Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Wording of NFOOTY

I would like to propose rewording point 1 of NFOOTY. The current wording is difficult to understand, particularly for anyone not familiar with FIFA's sanctioning guidelines, and somehow it doesn't include the phrase "national team" despite that being the focus of this point of the guideline. So I'd like to re-propose the following:

1. Players who have played for, and managers who have managed a national team in any of the following:
  1. FIFA World Cup or FIFA Women's World Cup
  2. FIFA Confederations Cup
  3. A continental championship (i.e. UEFA European Championship, Copa América, CONCACAF Women's Gold Cup etc.)
  4. The qualifying rounds of any of the above competitions
  5. The Olympic Games
  6. Any other official match, including friendlies, between the senior national teams of two FIFA members

This was initially workshopped a few months ago as part of a broader proposal, and while the proposal as a whole failed to gain traction, I don't recall there being any meaningful opposition to reworking point 1 like this. Your thoughts? Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not proposing we change the underlying rule, just how we communicate it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
In Point 6, with including friendlies, that would be changing the current scope which is currently only competitive games. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
That's incorrect, international friendlies have always been considered competitive matches. Fenix down (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, I've seen people saying it's the opposite and they don't count towards FOOTY. Particularly when players had only participated in friendlies at senior level. I guess that clarification here would be helpful then. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
That would be at a club level, not international. Fenix down (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure this wording makes it clearer, maybe simplify points 1 to 4 as "any FIFA or continental competitions, including qualifying"? I think the current wording "whether or not the teams are members of FIFA" is also helpful in making it clear that, say, this would include French Guiana at the Gold Cup (or CONCACAF Nations League, for that matter). S.A. Julio (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This doesn't really work for me for the following reason, a friendly match between Bhutan and Afghanistan would meet the criteria above, but a match in the SAFF Championship between the same teams, indeed potentially between the same 22 players would not, since the SAFF Championship is not at a continental level. In order to have the right balance point three needs to include the following: A continental championship or championship organised by any of the sub-federations within the AFC or CAF. Fenix down (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't point #6 capture FIFA "A" internationals that happen to fall within a competition like the SAFF Championship? If we add the language you proposed, I think we risk capturing unofficial matches because some federations send U-23 sides to local competitions (e.g., COSAFA Cup). Jogurney (talk)
    • I forgot that even the CONCACAF Gold Cup has on occasion featured U-23 sides such as 1996 invitee Brazil. How do we make sure their matches don't get included in point #3? Jogurney (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC) 20:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Although this clarifies the existing consensus (and as per Jogurney, I think Fenix has misunderstood that point 6 would also cover SAFF matches as they would still be deemed senior internationals), I think it is perhaps overcomplicating matters. Because points 1, 2, 3 and 4 are covered by point 6, I think we only need points 4 and 6 to be listed, i.e.:
1. Players who have played for, and managers who have managed a national team in any of the following:
  1. Any official match, including friendlies, between the senior national teams of two FIFA members.
  2. The Olympic Games
I think this would prevent the situation Jogurney is concerned about with regards to the CONCACAF Gold Cup. Whilst we don't need to spell it out in the guideline, I think it's also worth reminding editors that the Olympic qualifiers for women's football involves full age teams and is not an U23 tournament like the men's competition. Number 57 20:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I think this is much easier to understand, but I wonder if we should include matches involving Confederation members who are not FIFA members (e.g., Zanzibar, French Guiana, or pre-2004 New Caledonia)? We would only want to capture matches with senior sides, and only in full continental championships, including qualifying (e.g., OFC Nations Cup, CONCACAF Gold Cup, Africa Cup of Nations, but not local championships like African Nations Championship). Jogurney (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Do FIFA count these as caps? (e.g. if Kenya plays Zanzibar, does FIFA recognise the caps won by the Kenyans in the game?). Number 57 21:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
No, FIFA does not consider matches involving non-FIFA member football associations as official "A" internationals. I think there is earlier consensus that matches between these football associations which are in official confederation championships (such as Africa Cup of Nations) get similar coverage as those between two FIFA-member football associations in the same competition. Jogurney (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Number 57 But I have a question: Should the qualifying or play-off of Olympic Games pass NFOOTY? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • For women's football yes, for men's no (at least that's what I'd say). I assume FIFA recognise women's Olympic qualifiers as full caps? Number 57 12:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @Number 57: So, since men's football Olympics (including qualifying) is limited to Under 23. I am afraid that some people will misunderstand it, so I think it is better to change to the following text:
1. Players who have played for, and managers who have managed a national team in any of the following:
  1. Any official match, including friendlies, between the senior national teams of two FIFA members;
  2. The Olympic Games (excluding men's qualifying).

What do you think? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Take 2

There seems to opposition to the length so let's condense it down to just the cases where playing for a non-senior or non FIFA team meets guidelines:

1. Players who have played for, and managers who have managed a national team in any of the following:
  1. A continental championship, including qualifying (i.e. UEFA European Championship, Copa América, CONCACAF Women's Gold Cup etc.)
  2. The Olympic Games
  3. Any other official match, including friendlies, between the senior national teams of two FIFA members

This is more acceptable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Why not leave "Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA"? "Senior national team" is open to various interpretations and misunderstandings, whereas "tier 1 as defined by FIFA" is unambiguous. For example, I've seen an editor complain that a tournament shouldn't be mentioned because some under-23 players were included in a national team because of the unavailability of senior players, which is a common occurrence. The fact the matches were defined by FIFA as tier 1 resolved the dispute. Without that, we'd probably still be arguing – in good faith, of course! Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I think because whilst it's official and correct terminology, "tier 1" is rarely used in the real world and a lot of people don't really understand what it means (I seem to recall one editor trying to claim that continental club matches were tier 1 fixtures because they were sanctioned by their continental FA). Number 57 22:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Revisited topic: Roller Derby

Hello, Internet!

There is a lack of consistency regarding which roller derby leagues/teams should have articles, and which shouldn't. There are currently a lot of articles that have no non-local coverage, important information or often even large amounts of local media attention. My realization that this standard didn't exist came from my own article being rejected. Which I'm fine with, if there's some level of consistency to it. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does not currently include any roller sports. I did find a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 10, but there didn't seem to be a conclusion.

That conversation seemed to include uncertainty regarding how well established the sport is, and how well developed the structure is. I believe those concerns are no longer valid, especially considering the rise of parent organizations such as the Women's Flat Track Derby Association. I can justify that more if needed, but for now I'll move on. The other parts of the discussion are more useful.

So, what should the requirements be for a roller derby league/team to be approved as an article? And, conversely, can this be formalized so that existing articles not meeting said criteria can be removed?

The above text was posted elsewhere for a while without response, so I went ahead and came up with what seems to be reasonable below.

Follow up: Since I think I'm the only person who has thoughts on this, I've taken the liberty of copying and slightly modifying the referenced discussion. As the community has settled substantially in the last few years, I think it's now fair to include the language in Wikipedia:Notability (Sports). Here's an example:
Roller derby leagues are presumed notable if they:
1. Have competed in national or international level competitions
2. Have competed in regional playoffs leading to a national or international competition
3. Have team members who are on the national team for the Roller Derby World Cup


Roller derby skaters are presumed notable if they:
1. Have competed at the Roller Derby World Cup
2. Have competed in national or international championship competitions
Note: Roller derby competitions that were conducted as scripted entertainment are covered, instead, by WP:ENTERTAINER.
Which is pretty much copied and pasted from the proposed changes from the 2011 discussion, with the modification that I got rid of 'interstate and intercounty' competitions. Those are too common and small, as noted at the time. The sport has really settled on regional playoffs leading to national and international championship games at this point, so that seems like a fair way to do it. Teams competing at that level tend to be featured on ESPN and various sport specific news articles now. For #3, which was controversial the first time around, I'm willing to include it to avoid being deletionist and because a notable skater would pique curiousity regarding their home team, which I expect would be referenced in the article about the individual. It's debatable.
I've also left the definition of the competitions open ended. Even though I'm thinking of one in particular, not all teams are in the same organization and I suspect it would be too exclusionary to not include altertnative competitions that exist or may exist in the future.
Thoughts? Gentlemanscientist (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Skaters are notable if they ":2. Have competed in national or international championship competitions"? No, not at all. In many countries, there may be a national competition, but this doesn't get the necessary coverage to make individual skaters notable. This is way too inclusive. Even "Have competed at the Roller Derby World Cup" is not really acceptable. I notice that e.g. Belgium competed in the 2014 Roller Derby World Cup, but the players have in general not received the necessary coverage to meet our notability standards. It is in many countries simply too much of a niche sport to have it included in NSPORTS like this. Individual roller derby skaters will be notable, but no clearly defined groups can be said to be generally notable yet. Fram (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I will be happy to vote to support any set of criteria where the proposer has done the legwork to demonstrate that 90% of the players that can meet it would meet the GNG independently. Whether the sport gets occasional airtime on ESPN, or the "community has settled" is beside the point. Ravenswing 11:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Tennis guidelines

Is Clay Thompson (tennis) notable per WP:NTENNIS? I ran across this article as part of an RfD. I am not a big tennis follower, but the 100's of possible qualifying tournaments to meet NTENNIS is daunting, and defeats the purpose of SNGs supposedly being a quick alternative to GNG. (Moreover, I have my suspicions of whether GNG is even met).—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

He does meet NTENNIS, as he was given a wild card in to the 2014 Hall of Fame Tennis Championships, an ATP World Tour event, which is the top level of professional Tennis. Iffy★Chat -- 08:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
So getting a mere wildcard invite to one event gives us confidence that he meets GNG?—Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The guidelines are set as they are so that almost everyone who passes 1 criteria will have sources available that let them pass GNG. Most players who play on the ATP World Tour do so by merit and obviously pass GNG. Complicating the guidelines by excluding wildcards from some of the criteria for example would, as you said, "defeat the purpose of SNGs being a quick alternative to GNG". Iffy★Chat -- 13:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Definition of high performance union in WP:NRU

I would suggest that we rewrite the notabilty criteria for Rugby union as they are out of date. This document [1] on the world rugby site defines the high performance unions as being "The current high performance investment unions are: • The 20 unions who participated in RWC 2015 • Five emerging unions selected for their potential to qualify for repechage tournaments and hence RWC 2019 and RWC 2023". This would mean that palyers that have represented any of the following nations would be considered notable.

Tier 1 Unions: Argentina Ireland Scotland Wales England France Italy South Africa Australia New Zealand

Tier 2 Unions: Japan Canada USA Uruguay Namibia Romania Georgia Fiji Tonga Samoa

Emerging Unions: Brazil Portugal Spain Germany Russia

The criteria as they are written do not represent what World Rugby consider as high performance unions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Chess

WikiProject Chess has developed a guideline for presumed notability: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Notability of chess players and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Notability of chess players, redux – time to close this for the discussion that led to its development. I've been told by User:Djsasso that we'll need to get a consensus to list it here. If this is about whether chess is a sport or a game, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in debating that, so I have only one question: where should we put the guideline, if not here? Cobblet (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong here as I come down on the side of Chess not being a sport. You could probably just add a notability section to your wikiproject itself... I dont know if there is anywhere else where chess easily fits in. Spanneraol (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
A lot of similar types of guidance is often found on the main page of Wikiprojects. The caveat to that of course is that they won't be actual guidelines, just guidance. Most occupations or things like that don't get full out notability guidelines like NSPORTS and rely solely on GNG. But yes, I don't think it really belongs here being that its not a sport at all. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The sport/not a sport question is secondary; the key concern is that in order to establish a guideline, the life cycle for policies and guidelines should be followed. This means establishing a consensus amongst the community as a whole, which generally means having a broader conversation than just with the members of a specific Wikiproject.
Once a community consensus is established, whether or not the guideline is documented on this page is more a social question than technical. If the community of people following this page don't feel that guidelines for chess lies within their scope of interest to maintain, then as a practical matter, it's probably better to document it elsewhere. Note though that the broader community should always be given an opportunity to weigh in on any changes, no matter where the guideline is kept. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Check, mate. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
It's usually spelled as one word :) In any case, isaacl's advice sounds good. I'll post the guideline on our main page. Cobblet (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why chess shouldn't be covered on NSPORTS. The guideline seems good, though I have some misgivings about national champions of minor countries without a meaningful chess press. Sideways713 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Which I would suspect would be a very large number of countries but I am not super knowledgeable on the subject to know for sure. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion to revise MMA Rules

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Mixed_martial_arts

  • Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER) (exception, if the MMA Fighter is deemed worthy add even with 1 MMA Top Tier MMA Record) ; or
  • Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BusriderSF2015 (talk • contribs)

The "deemed worthy" exception can be met for any sport by meeting WP:GNG, even if they dont meet WP:NSPORTS.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Change to basketball guideline

NHOOPS was amended today by User:Stephreef to add: "Have been a member of any national team at a continental or global championship as either a player or head coach." I don't recall this being discussed before the change. Are folks comfortable with this amendment? Should every person who has ever played for one of the 200-plus teams in Category:National basketball teams (including East Timor, Kosovo, New Caledonia, etc.) really be presumed to be notable? Has any sampling been done to see if the vast majority of players pass GNG? Until such a showing has been made, I think this ought to be reverted. Other thoughts? Cbl62 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I checked and find no discussion of this change. I am reverting the change which should not have been made without consensus for the change. It appears that the change was inspired by a debate over an article created by Stephreef that is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akilan Pari. That AfD should be resolved under GNG and not by making a sweeping change to NHOOPS. Cbl62 (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
No, not all national team members from all countries will meet GNG. Olympians are already covered and you could make a case for the FIBA World Cup, but beyond that it is a mixed bag based on how prevalent the sport is in the country so just going by GNG is best. Rikster2 (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry User:Cbl62 but your statement makes no sense. Kosovo, East Timor, etc. never appeared in the official continental championship. 200+ teams? That is a vast exaggeration. The number is less than half of that. Stephreef (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Stephreef: Feel free to present your proposal here. Whether there are 100 or 200 national teams at issue (either way a proposal covering thousands of players and coaches), the real concern is that you need consensus before making such a sweeping change. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we reach consensus that "any players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable."? That is the statement from association football, which is valid for basketball as well.Stephreef (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, given the many the AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarek Ammoury of pro players that were deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
No, not all “fully professional” basketball players are notable. I would also argue that the association football guideline is overly-broad too as it includes leagues like the US United Soccer League which I am familiar enough with to say that not all of its players meet GNG, but that’s a discussion for another day. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
User:Cbl62, Bagumba In asscoiation football, you can be the 15th reserve player of a small island nation and still get broad consensus that any player in this category is notable enough to have his own wikipedia page. In basketball, you can be the captain of a nation of a billion and still get little support. The wiki project of association football is comprised of people who support any cause to argue that football players are automatically notable. In the wiki project basketball, the members do not. That is the only reason for this phenomenon.Stephreef (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF alone is usually not the best argument.—Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Annual Reviews on Boxing Notability especially in ways of Regional Titles

This dicussion was made about the boxin notability I have copied and paste it here to continue in with the conversation This was discussed between 21st and 28th of March Please add to it as I believe what we voted for should be change

As discussed here on passed discussion [2] I would like to open the floor to do the annual review on boxing notability in their regional titles or even for other stuff.

  • 1st I want to look into adding female regional titles as being part of notability
  • 2nd adding Pan Asian Boxing Association as its long history in the sport as a title his quite notable and historic
  • 3rd Adding IBO World title as a notable title
  • 4th add the Australasian title to notable titles list
  • 5th add New Zealand Professional Boxing Association title as part of the title list as its one of the oldest commissioning body of NEw Zealand history
  • 6th change top 10 rankings notability rule to top 15
  • 7th having discussion about having boxers that dont meet the notability but could be notable under a new rule that would have a certain amount of wins that makes them notable *like a boxer that has not win a regional title but have 25 or more wins
  • 8th having a top 10 or top 15 boxer on the Boxrec rankings marked as notable

I would like to invite :RonSigPi :PRehse to be part of this discussion as they were part of the original discussion about the notability changing

tell me what you think --Bennyaha (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

slightly in the “other stuff” category.

According to criterion #2 of WP:NBOX only British Boxing champions from 1929 onwards are defined as notable. Only the British Boxing Board of Control is listed here as an authority for the Brit’s. Yet BoxRec recognises National Sporting Club (NSC) sanctioned title fights between 1891-1929 as legitimate British championship fights too. I recommend the NSC (1891-1929) is added to the list of authorities. Okeeffemarc (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Generally in favour of all of the above, with the exception of the 7th one - with so many boxers these days getting padded records by beating a string of journeymen, or have a large number of fights without fighting at a high professional level, just having a certain number of wins wouldn't necessarily be meaningful for notability. The IBO titles don't have the same status as WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO titles but have reached a stage now where an IBO world champion is going to be notable enough for inclusion. There was a seamless transition in terms of titles in the UK between the NSC from 1909 to the BBBofC in 1929, so certainly from 1909 onwards the NSC English titles (equivalent to BBBofC British titles) should have the same status. Prior to 1909 I'm not sure - weights were not standardised, and my impression is that people were 'declared' champions at various poundages, sometimes with disputes over who was champion, and in some cases may not have really had the same status that champions had once recognised weights were brought in, but obviously boxing was massively popular before 1909 and there were many boxers from that early era who should be considered notable, so we should be open to defining some criteria. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Would not want to increase top 10 to to 15 there is no point to that. I thought PABA was already included and have no opinion on IBO (not against). Sorry but can't see the importance of the New Zealand title.PRehse (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts

  • 1st - Just not seeing it. World titles get some coverage, but I have not seen it across the board for female regional titles. Plus, with the combo of classic female tiles, such as International Female Boxers Association, and the men's sanctioning bodies now handing out female world titles, such as the World Boxing Council, we have a decent cross-section. Maybe shore up the list of female world titles.
  • 2nd - If memory serves me, it was removed because is disassociated with the WBA. People mentioned capping the year to when it was affiliated with the WBA. However, due to history, can we establish the presumption considering a lot may be non-Internet sources. Between the Asian Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation Pan Pacific, Oriental and Pacific Boxing Federation, World Boxing Association Oceania, World Boxing Organization Asia Pacific, and World Boxing Organization Oriental titles its not like there is a big gap in Asia at least for relatively modern fighters.
  • 3rd - There were concerns about the first decade of IBO champions. Has anyone resolved that? I think IBO may be notable enough, but would like to see that resolved.
  • 4th and 5th - For Australasian and NZ titles, since those are English can we do some case studies. As a start, what about John Hopoate (AUS, HW), Roberto Lerio (AUS, 126), Asher Derbyshire (NZ, 200), and Ricky Murphy (NZ, 154). I just went through boxrec and picked fighters in a cross-section of weights that fought in the last 10 years (so Internet sources shouldn't be too hard to find), didn't appear to reach notability through another title (some guys later won the OPBF title, and had two or three fights (idea behind "win" requirement is fought and defended). Bennyaha, feel free to do searches on these and see what comes up - its a good start.
  • 6th and 8th - I'm good with both as top-15 are eligible to fight for titles and therefore have coverage generated from potential title fights. That said, don't know how much is slipping through, but I am good with it (and since many organizations rank different fighters, boxrec top 15 is a pretty good standard). Maybe add TBRB and Ring Magazine top-10 too.
  • 7th - no for a lot of reasons. The biggest may be that fighters of years past (and not even that long ago) and fighters from less regulated countries have a high fight count and in turn a high win count. Who wants to argue that Tommy Abobo here is notable - http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/41053.

And regarding Okeeffemarc, I think the NSC title starting in 1909 is fine to add. RonSigPi (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • 1st point - As a layman on the topic of female boxing, i have to say i've never noticed a regional female boxing bout, but is that due to my ignorance, or general lack of popularity? Does it have to be notable to the general public, or to those interested in the sport?
  • 3rd point - Anthony Joshua currently holds the IBO heavyweight title. It's certainly notable in my view.
  • Generally agree with the rest apart from point 7, I agree with RonSigPi although it could be argued Tommy Abobo deserves recognition for astounding perseverance!
  • I concur with Michig and RonSigPi regards NSC Titles being Notable from 1909 onwards, as this is when weight class regulations were introduced, along with the Lonsdale Belt. Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RonSigPi Okeeffemarc With women boxing starting really kick off over last 2 years, more titles are being fought for both in regionals and world title. WBC have been very serious about the female division and been active with their titles. The other couple of sanctioning bodies last year only started to catch up. Even in Boxrec with their own version of wikipedia they list the current world champions in the sanctioning bodies [3]. My change with criterion #2 of WP:NBOX is to remove the note that states "Note that female title winners... ...will be given no presumptive notability without winning one of the above titles or meeting another criterion of WP:NBOX", just the female part. Then Again I really only noticed WBO Asia Pacific (ignore boxrec as they only added it to boxrec recently and need to catch up on editing the champions in), WBC OPBF, WBA Oceania (again Boxrec needs to catch up on their edits) and WBC ABCO, which means asia pacific regions are being pro active with the regional titles. --Bennyaha (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Take a vote

After reading through the comments I have put these together one proposed changes. Any further comments or discussions feel free to add above. Please comment under each change if you oppose or support as listed below I invite all members to vote including the following people who contributed to the discussion

RonSigPi :PRehse :Michig :Okeeffemarc

--Bennyaha (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  • 1. All Regional titles under citation 2 are considered notable for both Female and Male

vote here

No RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
No Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 2. WBC, WBA, WBO and IBF are added to the female section of Citation 1

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 3. IBO World title is add to Citation 1 in the mens section

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

vote here

No RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
No Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 5. Citation 3 to include boxrec rankings

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 6. Citation 3 to increase to top 15

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment As suggested by Michig, would recommend National Sporting Club from 1909-1929 as 1909 is the point that British Boxing was properly regulated regards weight classes, and was the year the Lonsdale belt was introduced as the British Title belt for all classes. the NSC had exclusive rights to sanction the awarding of the British Title (lonsdale belt) up until 1929, then the BBBofC took over, and have been the authority ever since. The lonsdale belt is still awarded to British champions today. Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes (from 1909) Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I didn't vote on 9 yet. Why are we adding that? Isn't that already covered by BBBofC and National Sporting Club (1891-1929)? RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment See my remark in vote 7. Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I will give votes an extra 48 hours to come in and make changes accordingly but looks good --Bennyaha (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Changes will be made now to the votes that were unanimously voted yes. Voting has now closed --Bennyaha (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)"

--Bennyaha (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

General discussion

My first reaction is what would happen if these new additions were not made? Why is WP:GNG not sufficient? My general concern is that NSPORTS is too prescriptive. It should only add items that will save time because they have been frequently contested at AfD. I realize that a lot of items have been grandfathered in, but we should have good reason to make it grow any further.—Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The logical conclusion of your point is that NSPORTS should be deleted. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Not logical, that's WP:ALLORNOTHING.—Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
But you only want to shrink, hence the conclusion, that's WP:THINGSTHATSHRINKFOREVEREVENTUALLYDISAPPEAR. Nigej (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Easiest way I can explain is :Bagumba from my experience WP:GNG doesn't specify how much coverage is significant coverage. Due to that allot of boxers who deserve to be notable get deleted. Especially little country like new Zealand doesn't have resources or doesn't do coverage unless a Joseph parker come along. These edits are trying to be more inclusive then exclusive. Also to recognize not only the boxers that are notable but also give recognition that sanctioning bodies and ranking systems are notable. This edit is more inclusion especially female boxers who don't get that much help but still trying to establish themthemselves. --Bennyaha (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
"deserve to be notable" is subjective. On Wikipedia, the basis for inclusion is coverage. Per WP:WHYN: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic."—Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bagumba My two cents is the WP:NSPORTS is useful in a few instances.
  • One is when you have a sport focused on a country or small area. I will use myself as an American. On the knowledge side, I know how popular college football is. It seems many foreigners struggle to understand its scope, coverage, etc. WP:NSPORTS is a good guidepost. Conversely, I know almost nothing about rugby league. However, when trying to create/improve rugby league articles, etc. I look to WP:NSPORTS for guidance. That can be both for an AfD and for creation (e.g., if it passes WP:NSPORTS, then I think I can find sources if its a recent subject and know a likelihood if I will waste my time).
  • Another is for wide distribution sports, with a bit more focus on individual sports. Tennis, track & field, and boxing are competed all over the world. In view of WP:Bias and other considerations, we need to make decisions. For example, with WP:NBASE how many English Wikipedia editors are fluent enough in Japanese and have access to proper sources to show GNG is met for articles about 1950s-era players in Nippon Professional Baseball? We have to make decisions that allow the whole of Wikipedia to be both time and language/region balanced. SNGs help stop the "GNG MUST BE MET, IF YOU DONT SHOW NOW THEN DELETE, DELETE, DELETE" crowd from taking over. SNGs are a guide, not an iron rule.
Returning to the above, boxing is a worldwide sport. What I voted yes to helps cover that. For example, moving from top 10 to top 15 in world rankings. To be in the top 15 in the world in a weight class means you are not only skilled, but have moved through the ranks, and in turn presumably received a lot of coverage. But if you are a minimumweight fighter from Indonesia, its gonna be hard to find English sources. We have to cut off somewhere. Since top 15 are eligible for title opportunities, it seems like a good place to cut off.
I also reiterate the point that SNGs are not just for AfDs. I think they are a guide letting editors know when they will be likely to find sources if they start looking. I will admit I do this. While now I know a lot more about cycling, a few years ago I knew almost nothing. When I saw red links on winners of races, I wanted to help fix it. I referred to the SNGs. I learned from WP:NCYC that if someone won a 1.1 race I likely will be able to find sources, but not for 1.2 races. So when I said "Hey, let me see if I can create an article and get rid of this red link" that was my starting point. I know people love thinking of SNGs for just AfDs (how many "Delete: fails WP:InsertSport/Keep: passes WP:InsertSport" do we need). However, I think they do a lot more than that, so its important we keep them up to date, accurate, and when appropriate add new ones. RonSigPi (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I very much agree with @RonSigPi. I like the idea of annually reviewing boxing notability or anything else to we keep evolving and opening up opportunity for people who would fit into the guidelines. This is why I brought this dicussion together and eventually voted on it. Not everything went through but ones that people thought were important did. --Bennyaha (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway are we happy to make the changes that was voted on? It's been quite a lengthy discussion here and the boxing project and I been working hard to make this happen --Bennyaha (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Typically we want to see examples that proove those people that would now meet NBOXING meet it 99.999% of the time. Go grab 10 of the most unlikely people that would meet your criteria. So take 10 people at #15 and go find enough sources to meet GNG. Generally the changes aren't just due to votes, the changes typically happen doing the leg work and prooving the people that would now meet it meet the GNG 99.999% of the time. Changes to NSPORTS typically are not fast, they often take more than month to get there. -DJSasso (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree in general with Djsasso's approach, though the 99.999% threshold is a bit hyperbolic. If we take 10 random examples, though, I'd certainly expect evidence that nine of them pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The number I used is the basic one people use in discussions on here all the time. The idea being that meeting the GNG should be all but guaranteed by meeting NSPORTS while acknowledging there is always some exceptions. 9 out of 10 for me would actually be too low and indicate that it probably isn't a good change, 99/100 and you are probably closer. -DJSasso (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to throw my thoughts in, I am not of the school of the 99.999% rule. These are guidelines, not iron clad rules. WP:NFOOTY is passed, but articles deleted all the time. Mind you I think that is due to a number of other problems, but another argument for another day. I also don't like the "10 of the most unlikely people" for a few reasons, one of which is it creates huge WP:Bias issues in that the most unlikely are sometimes the ones where the issue is finding sources. For example, a guy that played one WP:NCRIC qualifying cricket match in Pakistan in the 1950s. Good luck finding sources on that. To me, I defer to the sports projects - they know the sports better than anyone. This is a volunteer community and we should respect WP:GF and try to be the best we can. Someone makes a good faith effort to show a criteria should be changed and there is some support from the project, then we go with it. No need to create hyper-difficult standards. To put a number on it, I think we are more in the 95-98% threshold. Not going to ask volunteers to meet a 1/100,000 failure evidence standard. RonSigPi (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I figure the overwhelming majority should pass GNG. In my mind, that means something greater than 90% and less than 99%. Cbl62 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The point of WP:NSPORTS is not to indicate subjects that are likely to meet WP:GNG. WP:GNG is one way of indicating notability based on the assumption that if enough other people have written about something then it's reasonable for us to. WP:NSPORTS is about objective criteria for inclusion based on the subject's significance. Two complementary guidelines, either of which indicate suitability for inclusion (as is clearly stated in WP:N). When we have people arguing for a boxer's deletion because they're only ranked 11 in the world you know the project has just got stupid. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is. This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
A sentence added without due consensus in 2010 that contradicts WP:N and should have been removed. Even those who believe that the GNG is everything should realise that many boxers from major countries who are way below the level of the current and proposed wording of the boxing guidelines generally get enough coverage to satisfy GNG. --Michig (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to illustrate the point, I just did Google search for a British heavyweight who has only had three fights and is ranked outside the world's top 200 and not even in the top 15 in the UK by Boxrec, and I could make a case for him satisfying the GNG, although I don't believe an article is justified right now as he hasn't yet achieved anything of note (GNG often isn't a good indicator). And people are arguing against being in the top 15 in the world not being a good indicator of notability. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
But is this a result of recentism? What about a boxer from an earlier era? Is it as easy to find info? Jack N. Stock (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Not as easy from a Google search, but if you have access to something like the British Newspaper Archive, or an archive of articles from boxing magazines (very few of which will be found online), often easier to find coverage than it is for today's boxers. Boxing was huge in Britain back to the early 20th century, and even boxers who didn't get to British title level were well known and got plenty of coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
If we adopt an SNG that the top 15 are presumed notable, that does not mean that someone ranked No. 25 can't have an article, provided they pass GNG. The introductory language to NSPORTS is clear on this point: "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline ..."
The sentence This essay provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to quickly determine if a subject will meet the notability guidelines. was present during the RFC promoting this page to a guideline, Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4#RfC: Promote Notability .28sports.29 to a guideline. I appreciate all of the participants may not have felt the same way. Nonetheless, in the real world, a consensus is something that everyone can live with, even if it isn't ideal for a specific person. Accordingly, the agreed-upon consensus includes this interpretation of the relationship between the sports-specific notability guideline and the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok after examples given and bigger discussion are we happy to make the changes? --Bennyaha (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Take you up on it

@Cbl62 @Djsasso So here is what I did. Started with WBC and went through rankings. Looked at #15 ranked until I found an English-language nation based competitor (see [4]). Did that twice, then went to WBA, IBF, WBO, then Boxrec to get 10 randoms (for order question, went from oldest to youngest with WBC and WBA being the O.G.s from heavyweight down and circled back when needed). Below are who I found and the first five sources (normally three are what I have seen as acceptable, but since some will try to discredit I went to five). See what everyone thinks:

  • WBA, Super Middleweight - Jayde Mitchell (Australia) - already meets WP:NBOX (OPBF champ), but no article. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
  • WBA, Middleweight - Alfonso Blanco (Venezuela/US) - already meets WP:NBOX as former world champion and Olympian and would be WP:SNOW.
  • IBF, Junior Lightweight - Jayson Vélez (Puerto Rico (part of US so I counted since I know from personal experience it will be harder to find US/UK/Aus/etc. smaller weight fighters) - already meets WP:NBOX as a title challenger in what would be a semi WP:SNOW case, but I will bite [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]
  • WBO, Junior Featherweight - Rico Ramos (US) - former world champion so we are at WP:SNOW again.
  • Boxrec, Super Middleweight - Anthony Dirrell (US) - another former champion and we are at WP:SNOW again.

One thing I found very interesting is vast majority of guys meet WP:NBOX or WP:NSPORTS anyways. And a number of times it wasnt even close (world title fights, multiple ways of meeting WP:NBOX already through regional titles, or Olympians). While some may argue "then why do you need the change" I would argue this gives more solidity to top 15 selection. To be honest, this makes me feel far more strongly about updating to 15. RonSigPi (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I should point out, because it seems you are taking this like I didn't think the proposed guidelines were good ones. I have no opinion one way or the other. My only statement was proove it. If the ones that are likely to be hard to find a source have sources found then the criteria is generally good, if you take the ones who are likely to meet it you aren't proving that the grey area ones meet it. So for example its that guy from 1923 that was ranked #15 that we need to see can meet it for example. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal and vote

Here are all the proposed changes that people positively voted on I invite all members to vote I have included previous votes from the previous conversation from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing

RonSigPi :PRehse :Michig :Okeeffemarc
  • 1. WBC, WBA, WBO and IBF are added to the female section of Citation 1

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 2. IBO World title is add to Citation 1 in the mens section

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 3. Citation 3 to include boxrec rankings

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 4. Citation 3 to increase to top 15

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment As suggested by Michig, would recommend National Sporting Club from 1909-1929 as 1909 is the point that British Boxing was properly regulated regards weight classes, and was the year the Lonsdale belt was introduced as the British Title belt for all classes. the NSC had exclusive rights to sanction the awarding of the British Title (lonsdale belt) up until 1929, then the BBBofC took over, and have been the authority ever since. The lonsdale belt is still awarded to British champions today. Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes (from 1909) Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

--Bennyaha (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the work RonSigPi put in, but the issue is with older athletes, and a complete lack of willingness to try and show these people will meet the proposed guidelines by any of the supporters (and indeed trying to shift the focus to other guidelines instead) has shifted me from neutral to a No vote on them. Simply put if the guidelines were as no brainers as you think they are, then it should be simple to show those athletes from farther back would meet them even with web resources. Recentism is a big issue. -DJSasso (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Continued revert

So I made the changes that there seem to be consensus on. There were four yes votes - Bennyaha, Okeeffemarc, Michig, and myself. Many AfDs and SNG edits have been made with four yeses. Somehow, the idea that we need to find who the National Boxing Association had ranked 15th in some weight class 1923 and prove their notability is unrealistic and unreasonable. It makes me believe their is another agenda here (like wanting to make SNGs go away). How about this. I will provide the following examples and if editors don't find the sources I will delete the SNGs (and if you do find sources, I will just create another test for you anyways):

Of course, I really don't think we should delete any of these SNGs. The point is to show that I have never seen, at least credibly, to require this community to look through sources from 100 years ago and doing so isn't logical and is not required of other SNGs. The test @Cbl62 proposed passed with flying colors - so much so I would actually say it counts as a fifth vote, but I can understand if someone does not agree. Now, one user claims we need to do research of fighters from 95 years ago, despite the first test being passed and having more than enough yes votes. This is craziness and frankly why I think we don't have many good discussions on this board anymore. I think many editors have fatigue of the absolute crazy positions and standards some put out there and that somehow they win the day. RonSigPi (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The FAQ from 2013 transcluded at the top of this page says under Q5 to focus beyond recent cases: "It's best to keep your criteria fairly conservative, since for most contemporary persons, establishing notability via the general notability guideline is straightforward enough and the additional buffer time provided by a sports-specific notability guideline isn't needed, so trying to draw a more liberal line isn't worth the effort." For example, WP:NBASKETBALL doesnt list McDonald's Boys All-Americans as presumed notable, even though 90+% of them in the last decade are likely to have articles already, since it's relative easy exercise to show GNG if contested, and it's likely the All-Americans from the 80's have a lot less coverage. Short of these being shown to be a time drain at AfDs, I am reluctant about ballooning NSPORTS further. The WikiProject can always maintain an enhanced list to guide content creators.—Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Full protection requested After the latest revert by Bennyaha, I have requested full protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Wikipedia:Notability_(sports). I invite any uninvolved admin to take a look. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Notability of sports teams

Our current guideline at WP:NSPORTS#Teams states: "This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)." However, the recent rewrite of Notability (organizations and companies) has been closed (see here) with the following caveat: "The likes of schools, teams, religions etc.?? are explicitly excluded from the purview of this guideline." The combined effect of these two provisions is that there is no SNG guideline currently in force concerning the notability of sports teams. Should "Notability (sports)" now be amended to fill the gap with a guideline for sports teams? Cbl62 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we should definitely cover teams as well.. they are part of sports.. I wonder why it wasnt covered originally. I mean.. we cover seasons.. teams can be added. Spanneraol (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:NSEASONS was written many years ago and is seriously outdated. Given the overlap between teams and seasons, it may make sense to prepare a sub-guideline that deals effectively with both. Cbl62 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Support this idea. I have begun to do NPP and the clear guidelines for people vs teams makes a huge difference for me. Trying to apply WP:GNG is harder and I find myself leaving it for a more experienced reviewer. Given the history of why WP:NORG was done, and the specific carve-out which already exists for sports for intentional reasons, I think establishing notability guidelines here, especially for Asian leagues/teams, would be the right thing to do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The challenge with countries that lack English coverage is determining whether a source is reliable. This is difficult if we do not have enough editors that are fluent in that country's language, or are unfamiliar with the country's press. I already struggle with English sources filtering amateur, bloggy content on SBNation, Bleacher Report, etc. Can we reliably fliter foreign language sources?—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggest starting a discussion on WP:NORG to add sports teams back to list of organizations it covers. I never saw a good reason why it was removed, other than perhaps they were being overly cautious that sports editors might want an exemption, and they didn't want that to risk holding up support? As NSPORTS had deferred to NORG for teams, I don't see why that still should not be the case. I opposed the rewrite of NORG, but only because it seemed like overkill to GNG and too prescriptive, not because of anything substantive I opposed with the changes. Yes, we could add teams here to NSPORTS, but I see no benefit to reinventing the wheel to say, for example, that a press release on a sports site is still not an independent source (OurSportsCentral example). There are few new teams, and it would be bureaucratize to create SNGs that say, for example, "all NFL teams are notable".—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
A press release has never been considered a proper means of establishing notability under WP:GNG, as it fails the independence requirement. IMO that level of detail is not needed. The rewrite of NORG is overly complex to the point of being byzantine. That guideline's wording on local coverage, albeit unchanged, is also unclear and contrary to WP:GNG. A specific guideline for sports teams can and should be far clearer and should reflect our actual practice with such teams. Cbl62 (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why we cant add it here... all top level teams are notable anyway the debates would come with what to do about minor league teams. Spanneraol (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think this is going to be possible. Every sport will have different levels of notability for teams (in some sports even top level teams are not going to be notable), and it will also vary from country to country within the same sport. Number 57 12:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Both the football and cricket projects have their own thresholds within their own project pages. I've not checked other sports, but I'm guessing some others will have the same setup (baseball, maybe rugby, etc). If there becomes a flood of sport teams at AfD, it might be worth revisting it (assuming they're not just spam/NN articles to start with). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • User:TonyBallioni has modified Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams (here) to state: "This guideline does not cover sports teams. For guidance, please see the general notability guideline." I am satisfied with that wording for the time being, as it reflects reality and avoids the byzantine world of WP:ORG. At some point, though, I do think a combined rewrite of WP:SEASONS which also fleshes out team notability would be useful. Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Avoiding WP:ORG seem like a WP:POVFORK. I didn't support the ORG rewrite, but I accept the community consensus. After all, teams are just organizations, so I do not think a special case for sports organizations is needed. We do not need an SNG that all NFL teams are notable, or all NHL teams are notable etc. Maybe it is more relevant for non-North America teams?—Bagumba (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The main thrust of the WP:ORG rewrite was to address the proliferation of spam concerning companies and their products. Accordingly, exceptions were carved out for sports teams, schools, and churches. Consensus is clear for MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, CFL, and Premier League. Trickier parts would include minor leagues, college, women's, and non-North American sports teams. It may be better to leave things to WP:GNG (which is where they currently stand) or let particular sports develop their own guidance/consensus on team articles. Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
For the modern day ABA, a semi-pro league, I used to see a lot of their teams sourced only to their own web sites, the league's, or press releases on OurSportsCentral.com. So ORG's highlighting of independent sourcing issues in the context of companies seems relevant even for sports. Indiv sports can still choose to provide guidance on specific leagues, or college sports on particular conferences, while other sports fall back on ORG.—Bagumba (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
We don't need WP:ORG to tell us that press releases and the team/league web sites aren't independent. That's already quite clear under existing WP:GNG standards. But WP:ORG now imposes requirements stricter than WP:GNG, with the limited objective of controlling spam articles about companies. Imposing the stricter-than-GNG standards on sports teams would IMO be a disaster. Application of the new ORG requirements to sports teams was rejected in the RfC. If you want to go back to WP:ORG and try to have that outcome reconsidered, you are free to do that, but I think it would be one of the worst possible things that could ever happen to sports coverage on Wikipedia. Cbl62 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I hear you. The net net seems to either be that it should be at ORG but it is a mess, or ORG is not needed period, sports or not. I'd barely be inclined to tackle this in my professional life, let alone as volunteer.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Pages that are just detailed tournament results

I was wondering about the suitability of pages like 2006 BWF World Junior Championships and 2007 BWF World Junior Championships that are just a list of tournament results. They seem to violate WP:SPORTSEVENT, which says "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" (I also question whether a junior championship, even at the "world" level, has inherent notability, as there certainly doesn't seem to be much non-routine coverage, but that is a separate issue). However, since the pages have been around for over 10 years, I didn't want to bring them to AfD without seeing if there is a local consensus for keeping these "stats-only" articles. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the specific page topics. Generally, I think it's more important whether enough coverage exists so that sufficient prose could be written, not whether such prose is actually in the article yet. Consider the guideline WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.—Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

91st National Spelling Bee

I have been trying to add the names of participants, but one user keeps deleting it and they eventually locked the page. We were debating the notability of the contestants and I would like to hear what you have to say. Erfson (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to basketball guideline

I propose that the guideline for basketball include "Players who have played in, and coaches who have coached in any continental championship tournament (such as EuroBasket), a FIBA-sponsored qualifying tournament, or the Olympic Games. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria."--TM 12:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If they have already received significant coverage already, then the GNG already covers them, so why do they need special mention? --Jayron32 12:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it is useful to standardize across international sports. This is a similar standard as for association football. There has been a trend recently of nominating articles on basketball players who have played in international tournaments from small Asian and African countries, which I believe is counter to the project of an internationally diverse encyclopedia. Given the known bias of the project, I think this guideline would ensure that article international basketball players should be maintained, regardless of which country they represent.--TM 13:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Basketball is not as widely popular as soccer is internationally, though. It is a more regional sport. Rikster2 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Articles on international basketball players will be maintained, so long as there is significant coverage of their life in reliable sources. This is not dependent on which country they represent. You still have not established how this guideline is useful beyond that. --Jayron32 16:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to see some evidence that all players who appear in FIBA continental championship tournaments meet GNG. Open to the idea of changing, but not sure I agree that a bench player for for a country that perhaps barely qualifies for their continental tournament would meet GNG. Can we look at some 12th men from (for example) Mali or Senegal in the FIBA Africa Championship 1964 or Sri Lanka or Pakistan in the 1985 ABC Championship or Austria in the EuroBasket 1977 meet WP:GNG? My concern is that not all of these nations who make the cut in a given year emphasize basketball at all and how do we know they meet GNG. I think the Olympics and World Cup probably meet that standard, but only the top nations in each continent make those tournaments. Rikster2 (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There was no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi Bhardwaj, who supposedly played at FIBA Asia Challenge.—Bagumba (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support at least in principle. Playing in a continental tournament is the highest echelon of the sport. While not all pro players may be notable, this is a good guideline to have for international play. Of course, GNG must be met as well, but maybe this will halt the many AfDs for Asian players who have competed in these tournaments. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, can you supply an AFD for a player whose life meets WP:GNG but for who we deleted the article through AFD? That would help. --Jayron32 16:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment We would need to see some evidence that the vast majority of players covered by this (including in areas where basketball isn't very popular) would meet the GNG. Otherwise, this is unhelpful and even counterproductive guidance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I definitely think without any question that any EuroBasket player should be automatically included. That's a higher level tournament than even FIBA World Cup or Basketball at the Summer Olympics (EuroBasket is the highest level of all national team basketball tournaments), and it is enormously important in Europe. I would say any player winning an award for EuroBasket should be auto eligible for notability, and then we could pick a guideline for all players of all rosters for a certain time frame. I think probably something like 1960s onward. However, the other continental tournaments are nowhere near to that level, or that importance. FIBA AmeriCup is probably the next most notable one, and next in terms of level. But I don't know if just playing there is that notable all by itself - as its miles below the level of the major international basketball tournaments (EuroBasket, World Basketball Cup, Olympics). But I am open to including it, since it does have a certain level of players almost all being from decent pro leagues, or being very good NCAA division 1 players - it certainly meets better criteria probably then just someone that played college basketball and G-League and they have articles. The other ones though, like FIBA Asia and FIBA AfroBasket - I just don't think that's a high enough level to be included as meeting notability, just solely off having been on a roster of a team there. Seems like a stretch in those cases.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

SPORTCRIT question

Does playing for one's national team in an international tournament qualify them for notability under WP:SPORTCRIT, e.g. due to having "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level"? At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Ocitti, the player in question played in the FIBA Africa tournament for his national squad but the article is up for deletion.--TM 22:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me the best place to ask that is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It has to be a major international tournament.. and i'd argue that the FIBA Africa Tournament doesnt meet that standard. Spanneraol (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

AfroBasket doesn’t meet the WP:SPORTCRIT criteria for the “highest level of competition.” It is a qualifying tournament for the FIBA World Cup and the Olympics (the Olympics is the example cited in SPORTCRIT). I don’t see how one could assume that the 12th man for Mozambique (or some other nation that doesn’t typically make the World Cup or Olympics) would automatically meet WP:GNG. I’d say the same about FIBA AmeriCup or any other sister competition. Rikster2 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

But in the case of basketball, EuroBasket is a continental tournament, and it's higher level than World Basketball Cup and Olyimpcs basketball. Another point, is that the continental tournaments are no longer qualification tournaments. FIBA erased that. They are all stand alone tournaments. Qualification for World Cup and Olympics now happens through their own systems - like it used to be. So if the guidelines are being determined based on what is a qualification tournament (meaning those are not notable), then that should be changed, since those tournaments are no longer qualification tournaments. They are stand alone tournaments.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The "highest level" really should be removed or reworded. People are always arguing that the highest level in some sport without broad coverage or in some country where it's not even popular is "highest level", or making some attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that Wikipedia is biased. It should be about coverage, regardless of level of play. Per WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. We already have WP:NOLYMPICS which explicitly make Olympics notable. Individual sports should be specific about their "highest level" that might quality, if any, or otherwise fall back on GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I absolutely agree: "highest level" is a hobby horse that's used both by people pushing fringe sports in small countries, and by those for whom "professional" can only mean "highest tier" even where there are second-tier leagues with long histories, high attendance and firm media coverage. I'd love to see it go away, but it seems to be one of those legacy rules (along with the one-match-of-top-flight-means-you're-notable) that we're never going to see the back of. Ravenswing 09:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with at least part of what Ravenswing is saying. I would love for all the guidelines get rid of the "highest level" language, as well as other vague language like "or similar International competition" in WP:NGOLF, because all it does is lead to ambiguity. These are just guidelines and GNG always trumps, so no need for vagueness. Don't agree with the one-match position, but another conversation for another day. RonSigPi (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    I had a plan to try to revise the golf criteria, but such is the impossibility of getting anything agreed on here, I abandoned it. See: User:Nigej/sandbox which was going to be my initial stab to start a discussion. There's always someone who'll come along and say eg "prove that 9x% of the Curtis Cup players are notable.", an exceptionally difficult task. Nigej (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Nigej I hear you. Just see above on the boxing conversation and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC on SNG criterion 3 change. Even after showing 100% compliance for the modern fighters, we are being told by one editor we need to show evidence for 90% of fighters from 100 years ago and likely foreign language references from 100 years ago. Difficult tasks indeed. When I see outlandish requirements I try to speak up, but you are right its hard. RonSigPi (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    Mm, for my part, I don't think it's outlandish; I think it's a necessary thing that we've been very lazy about when we create notability criteria. Ravenswing 23:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    However, if you take that view you need to accept that this means that the reality is that many of the lazily-created criteria that we current have will not now be changed because the "level of proof" required to make a change greatly exceeds that required when they were created. Essentially many are now cast in stone never to be revised. Nigej (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Ravenswing I don't agree, but reasonable minds can differ (thank you BTW for adding "for my part" to give the impression that people can have reasonable, differing opinions.) I would agree with you if this were our jobs. But this is a volunteer community doing the best we can. People could choose to do anything else with their free time - coach their child's sports team, learn to play a musical instrument, search for lost gold, etc. However, people are volunteering their time to wikipedia. I find few things "necessary" - the criteria are not stone-written laws. They are guides and GNG always reigns supreme. This is an Internet project - I will be hard pressed to require anyone to do more than Internet searching. Its just not reasonable for me to ask a volunteer to do more. If the logic is sound and sources are found for reasonable examples, then I can accept the rule laid out. I think anything more is outlandish when we are talking about volunteers that could any time stop and go do something else. Putting unrealistic research requirements is just going to drive quality editors away. RonSigPi (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    @RonSigPi As you say, we don't agree, but your point on this being a volunteer effort is a sound one, and one we sometimes lose. There are so many hours in the day, and we do this for love of the encyclopedia, after all. Ravenswing 01:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    To be fair you have yet to show even one. All you were asked to find were 10 random fighters from back then that met your criteria so that we would know those criteria were good to predict the rest of the 90%, you weren't asked to go out and proove all 90% of fighters. As of now you haven't shown a single boxer from back then meets those criteria, therefore the only assumption we can make is that those fighters don't meet the GNG or you would be able to produce one. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    No, to be actually fair, I did what you originally asked. You said, and I quote "So take 10 people at #15 and go find enough sources to meet GNG." You only put the time requirement after I went through the first round on your second demand. I elected not go after your second demand because I thought it was unreasonable, unfair, and reeked of WP:BIAS. I wasn't going to go through all that effort so you could just come up with some other third demand "well, you found American sources, but I expect you to go to the Philippines to find sources on an opponent of Francisco Guilledo. Of course the "only assumption" isn't that those fighters don't meet the GNG - its also reasonable to assume that I decided not to engage you, am still working on finding sources (hint - I am not), I booked my airfare to the Philippines to do research and have not left yet, or maybe I got busy at work/home and have just not had time to respond. While you are raising a reasonable consideration, your demanding and presumptive tone at worst violates WP:CIV and at best just undermines your position as seeming more and more unreasonable. RonSigPi (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    Come now; no one's expecting you to go to the Philippines to find sources. But at the same time, I don't believe that WP:V comes with an escape clause just because one claims that meeting it is too hard. If (for example) obtaining reliable Filipino sources to verify a claim of notability is not feasible, the answer isn't that the claim of notability should just be handwaved. The answer is that an article based on unverified claims -- whatever the excuse is for lack of sources -- is that the article cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 01:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    To your point, we actually agree. WP:V does not come with an escape clause. But in view of WP:BIAS we can let logic and good sense dictate. Two things to keep in mind. First, these are just guidelines - if there is a serious WP:V concern the article can be challenged. Second, there is a difference between the concept of verifying basic facts and GNG. Getting away from the boxing discussion, let's use golf since that is what Nigej discussed from where we are depending. I think it can be verified that Carl Rocco played in the 1923 PGA Championship - for example I found this [35]. Now can we establish meeting GNG for that subject? - that is a much harder task from just the Internet. That is what WP:BIAS addresses. Its not a question of abandoning all documentation/verification, but instead for cases where its hard to find sources, letting websites like [36] and [37] be tools to flush out content that will be hard to find without requiring immediate supplying of GNG-level sources or facing deletion. RonSigPi (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    Actually for golfers (and for other sportspeople I suspect) British and Americans are relatively easy. If you have access old newspaper/magazines you can often find stuff. Of course this access is not necessarily free and readily available. The main problem comes with the non-English-speaking world. Argentinian golf was exceptionally strong between the wars but I have struggled to find anything much about their golfers at this time. Even modern-day Korean golfers (as an example) are difficult. Probably loads of stuff in the Korean language. Our current coverage is clearly heavily biased to the English-speaking golfers. Wikipedia in other languages is also of little use since their golf coverage is very poor. Nigej (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    You are skipping the part of my quote where I said "Go grab 10 of the most unlikely people that would meet your criteria." Which was said an hour before you did your pass. It wasn't a second request, it was in my very first request. You went and picked extremely recent and likely (ie opposite of unlikely) boxers. Of course the very recent people were going to be able to be found. That was never in question which is why I specified how your fist pass missed the mark. What I was wanting to see was the people who are the ones that are going to be argued about at Afd. The harder to source ones. I have never asked for foreign language, I have always only said old. I also never said find ones by researching offline, I even let you pick the athletes, when these requests are usually made of people wanting to make the change they are given a list of people to find sources for. You could easily have gone looking for anyone that meets your criteria in any language or country you wanted and cherry picked only the ones your could find. I was actually being much easier on you that people often are on this page where they force you to find specific people. You continue to misrepresent the request of you. For all the arguing against it you have done, you could easily have sourced a couple boxers that meet your criteria in the US or UK assuming there are some to be sourced. Your complete argument of "believe me they have to be notable just because I say so" is most definitely not a reasonable argument and is most definitely an issue with WP:BIAS since you want to throw that around. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Also agree that the "highest level" bit should be cut out – it's been used by some editors to game the WP:NFOOTY subset of WP:NSPORT (which limits articles to players from fully-professional leagues), and it's open to abuse (for example, it could be used to claim that amateur players from the top division of some obscure sport was notable). I'd suggest we remove the sentence The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). in its entirety, as it doesn't really add anything except confusion/gaming potential. Number 57 14:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor rewrite of WP:NGOLF

I have rewritten #5 in WP:NGOLF. Previously the majors were listed. This seems unnecessary and I rewritten in a general form - linking to the three appropriate articles which list them. There is no change to the actual criteria. Nigej (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:NGOLF

I propose that the final section (7) of WP:NGOLF be removed. It reads:

Golf figures are presumed notable if: ... "They hold a golf record (example: lowest score) recognized by the USGA, PGA, LPGA or The R&A"

The sentence is extremely vague. It's not clear that the organisations mentioned do keep a list of "golf records" or "lowest scores". (note also that the term PGA itself is not clear - see Professional Golfers Association) Surely anyone who holds a significant golf record would qualify under WP:GNG. It seems to me that the criteria in WP:NSPORT need to be precise, otherwise I see no point in the whole system. This sentence fails on that basis. Nigej (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I have now deleted the final section (7) of WP:NGOLF. Nigej (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

NCOLLATH proposed revision for multiple-time NCAA Division I national champions in an individual sport

I'd like to propose adding one criteria to NCOLLATH:

I think this an extremely conservative addition that indicates a level of coverage far above required for GNG. All NCAA DI individual sports are highly notable, and while one-time champions are in my opinion most likely notable, multiple-time national champions should leave few if any edge cases. If you want to oppose, please provide an example of a recent athlete that meets this criteria that is not notable (I say "recent" so that we can determine that with only online sources / less dependence on print media). Note that this requirement far exceeds that of the "All-American" criteria that's been discussed in the archives before. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as stated in the bullet point I'm suggesting only for individual competition to make the choice as clear-cut as possible. --Habst (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue is very rarely the recent ones, the issues if there are any are likely the older ones, more often NSPORTS is needed for the athletes from farther back than the current ones. Can you show any older ones that actually meet your suggested criteria change? That is typically what we ask for when proposing looser criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi DjSasso, I think Cbl62 gave some good examples but for variety I'll also list some of the oldest women's examples here to be complete: Betty Jo Geiger (cross country), Kelly Garrison (gymnastics), Marybeth Linzmeier (swimming), Patty Fendick (tennis), Vicki Huber (indoor track and field 1500m and 3000m). --Habst (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yup that is cool, just wanted to make sure it had a smoke test for older athletes to make sure it wasn't just recentish. Looks good. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Good question. I support both. Winning multiple NCAA championships is an extraordinary accomplishment either way, whether it's winning multiple track/swimming individual events (but no relays since they are not individual events) in the same year or in multiple years. Cbl62 (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, yea, I agree with Cbl62 and think both of those scenarios should qualify. Because most NCAA championships are held in the span of only a few days (sometimes events are minutes apart) and successful doubles are rare, it's pretty notable to have won multiple events at the same championships. I think Cbl62 has provided a good set of examples, and I also agree that relays wouldn't meet the criteria because they wouldn't be "as an individual." --Habst (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This would be a valuable addition to notability criteria, since this is rare. But not everyone who has won multiple championships on a TEAM is necessarily notable, since there are some 4th string wideouts on Alabama who probably don't deserve an article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not sure about whether this should be applied to other countries, or to non-NCAA competitions (the Arthur Rubin rule). Definitely a worthwhile addition in its current form. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support given the clarification and examples. Rikster2 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, since there were five supporters (excluding myself) in a week and no indications of opposition I added the criteria. Thanks! --Habst (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why would we need this? If the level is so conservative then the current guidance of simply applying the GNG will have the same result. Adding special criteria at some level have a tendency to multiply, and soon there will be a dozen such 'special' criteria. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 19:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi Insertcleverphrasehere, I requested the change because I noticed a collegiate track and field athlete article someone else created was deleted because it did not meet NCOLLATH without really considering GNG. As a follower of the sport I knew that the athletes met GNG and that sources existed, but they did not meet NCOLLATH because if they did not win the Bowerman (only one athlete a year across all track and field disciplines wins this), the current guidelines left little room for athletes that were clearly much better than their competition but did not set a "major record" (many track and field records are decades old). From a big-picture perspective I think it's also important because before this was added, there were no pure performance-based criteria for college athletes. This made NCOLLATH stand out from most other sports on the list which do have at least one pure performance-based criteria. --Habst (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Once again, just apply the GNG. If it was being ignored in deletion discussions, then simply point that out. The solution isn't to add more subject specific 'automatic' notability criteria. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I understand your point and mostly agree -- it was added mostly out of convenience and for a sense of security that no more notable collegiate athletes would be deleted as I can't monitor all the deletion discussions. Unfortunately I felt like we had to make a compromise between automatic qualifying criteria and effort in deletion discussions -- if we ever find an athlete that meets the criteria and isn't notable (I'm pretty certain one doesn't exist but I'll leave open the possibility), then we can always fall back to GNG. --Habst (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sports Teams and 'automatic' notability criteria

From my reading of this guideline, it appears that sports teams must meet the WP:GNG. From a recent discussion It seems that football teams are being treated differently, and are becoming somewhat of a walled garden. WikiProject Football seems to be making its own rules at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability, which are being used to argue for keeping articles that do not have sufficient sourcing to meet the general notability guideline. I'd like some advice on how this has been handled previously, and how this process should relate to our guidelines as written. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

They used to be covered by the CORP guideline but they went and changed that recently. All Projects made their own rules in the past, this page is a collection of them. Once a project decides what it's notability is via consensus, they usually update their section here. Nanonic (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
After changes to CORP, there was no momentum here to integrate sports teams back into it. GNG became the standard per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams. As for WikiProject rules, they are subject to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.—Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
As I said during that discussion, it's going to be extremely cumbersome to come up with notability guidelines for sports teams given that the thresholds will be different for every sport and then for each sport, probably different for each country. The rule for English football clubs was once included in WP:NCORP, but was removed for being overly specific. As a result, we have no guidelines that actually cover sports teams, so at the moment the next best thing is a rule of thumb developed over the years at AfDs. Number 57 22:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
That must have been a while ago that football rules were in NCORP, right? I don’t recall them being there in those most recent changes that prompted NSPORTS to change to GNG for sports teams.—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Number 57: - Wrong. The best rule is the actual rule that we have, the general notability guideline. There is only one threshold: coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Multiple discussions including full RfCs advertised on Central Discussion have decided not to have special rules for teams, yet you still seem to think that a local consensus can override this. I've had a look at your example AfDs, yet in all cases that I have seen, the deletion or retention of the article aligned with the GNG; sourced articles were kept, and those without sourcing were deleted. While many of the !votes in these AfDs were football editors parroting their WikiProjects' locol consensus guidelines, others rightly argued based on the application of sources and whether the article passed the GNG threshold. These AfDs are not evidence that a performance threshold is necessary, they are evidence that the GNG is all that is needed. The article in question will likely be kept, but it will be kept contrary to our guidelines, and only because football editors feel free to ignore WP guidelines when !voting at AfD. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia also needs to be consistent in the information included, so having a clear cutoff point is usually the best way of achiveing this. Seeing as a guideline is going to be extremely cumbersome for the reason mentioned above, the current situation works well IMO. Number 57 23:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to look in the archives for more specific discussion about the notability of sport clubs or teams. I found a definition for the levels of the English series system for football. It would be good to have more concrete criteria based on the general notability guideline. This is not meant to be specific to an individual sport, only an easier way to apply the GNG. A really draft translation (by Google and corrected by Word) of sv:Wikipedia:Att_skriva_om_sport#Idrottsföreningar: A sports association is relevant if it meets or has fulfilled any of these criteria:

relevant by itself
  • Have at least 2 000 members.
  • Has verified history as a folk movement in the village for a long time, 30-50 years. Only ;having existed for a long time is not enough.
  • Hosts any national event (eg one of the events in sv:En svensk klassiker ).
  • Has a unique or particularly well-known business, such as sv:Stockholm Snipers, which is Europe's first hockey club with LGBT focus.
relevant by individual members
  • Have or have had at least one professional.
  • relevant by several individual members
  • Excellent through successes in individual competitions at national or international level.
  • Has or has been a nursery for several successful practitioners who meet the Wikimedia relevance requirements for individual athletes

relevant by team

  • Won its country's championship when it was settled in racing tournaments without series, such as the Swedish championship in football in 1896-1925 or the Swedish championship in Bandy in 1907-1931
  • Has or has had a senior team belonging to the highest ranked 0.25% of all registered teams in the country.
  • Won a major international tournament, such as the European Cup, the UEFA Cup, the Cup Winners Cup
  • Won a major team tournament in his country, such as the FA Cup in England, the Swedish Cup in Sweden, the US Open Cup in the United States or the Stanley Cup in North America even before NHL took control and even amateur teams were allowed to attend.

What do you think? Per W (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC) The issue appeared when the discussion about the notability of Angelniemen Ankkuri and Kalevan Rasti started, even with a deletion process for the first one. Per W (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Now I found WP:CLUB, which lists factors that should produce necessary sources for notability. Could those paragraphs be reformulated in order to deal with sports? Per W (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I was previously in favor of continuing to refer to WP:ORG for sports teams and leagues; however, after looking at WP:CORPDEPTH just now, I can see where it would be to our benefit to maintain a sports-specific one, as many of the points there are not directly applicable anymore. To me, the keys are independent (not team press releases on "news" sites) and significant coverage (not a trivial mention of a scheduled game), and reliable sources (filter out blogs, fansites, and non-mainstream niche sports sites).—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The GNG is the main test for the notability line. Subject specific guidelines should only be there as shorthand for the GNG (i.e. all topics that meet the subject specific guidelines should also meet the GNG, it just means you don't have to search for sources). If we have examples like White Ensign, which are not notable by the GNG, but meet some arbitrary line set by the Wikiproject, then it indicates that the arbitrary line has become too generous. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 17:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The subject-specific test should be that you can show criteria that, nearly all of the time, that sufficient sourcing to meet the GNG can be found in time, just not in the immediate time (eg, it might require print sources and going to libraries than just a web search). So for example in a sport like association football, I would agree that a team that regularly competes in national or international organized professional play is going to get GNG coverage with a bit or work, but you only need to demonstrate the team plays nationally or internationally to support the article if that were an SNG. On the other hand, one I see noted above, is that one can't assume a team will get good coverage due to a very notable person having played on that team before or has had a few of theses. That's a fallacy from "notability not being inherited". Such player fame may bring fame to that team, but that's not an assurance. --Masem (t) 17:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Masem:, you have got my point: if you are sufficiently high up in national competitions, you will be covered by reliable secondary sources. What is sufficiently high? In the Swedish guideline it is 0.25 % of all registered teams, quite high. Without lots of deliberation, I would say 2 %. @Insertcleverphrasehere:, I do not want to lower the threshold, just explain it in a way that is easy to check (no need to go to sources). Masem, you are right that notability is not inherited. In Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations there are some formulations that apply to sports clubs, slightly rewritten, @Bagumba:. So I propose something like this (with explanations):

A sports association is relevant if it meets or has fulfilled any of these criteria:

relevant by itself (the club is local by it gets national media coverage)
  • Hosts any national event (eg one of the events in sv:En svensk klassiker ).
  • Has a unique or particularly well-known business,
relevant by individual members
  • relevant by several (five, is that a reasonable number?) members, who have succeeded in individual competitions at national (top 3?) or international level (being send to those competitions?). (then the club has good trainers and training environment)

relevant by team

  • Has or has had a senior team belonging to the highest ranked 2% of all registered teams in the country.
  • Won a medal in a major international tournament, such as the European Cup, the UEFA Cup, the Cup Winners Cup
  • Won a major team tournament in his country, such as the FA Cup in England, the Swedish Cup in Sweden, the US Open Cup in the United States or the Stanley Cup in North America even before NHL took control and even amateur teams were allowed to attend.

These criteria can then be specified for different sports. The key is that the club is local but it is acting at the national level and beyond. What do you think? Per W (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Per W: I disagree on any sort of inherited notability from players, regardless of how many. 2% is going to be hard to verify isn't it? Registered teams or professional teams? Why 2%? "Has a unique or particularly well-known business" is vague at best, and I can see this being stretched. The medals and team tournament wins look fine obviously, and I would expect every winner of these to be notable by a wide margin. However, football editors are currently arguing that any of the teams that compete for the FA cup are automatically notable (some 700(!) teams above step six in the British system). As evidenced from the White Ensign AfD, this unofficial criteria is being used to keep articles that do not meet the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Insertcleverphrasehere: I will start with the main issue that we approach from different views. I propose a percentage threshold, a more general criterion than a set of levels in a league system. (See sv:Wikipediadiskussion:Att_skriva_om_sport#Kriteriet_för_lag_med_procentsats for a discussion, reasonable translated by Google.) You take as an example the FA Cup, with 700+ teams from the six highest steps. Some editors want to have them all in Wikipedia. How many steps would you include? The Premier League and the EFL Championship? That would make 26 teams. How many teams/clubs are there in England? English_football_league_system claims that there are some 5300 clubs with 7000 teams. 26 clubs in the first two steps out of 5300 is the same as 0.5 %. If you only take those that are part of the FA Cup, you get around 3%. If we go to the Swedish_football_league_system, there are 32 clubs in the first two steps. In total there were 2510 teams, of which slightly more than 1 % are in the steps that get media coverage. There were 3359 clubs in 2009, which makes the two uppermost steps to 1%. In Svenska Cupen there are 98 teams and from step 3 the teams must qualify, which is a difference from the FA Cup.
Another team sport: sv:Ishockey_i_Sverige (not so good in English) has 726 clubs and 28 are in the two highest divisions. The number of teams is 2829. There are apparently seven steps in the series system for seniors.
Let's go to another kind of sport, without steps/leagues, orienteering. Every club can participate in the most important relay in Sweden, Tiomila. This year there were some 300 teams in the major competition. Some clubs have more than one team and there are foreign clubs. So let's say that 150 Swedish clubs took part, and that only the ten best clubs are relevant. That's 7 %. There are 600 clubs in total, which would mean nearly 2% of the clubs are relevant. In Finland there are 400 orienteering club, so 1 or 2 % could be relevant, meaning getting articles in the newspapers.
As a conclusion: a threshold as a percentage (somewhere from 1 to 3 %, which is about the tail of a statistical distribution) of the number of clubs can be used for presumption of notability of a club in team sports or relay. If there is a system of leagues, the number of steps that are notable should be similar to these calculations. Per W (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Basically a similar criterion (1 % or 2 % of all in a country) should be applicable to sportsmen. Per W (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC) The percentage criterion can be reformulated in the number of step in a league system that is presumed to have notability, like the English football system. Per W (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Even looking at a real-world definition of notability, I don't feel there is a reason to believe a priori that there is a common percentage across, let's say, physical activity clubs/association/organizations/etc. that can be used as a measure of notability. Real-world notability is generally accomplishment-based: the subject in question performs some significant feat or sustains a level of performance that is sufficiently removed from usual norms that it is exceptional, or that is influential historically. I don't feel it can be assumed that this would be uniformly distributed across all physical activities. And there is no particular reason to believe that Wikipedia's definition of notability would be any different. isaacl (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Isaacl. While interesting, I'm not sure it's useful. I suspect most sports develop some unofficial/unwritten rules about "teams", based partly on available information/editors. Nigej (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_29&oldid=1257909172"