finally, your slam of the hockey project is out of line. The whole reason that the original WP:ATHLETE was broken down into individual sports was the painfully obvious one that different sports had widely different definitions of notability, and that one-size-fits-all suited us very poorly. Ravenswing 07:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree with Ravenswing here. To be honest it is pretty ridiculous that the baseball project doesn't have some sort of amount for minor league baseball players and assume they are all non-notable when that is very obviously false. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep, I've long had a problem with the hostility of the baseball project towards the minor leagues, given the great prominence of the minors throughout baseball history. Heck, the International League's the second oldest professional sports league in the world. Ravenswing 18:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Unless there was a huge problem with minor league baseball bios being wrongfully created and/or AfDed, it would seem that GNG is sufficient and there is no need to create a WP:BUREAUCRACY with more rules in NSPORTS for no particular problem. I trust that there is a problem in hockey project that necessitates more rules.—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I see what you are saying, but personally I think there is a problem in minor league baseball bios because even if players meet GNG most baseball editors push for delete (ie wrongfully deleted) because they don't meet NSPORTS or they put the players info on those god awful prospects pages instead of a stand alone article. So personally I feel its needed. But I suppose that is off topic for this particular request since its a different sport. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Spanneraol and would prefer to drop the arbitrary games number altogether, but any movement to raise the bar is good. That said, I think we are also seeing a move (at least within most hockey editors) where passing an SNG =/= guaranteed notability pass. Even with an arbitrary number, NHOCKEY only provides for presumptive notability. That presumption still must be justified when challenged by producing sources that allow for GNG, V, et al to be met. Resolute 04:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I would personally like it to just be like #4 that it is all preeminent honours. But I will take raising the number as a first step towards that. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support #3, though I might raise the limits higher, to maybe 300 games for skaters and 150/200 games for goalies. Patken4 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support #7, Personally, I would only allow certain national HOFs to be part of the list; Czech, Finnish, Russian/Soviet, Swedish, Slovak (on the fence for this one), and U.S. If Canada ever does one, it can be added. Patken4 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It should help reduce the proliferation of one line stubs and stubs with nothing more than player X signed and ELC on y/y/yy date. Guys who play 100 games could still be kept given GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but wouldn't grant lazy articles legs to stand on. Reducing the # of games played for goaltenders is a much needed new provision. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Team All-American baseball players

Is being named a Second-Team All-American in college baseball generally considered notable enough for an article? I'm leaning toward no, but just want to be sure. Alex (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No.. first team all-american doesnt even have consensus for inclusion. Spanneraol (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
That being said if the player can meet the WP:GNG he is notable. So if you have sources he can have an article. He just can't be "assumed" to meet the GNG based on the second team all-american -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How about phantom major leaguers - those players who were promoted to the major league 25-man roster during the regular season, but did not appear in a big league game? Alex (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines say "has played one game"... phantom guys haven't played... they need to satisfy GNG or some other part of the guideline. Spanneraol (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Who decides?

There has been a minor and friendly edit war ([11][12][13][14]) about the expansion of one criterion for one sport, as discussed at the project talk page for that sport. We can have a separate section for the discussion of this specific inclusion, that's not my concern here; I would like a discussion though over who decides on what to include in the NSPORTS page and what not.

Is this a page where the consensus from the local projects gets compiled; or should local projects present their proposal here at the talk page, so that a wider group can discuss it and the guidelines remain reasonably consistent across sports (e.g. not one sport deciding that everyone who has competed in the national championship is notable, and another comparable sport requesting participation in a major international champiosnhip). Fram (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Local projects should present to the whole community. First, almost always having the whole community evaluate is better than a select group. Second, in my opinion, project groups tend to have a more favorable view of their sport and thus may have a biased opinion. While those project groups will also likely have more knowledge on the sport as well the community is the better way to go. RonSigPi (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Sport-specific WikiProjects are the experts, and we should trust their judgment on these matters, but any notability changes should be agreed by the whole community. GiantSnowman 16:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Lets not pretend that this page represents "the whole community". We'd be discussing everything at a village pump of that was the intention. Likewise, I don't buy the assumption of bad faith inherent in arguing that a project will act with bias. Resolute 23:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
When this page was created the idea behind it was that the experts in their fields could decide on the qualifications of their sport and then make the changes as necessary here. And if there were objections then it would be discussed here to determine if there was a problem with what they had come up with or not. More often than not the people who are experts in their field are going to know when and where sources can be found better than generalists. Don't get me wrong the whole community needs to agree, but there is the whole idea of WP:BOLD. If they come up with a consensus they should be able to implement it and only if people actually disagree should it be reverted, if you are reverting just to force a discussion (and don't actually disagree with the change) then that is sort of against the whole point of be bold. I would note that your comment about all sports being the same/consistent is the reason this page was created, it was found one shoe does not fit all sports. Thus the old WP:ATHLETE was splintered into this way with each sport having its own specific set of guides. (ie playing in a national championship might be a big deal in one sport say baseball, but nothing in another, say underwater hockey) As I said in my edit summary it would have been better if they linked to their discussion on this talk page first just to get more input, but I don't think it was strictly necessary. If people objected to the specific change they could then revert and open a discussion per WP:BRD, but if you don't have an issue with the content of the change all your are doing is wasting peoples time forcing a new discussion about something that possibly no one objects to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
There was an earlier discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_17#Notable_leagues_maintained_by_WikiProjects about NSPORTS being able to point to pages maintained by WikiProjects. While I agree that project experts can be more knowledgable in many areas, I wouldn't be surprised if some have a more inflated sense of what is notable and if it really satisfies WP:WHYN.—Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
That's the wrong way around; WikiProjects should point to this page. GiantSnowman 20:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If it is "wrong", it seems like there's a lot of history there to fight through to get it "right".—Bagumba (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The whole reason why subordinate notability criteria, created by the various Wikiprojects, was devolved from WP:ATHLETE was that the notion of one-size-fits-all is singularly inappropriate to sports. There are sports where teenagers are notable competitors. There are sports where they're not. There are sports where leagues below top national level are quite notable. there are sports where they're not. There are sports where collegiate competition is notable, and sports where it isn't.

    In my observation, charges that a project is "biased" get flung around a great deal more often than proven, and they almost always come from people who tacitly apply the standards of a sport with which they're familiar to one with which they're not. Now, sure, there are standards with which I strongly disagree ... but I am not active in those WikiProjects, and don't feel it's proper to play backseat driver. Ravenswing 01:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

    • "One-size-fits-all is not what WP:NSPORTS wants to be, and is not what I suggested. Every sport can have their own standards, but they should be decided (or at least confirmed) in a central place, not only at and by the project members. For most sports, this doesn't seem to be a problem, the project can easily come here, point to their discussion, present evidence that people who meet rule X are indeed generally notable, and their suggestion gets adopted here. But shortcutting this process seems to me a very bad idea: if you have, like in this situation, someone who inserts a local consensus in this more global guideline, and someone disagrees, then the place to discuss the change is here, not at the individual sports project (who should of course be informed). Fram (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Indeed. You can't have one rule for everything because for example a rule that says that "any sportsman who has played in a professional team is notable" would exclude all the GAA players because they're all amateur. I think that what we have at the moment is best. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
        • But that wouldn't exclude the GAA players unless you reworded it to say "only a sportsman who has played in a professional team is notable". Also, they would be notable if they met the GNG, which the professional players would still need to do. On-topic though, I think it's a bad idea for WikiProjects to decide what's notable without discussion here or the only people who will comment on the proposed criteria will be those with an interest. Uninterested, impartial others should also comment, and that is unlikely to happen unless it is discussed here. James086Talk 13:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm squarely on the fence on this. On one hand, it seems reasonable that the individual projects should set the criteria because they're generally more familiar with the topic. On the other hand, as a survivor of the MMA notability wars, I know firsthand how divisive and abusive this can be. I do think a reasonable compromise is to let the projects develop the notability criteria and then post a link to the discussion here, so that editors who might have missed the discussion can weigh in using a "big picture" vision. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor change to WP:NBOX

I recently made a change to WP:NBOX based on the discussion at WT:WikiProject Boxing#Notability via Ring magazine rankings. I added Ring magazine to the list of top 10 rankings that can show notability. It triggered the discussion above about who decides the notability criteria for individual sports. I view this as an especially minor change considering that Ring magazine's rankings were in WP:NBOX until last October's revision. However, I have been told it needs to be discussed in this forum so here it is.Mdtemp (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, my edit is reverted and I'm told to post here and no one makes any comments. I'm going to put my edit back in.Mdtemp (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I see someone beat me to it.Mdtemp (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I did it a few minutes ago because it sat for 7 days without objection. Which proved my point, if you don't actually object to the edit then don't revert it. There is a reason we say here to be bold. If someone objects then we can discuss it. But to be fair, in the future you should link to your discussions on changing these criteria from this talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable coach?

I see this 2014 US Olympic Head Coach (not an RS, but summarizes his accomplishments) had his page deleted in 2006 as NN ... but thought he would be notable now under our guidelines. Before I recreate the page, though -- any thoughts? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Which section were you thinking presumes he is notable? FWIW, looking at the deleted contents, the 2006 article was on a different person.—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
In some sports, where we discuss notability of coaches (snowboarding is not one, so this is by analogy), coaching Olympic medalists or an Olympic team (or one that has medalists) suffices. That's what I was thinking would be the key point. Though its not in his bio, it appears as well that he is the coach of more than one notable snowboarder. Tx. And tx as to the info on the 2006 article!--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
There is not a one size fits all guideline so far for Olympic coaches, so an Olympic coach in one sport could conceivably be presumed notable, but not in another. It's all a matter of presumed coverage an Olympic coach in a given sport would receive. The more sure-fire way is just demonstrate WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Done.Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Horse racing

I was reviewing Sam Waley-Cohen, which was tagged for notability, and was checking for the guideline here to see if there was a horse-racing specific guideline.

WP:NEQUESTRIAN says,

This section does not encompass notability issues for individuals in the sports of horse racing or rodeo, which have separate guidelines.

But I cannot find any evidence of the horse racing guideline. Could we have a link, please? Kahastok talk 20:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I see there was plans at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_17#Topics_to_include, but not sure the outcome. Will notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing to comment here. —Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
In any event, just looking at the ref list (without actually looking to see if it is significant coverage), WP:GNG is likely met.—Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, yes, we started on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horse_racing/Notability but haven't really finished it, but mostly doe to boredom rather than disagreement. I'd say if it passes what's in there now, it's notable, though if it doesn't meet the criteria there, GNG is still a good default. How would folks like us to proceed with getting the project polished up? Montanabw(talk) 02:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
If there hasn't been any problems going off GNG, there's no need to create a guideline for the sake of having one (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). Since none exists right now, I'll remove from the reference from NSPORTS for now to address Kahastok's problem.—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd prefer you didn't do that; the one thing we do periodically run into are people who think that there shouldn't be an article about 1) a horse, or 2) people who work with horses. It doesn't come up a lot, but probably at least once a year. I'd actually like to add this in. Montanabw(talk) 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem adding it in when it is ready. You can revert my change if you want, but I don't see the point in referencing a guideline for horse racing that doesn't (yet) exist on this page.—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll post a request below. Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Add horse racing

If there is no significant objections, I would like to add a notability criterion for horse racing here. We have rodeo and equestrian sport (i.e. Olympic level stuff) in here already, horse racing is an even bigger sport. per NOTBUREAUCRACY, this isn't overkill - we occasionally have people who raise GNG issues about horses having "biographies" and sometimes question whether people who work with horses quality as athletes/coaches - jockeys, trainers/conditioners - or are significant as owners. I was taking the lead on developing guidelines over in a sandbox at wikiproject horse racimg, and other than wanting to be sure that we have a proper international focus, there seems little objection to the concept; WP Horse racing has informally had guidelines on this for years. Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the proposal?—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suspect the basic simple version for this page will be what is in this section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horse_racing/Notability#Notability_of_individuals, and like the figure Skating section from which I stole the idea, we will continue to flesh out the notability page too, but not post the whole thing here. If you want, we can sandbox the basic outline here. Montanabw(talk) 21:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

National governing bodies

Is the national governing body of an IOC recognised sport in it self inherently notable? The question has arisen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Bandy Association regarding the American Bandy Association. Bandy guy (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Very few things on wikipedia are inherently notable (the only ones that come to mind are plant/animal species and high schools). In fact, the top of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) specifically says that the page is a guideline to help evaluate whether an article is notable, but that the article still must meet the general notability guidelines and that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." In the case of the American Bandy Association, Bandy is barely recognized by the IoC (it was a demonstration sport in 1952 with Finland, Norway and Sweden participating, but that's it), and Americans haven't participated in Bandy in the Olympics. I don't think that there is a case for inherent notability, but the article may be notable if it meets the General Notability Guidelines. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Masters Athletics World Championships

At one point in time, this was mentioned in NSPORTS. It was inauspiciously removed in a burst of edits here without further discussion by user: MATThematical, an opponent. As you can see the earlier discussion, months before the edit, was at best inconclusive. It really had not been discussed much at all. MATTs proposal was for multiple but nobody else reacted. We had not concluded how much of a showing at the meet constituted notability, but NOWHERE in the discussion was there a suggestion for removal. Even though I do watch the progress of this policy, the burst of edits effectively hid the edit from my attention at the time. Now, years later, I have to track this down as its absence becomes an issue. I'm going to replace the original language before the edit. We know MATT's opposing opinion. Do any other voices have an opinion here? Trackinfo (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

World masters championships should be mentioned, although as my orginal post states, I think a single gold medal in an event that doesn't necessarily field the best masters running is questionable. I thought a multiple gold requirement (either through multiple years or multiple events) was the best solution. MATThematical (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about rugby union rules

Why are there separate notability rules for men and women rugby players? According to the current (May 23 2014) rules, female rugby players are notable only if they participated from specific countries during specific (World Cup) years. All years are notable years for male players from Tier 1 and 2 countries. Seems unfair and in comparison there is no such distinction for association football (soccer). My name is Valerie Griffeth. I am a female rugby union player who represented the United States in both 7s and 15s, and now because of a notability-rule technicality which I view as discriminatory, my article here is being put up for deletion. Wondering.--Vgriffeth (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • The purpose of notability standards on Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights laws, but to reflect what the world finds notable or not, whether or not that suits our amour propre. In particular, the underpinning of the NSPORTS subordinate notability criteria is that those who meet it should generally be able to pass the General Notability Guideline. That different sports have differing notability criteria is plain common sense; collegiate-level play is highly notable in some sports and not in others, minor league play is highly notable in some sports and not in others, and women's competition is highly notable in some sports and not in others. Ravenswing 16:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, but can you see the problem here? Wikipedia's contributors are almost all men (one estimate: 90%). You are a man I bet. I am too. Rugby is a male-dominated sport (although women are starting to catch on). So it is highly possible that the male-rugby-notability-rule writers came up with something very male oriented such that if a male player participated in such-and-such a competition, in such-and-such a year (point 1), he is automatically notable, whereas the chances for women are meager (point 4). The result is highly discriminatory, so there are very few female rugby players considered notable, yet male players, whose only claim to fame is to have participated in one of the selected matches, qualify for pages in Wikipedia. This is highly unfair in my view. Consider Griffeth. Her college magazine was so proud of her they devoted an entire article to her; she earned plenty of media attention at Rugby magazine, Erugbynews, the International Rugby Board, 16 references in total, but because her matches did not happen to have the right nation or year, she is automatically excluded from notability. The male-oriented rugby notability rule goes against all the other notability guidelines. Can you begin to see how unfair this is?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Consider that Valerie Griffeth played for US rugby teams in international competitions. She played for 7s; she played for 15s. But she is a WOMAN. Now, check out the following American male rugby players who have only 1 reference (a primary source usually, just a few lines each for each article, but who, BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN and happened to play in the "right" (according to Wikipedia) competitions, have Wikipedia pages which are unchallenged: Mike Mangan, Owen Lentz, Mark Aylor, Hayden Mexted, Chad Erskine, Jonathan Vitale, Blake Burdette, Dan Payne (rugby union), Henry Bloomfield, Junior Sifa, Patrick Danahy, Bill Hayward (rugby union), Tom Billups, Richard Tardits (no references), Dan Lyle (2 refs), Alec Parker, etc etc. Is this fair? It is not fair. The rules need rethinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
      • As I mentioned in the AfD when you posted that self-same laundry list, if there are articles on male rugby players for which reliable sources can't be found, by all means prod or AfD them. For another, you're falling into a common trap of someone thirsting to save an article on AfD: that if some excuse can be made for the subject not having the multiple reliable sources, which discuss the subject in significant detail, that the GNG requires, somehow WP:V and WP:N should be suspended in the subject's favor. This curious doctrine forms no part of Wikipedia policy.

        I stand by what I said above: that the purpose of notability standards on Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights laws, but to reflect what the world finds notable or not. There are women's sports which by virtue of media coverage and public support have relatively loose notable standards: basketball, soccer, hockey, tennis, golf. There are many that don't attract that attention, and don't. Now if you want to argue that WP:V and WP:N should be suspended if you believe they disparage groups you personally favor, I commend their respective talk pages to you. Ravenswing 06:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

        • Generally I agree with your view that the purpose of notability standards in Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights, that their aim should be to reflect what the world finds notable. Given that, what I am arguing is this: that the world finds female athletes such as Valerie Griffeth notable, that this notability is reflected by numerous sources in respected media, and that the current Wikipedia rugby guidelines (ie point 1, point 4, etc) fail to reflect this reality. That is, the more specific rugby-related guidelines are geared towards men, not women; as a result, Wikipedia has dozens and dozens of one-line articles about male rugby players (many of whom get little press) and which are poorly referenced, with the only reason for their being in Wikipedia is that they happened to participate in the right tournament, from the right country, for the right years. So while it is easy for a male rugby player to qualify for a Wikipedia article, it is extremely difficult for a female rugby player to do so. I advocate a rethinking of the point 1 to point 4 rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
          • As I responded at length in the AfD, I disagree with your characterization. A Google News search for Griffeth turned up only the Wikipedia article; she is not so much as mentioned in a single mainstream media article that could be found. The only sources you have produced come from rugby websites and from the subject's collegiate athletic department. Claiming that there are many articles on male rugby players that are similarly poorly referenced -- aside from being an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument -- is not an adequate or legal defense of Griffeth's article: it's an indictment of those other subjects' notability, and a good reason to make a systematic examination of those articles and weed out the ones which fail of references which satisfy the GNG. Ravenswing 08:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
            • A systematic examination of those articles, with numerous AfDs, would be a gargantuan task, fraught with fuss. Frankly, I do not know enough about rugby, or rugby players, to even attempt such an undertaking. It might very well be that the rule-writers (point 1, point 4, etc) are correct, that participating in certain matches, from certain countries, from certain years, automatically should qualify a player for Wikipedia notability. From my viewpoint, it looks suspect, however, when there are numerous one-line article with the only reference being a link to a site saying player X participated in such-and-such a playoff match. It would be much cleaner, simpler, and smarter to more closely align Wikipedia's notability guidelines to reflect the reality of notability, to suggest the same general standard of notability for all athletes. That is what I am asking: for people who know rugby, know the rules, to take a good hard look at the point 1 point 4 business, and come up with a workable guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
              • A bit bewildered here: if you're unfamiliar with rugby, upon what basis do you consider yourself knowledgeable enough to challenge the guideline's accuracy? (I never have myself; I am not a rugby expert, and I presume that those on Wikipedia who are know better than I do what competitions at what levels are notable.)

                That being said, we broke up the old WP:ATHLETE into differing SNGs for each sport for the basic reason that one-size-fits-all doesn't work. There are certain sports where 14-year-old athletes are highly notable. There are many where they never are. There are certain sports where female athletes are highly notable. There are others where they seldom are. There are certain sports where low-level minor leagues receive national press coverage. There are certain sports that get noticed by the public only for so long as their competitions are on the TV during broadcasts of the Olympics. This is why we don't consider "sports" a homogenous heap when it comes to SNGs. Ravenswing 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • This discussion appears to rest on a flawed assumption. WP:Notability_(sports) is not what makes things notable. WP:GNG is what makes things notable. WP:GNG rests on the coverage that subjects achieve. Coverage of sports-played-by-males hugely outweighs sports-played-by-females, thus it's easiler for sports-played-by-males to achieve notability. I completely agree that this sucks, but Wikipedia is not the place to correct this (although Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias has some great hints on attempting to avoid perpetuating it). WP:Notability_(sports) is a shortcut for our collective feeling for where the various lines are for notability are in the field of sports. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with Stuartyeates somewhat, in that WP:GNG makes things notable, except that (if I understand things correctly) a player can qualify if he/she passes the WP:Notability_(sports) guideline; that is, either GNG or SNG works, that is, if a player meets either the GNG or the SNG, they're notable. Is this right? If I don't know much about rugby, I know about Wikipedia, and what occurred to me, seeing article after article in Wikipedia of male rugby players, which only had one or two references at most, that something was amiss. My sense is the culprit here is the point 1 point 4 rules, that it is poorly written or needs to be rethought, that's all I'm saying.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for your input on this. I really appreciate the discourse my small page has sparked. After reading the discussion, I still think the WP:Notability_(sports) should be changed to be more reflective of the evolving growth of the game. As Stuartyeates noted, it sucks that women's sports generally do not get as much coverage as men's sports. This does not mean that there are not people interested in following those sports and the women making spectacular achievements in them. Finding publications to support WP:GNG is unfortunately more difficult for women than for men, but as an athlete that has competed internationally, it is notable. Period. End of story. People find out and they're awed by it. The IRB sanctions international matches for both men and women for this reason. They are the gate keepers above the gate keepers of the national team selectors, so why should Wikipedia then say international participation in your sport is not notable if there are both International and National governing bodies both saying yes, you are notable. That said, can we at least get rid of the qualification that women must have played in the semi-final or higher at the World Cup? And explicitly include the Women's Sevens World Series? Players must still meet WP:GNG of course. Vgriffeth (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And so must any subordinate notability criteria. It's already been mentioned in this discussion that the various SNGs -- the NSPORTS criteria included -- have one essential premise: that someone meeting them would be reasonably assured of passing the GNG. Every such criterion has to be checked and tested against that premise; if athletes who fulfill that criterion generally do not meet the GNG, then the criterion is flawed and must be stricken.

    On Wikipedia, "notable" has a precise definition at variance with the general public's definition of "I think this is important." That meaning is set forth in Wikipedia:Notability, which holds that "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Neither that definition nor the GNG makes any reference -- nor should they -- to the decisions of sports national sanctioning bodies. Since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, we can not serve as an advocate for the growth of your sport. Ultimately, if the media chooses not to cover your sport, that doesn't impede the various sanctioning bodies from declaring anything "notable" they see fit. It just deters Wikipedia from having articles about it.

    As far as your specific objection about international play goes, if you review the various NSPORTS criteria, you'll see that in almost every case, merely playing for an international team (and in every case of merely being named to a squad) is not sufficient to meet the criteria. Over and over again, the criteria requires competing for a national team at the top level of competition, such as the Olympic Games or at top-rung World Championships. If, in this particular instance, you can demonstrate that the typical competitor in this Women's Sevens World Series meets the GNG, that would be a good reason to amend the SNG. I recommend the FAQ link that isaacl posted uptopic for more clarification. Ravenswing 08:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Articles that are not sourced to published material providing significant coverage of the subject (beyond just statistics sites) may be nominated for deletion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_17&oldid=1254539377"