Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability

Split

I split this off the Village Pump page.

I'm going to ping a few folks who posted on the first day, and I trust that others will either find this from the note at VPP or will be pinged to discussions in due course. RandomCanadian, thanks for starting this conversation; apparently, we have a lot to say about it.

Ping: User:Davidstewartharvey, User:A. C. Santacruz, User:Blueboar, User:Chalst, User:Isaacl, User:Chalst, User:Iffy, User:Bagumba, User:Theknightwho, User:Reywas92, User:Nigej, User:Bilorv, User:Kusma, User:Levivich, User:Vanilla Wizard, User:Hut 8.5, User:Smartyllama, User:JoelleJay, User:Blue Square Thing, User:GiantSnowman. Please ping anyone else you want (but maybe in the RFC itself, so they don't have to click over to the real page).

I also apologize to anyone on the Wikipedia:Feedback request service, as the bot is probably sending another batch of notifications as a result of this 'reset'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now watchlisted this page and ask others not to ping me unless directly replying to me within this page. Looking forward to discussion :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page is too long

I think we should spilt up the page, but how do we split it properly. It's longer than a normal archive. Thingofme (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trainwreck

It seems to me that this discussion has become a trainwreck from which no consensus can emerge. Hell, I don't think there's even a consensus on what policy says at the moment, never mind what it should say. What I think it all boils down to is that we have the main factions:

Meeting NSPORTS is irrelevant and an article must still meet GNG
Meeting NSPORTS or GNG is sufficient

Now, to me, #1 being true would make NSPORTS otiose, but what do I know. Meanwhile we have an unholy mess of AFDs and DRVs being decided case by case depending on how many of each faction turn up, and more articles being shat out about 19th-century cricketers who are so non-notable that we don't even know their full names... Stifle (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is another camp:

3. Meeting NSPORTS is generally sufficient, but GNG should eventually be demonstrated.—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's just case 1 but less fervent about it. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The less fervent wouldn't describe NSPORTS as "irrelevant".—Bagumba (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree. There is a clear consensus for some questions. BilledMammal (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(nods to BilledMammal) Quite so, both for and against individual proposals. Ravenswing 15:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 is ideal. Giant Snowman 15:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The word "eventually" is an open invitation to game the system, so makes option 3 about as far away from ideal as you can get; it is also been the justification for (tens of) thousands of mindless database-sourced copy-paste mass-creations. It is how we arrived at this point, and absolutely cannot be the way forward. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with wjemather here. While I think nuanced language can benefit PAGs in certain cases, I don't think the benefits outweight the costs here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that Option 3 here would be best, but a large part of the disagreement is about how each sport handles their own parts of NSPORTS, with NFOOTY facing the largest amount of focus (not entirely undeserved). Therein lies the issue – each sport is different, so each sport's notability criteria will be different. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guildeline 1 is all we can go with. Sports SNGs have been used over and over to keep in total junk and need to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline 1 is best. NSPORTS was intended to be a simple way of gauging whether a biography was likely to be suitable. If challenged then GNG would be used to decide. In reality only a minute fraction are ever challenged, so NSPORTS has held sway, from a practical point of view. The result being that nearly half of biographies of living people are sports competitors. Watering this down further to options 2 or 3 would be to raise NSPORTS to an even higher position. Nigej (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have any SNGs at all? Giant Snowman 17:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs are best used to restrict coverage to topics that are truly notable, and exclude topics that get maybe 2 articles in local coverage around 1 event that amounts to news coverage, but do not get covered in a way that shows lasting impact. This is what happens when for example the politician notability guideline is used to exclude almost all articles on people who were only candidates for office, and never were elected to office above a certain level. This is not what is happening with sports SNGs when we have so many articles like Egone Jakin which has something under both "references" and "external links" but they are both the same source, which is just a sports stat table.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When they're working well, SNGs are there to restrict the creation of articles, so that non-notable articles are not created. However for NSPORTS, because many of the criteria are so loose, they've been used as an excuse for creating vast number of articles for non-notable people. There's nothing wrong with the principle of SNGs, it's the fact that much of NSPORTS doesn't match up well with notability that's the basic problem. So NSPORTS is generally too loose now, making it even looser by adopting 2 or 3 would be crazy. Nigej (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"SNGs are there to restrict the creation of articles, so that non-notable articles are not created" - that's number 3 then. Giant Snowman 19:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per my reply to your initial comment above, if NSPORTS actually functioned that way, we wouldn't be here. Alternatively, if NSPORTS had stringent criteria that weren't an open invitation to create an article about almost anyone, we wouldn't be here. However, since we have groups of editors who want articles about everyone, and who obstruct even the slightest tightening of the criteria (often with utterly spurious rationale), somewhat inevitably, here we are. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly isn't number 3: "Meeting NSPORTS is generally sufficient ..." since NSPORTS is many areas does not "restrict the creation of articles". It actually encourages their creation. Nigej (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it limits those presumed to be notable (and therefore eligible for an article). Giant Snowman 20:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does limit those presumed to be notable but with an exceptionally low bar, so that a vast number of sports competitors who are not notable currently pass NSPORTS, encouraging editors to create articles for these people. Nigej (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) But due to extremely lax criteria, the presumption is woefully unreliable, and too often rebutted. The result is thousands upon thousands of incredibly low-quality micro-stubs that take hours of effort (from several contributors) to ultimately delete them (because the necessary sources to expand beyond a database entry do not exist), despite having taken seconds (from just one) to create. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nigej is a bit optimistic about GNG even having to be met on challenge. There are 2 articles at DRV now because they were deleted when taken to AfD because there was no showing of significant coverage, but the majority of voters (on in one case half, not actually a majority) said keep anyway and ignore GNG, so there are currently a lot of editors who ignore GNG completely and even when challenged try to hang on to articles that lack adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why preferred option is to scrap NSPORTS, although even that wouldn't help much. The truth is that if I started creating biographies for every doctor in England, I'd get banned within an hour or two, but if I created 100,000 articles for non-notable footballers I'd get congratulated for doing such a great job. Nigej (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Err, that's an interesting interpretation of this discussion. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll correct myself: 90,000 would be ok, but 100,000 would lead to a ban, although opposed by the footy fraternity. Nigej (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was 93,000 just from when his new page patrol privalege was lifted in the spring of 2021. His overall article contribution in far in excess of that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your point still stands. That user is still allowed to create articles. He is still able to vote to keep every article he ever created. He is still able to do all sorts of other things that obstruct attempts to clean up the mess he created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: I agree. But two other routes are possible. One is that some of the dozen proposals might pass. The other would be to take some time to develop ONE good RFC and then float it. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: That's because it doesn't have to meet GNG because the overly loose NSPORTS officially bypoasses GNG.North8000 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No RfC has established that the sports SNG specifically mandates that all articles meet GNG under it, that guideline is just regularly ignored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This whole mess is based on two complete fallacies:

Stubs are not proper articles and must be destroyed
Any subject that can't be demonstrated to satisfy WP:GNG isn't notable

Both are ridiculous. Do we have some stub articles on sportspeople that don't really justify having articles? Probably, yes. Is deleting everything where GNG hasn't been demonstrated good for the encyclopedia? Absolutely not. --Michig (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point that needs answering is whether it's acceptable that NSPORTS is so out of line with the rest of Wikipedia that nearly half of all biographies of living people are sports competitors. I know one answer is that NFOOTY is right and rest of Wikipedia needs to come into line, but you'll excuse the rest of us for not going along with that line of thinking. Nigej (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If NFOOTY (or NCRICKET, or whatever) is the problem (which I would probably agree with), why are people not proposing changes to that to tighten it up rather than trying to scrap the whole of NSPORT? Nearly all of the proposals would result in the deletion of articles on what in any meaningful sense of the term are notable people. --Michig (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When someone proposed moving away from the football guideline of 1 game, even no substitution in, just being on the bench, notability to a mere 3 games the football project people howled and objected to it and it did not pass. So there is clearly no willingness there to consider any reasonable changes. Plus, the problem runs the whole length and breath of sports notability. It is not just football, but basically every sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is riduculous is having half of all biographies of living people being on sports people. Sub-stubs are not useful, they provide no useful information. Wikipedia should not be a sports database but an encylopedia. If it is mainly databases people have to come through a lot of rubbish to learn anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That we have more articles on sportspeople than on all models, musicians, actors, actresses and other entertainers combined is not a good sign. At least among living people. This despite we have probably thousands of articles sourced only to IMDb, which is a very big problem that also needs to get resolved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it may be true that a lower percentage of BLPs are on sports people than is thought. Sports people are one of the groups we have a low rate of identifying their later life, so there are probably more sports people classed as living who are dead than for other groups. The other group that we have a really big problem with them just vanishing is beauty pagent winners, especially ones like Miss Montana, but for those titles we pretty much only have such mass coveaged from winner from 2000-2015, and we have cleaned up some of that, but there are others that we still have. Before 2000 we generally only have articles on beauty pageant winners who got extended coverage, either because they won a title that caused people to actually care later, or because almost all their coverage is for other things. Beauty pageant winners may be the generalized group other than Yourtubers who we have the highest number of our articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What proportion of famous people are sportspeople? --Michig (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define "famous people"? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly less than half. It is also clear that a large number of people we have articles are barely known at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

József Kálmán is an example of the type of sub-stub that these policies havge caused us to be flooeded with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And which part of WP:NSPORTS does the subject of that article satisfy (and it's a guideline, which is very different to a policy)? --Michig (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It passed NOLY when it was created, proving the point that loose criteria in SNGs encourage the creation of non-notable articles. Nigej (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to the current discussions regarding WP:NSPORT. --Michig (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting. --Michig (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 8% (Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 1210/15585) Nigej (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are three main factors that govern the proportion of biographies that are sportspeople - first, the proportion of 'well-known'/real-world notable people who are sportspeople, second, what Wikipedia editors are interested in creating articles about, and third, which topics sources are available for. I don't think people can sensibly point to stats on numbers of bios in WP and claim that's solely down to a problem in WP:NSPORT. --Michig (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ostensibly, WP:Notability is not about real world notability, it's about whether or not independent RS's have written about the topic in depth. And SNG's ostensibly are merely predictors of whether a topic will meet GNG, i.e. that GNG must be met The latter is always ignored and the SNG is effectively a bypass of GNG. The argument (which I agree with)is that the sports SNG is far too lenient compared to the rest of Wikipedia. The poster child for that is the sports "did it for a living for one day" criteria under which every working person in the world would qualify for an article if the other areas were made as lenient as the sports SNG. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not why SNGs exist - SNGs existed before the GNG. Wikipedia notability should be the same as real world notability - that should be the aim of all of the notability guidelines if we're going to make this a good-quality encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You genuinely think a "good-quality encyclopedia" would have 30+% of its biographies be on sports people? And how does one define "real-world notability" -- by meeting some achievement regardless of whether any encyclopedic coverage exists? How can anyone claim such an achievement is even remarkable itself, if those who meet it are not guaranteed personalized commentary in independent RS? JoelleJay (talk) JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay now I'm actually curious what percentage of Encyclopædia Britannica's biographies are athletes. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under 5% of their biographies are on people associated with sports and recreation. JoelleJay (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems so much more appropriate, JoelleJay, at least to my eyes. I don't think that's the goal wiki should have, but it's certainly a strong indication 30% is way too much, even if our criteria for notability is different than EB (justifiably so). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to repeat my own numbers which have been lost here somewhere. These are based on the numbers at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5 (where 8% of biographies are sports related). For all non-sports combined we have an average of 90 biographies for every "vital" one. For soccer we have 1,600. In other words, to get down to the non-sport Wikipedia "norm" we'd have to delete ~95% of all soccer biographies. Nigej (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a study of 1,000 randomly selected Articles. 31% of all wiki biographies are due to sports activities. The other 1000 types of activities share the other 69%. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the usual 30/70 split seen in general encyclopedias... JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You genuinely think a 'good-quality encyclopedia' would have 30+% of its biographies be on sports people?" I genuinely think: 1) Wikipedia is a good-quality encyclopedia (and getting better every year), 2) I am informed that Wikipedia has 30% of its biographies on sports people ====> 3) "Yes", a good-quality encyclopedia can (and apparently does) have 30% of its biographies on sports people. Sports has a very strong and loyal following. Biology professors, not so much -- can't remember the last time I saw someone wearing a t-shirt celebrating their favorite biology professor. Just or not, that's the reality of human existence on Planet Earth. Wikipedia mirrors life as it exists. As I've been told, it is not here to right great wrongs. Cbl62 (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any higher percentage that would make you say "No"?

And 30% of biographies aren't on athletes because of how real-world popular they or their leagues or even their sports are, come on. Editors aren't writing stubs on 1920s Olympic rowers whose full names we don't know because they're so important and well-known. We only have that many because sports stat databases make mass creation trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A one-line stub on a 1920s Olympic rower whose full name isn't known would be deleted or redirected (and with no resistance from sports editors) under the guidelines in existence today. In case you weren't aware, NOLYMPICS was drastically revised a year ago. You are waving a red herring doesn't remotely support the proposed gutting of NSPORTS. See also Bagumba's very apt points below. Cbl62 (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was an example of the types of articles mass-created due to the ease of shitting out database stubs rather than as a reflection of anyone's real-world attention. And anyway what are you talking about?! Of course such articles wouldn't be "deleted or redirected (and with no resistance from sports editors)", there are literally two articles at DRV for exactly this reason. Furthermore, the guidelines for NOLY in existence today were achieved solely because GNG was not being demonstrated for non-medallists, not out of some intrinsic notion of notability proposed by Olympics project editors.

Bagumba's presumption fails to consider the significant percentage of articles on athletes that are created to reach personal creation stats or to complete a "set". It also assumes the "notability" benchmarks devised by sports projects is supported by or aligned with anything in the real world. JoelleJay (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Please point me to an AfD on an Olympic non-medalist whose first name is not known that has been controversial. Also, "shitting out database stubs" ... ewww ... you may be the cause of some nasty nightmares tonight. Cbl62 (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were non-medallists. But These two DRVs fit the bill for the (again, hypothetical but realistic) example I gave. And if a non-medallist was nominated before NOLY was revised it would definitely have been controversial; I don't see how the recent tightening that specifically occurred due to mismatch between presumption of and actual GNG supports the assertion that sports project guidelines reflect what the wider community considers "deserving of an article". JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "fail to consider" it; it's irrelevant. If someone creates notable articles, and wants to create a shrine with their count, to each their own.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said It's presumably a reflection of its editors' interest, which is flatly not the case with editors who just choose any topic that has easily-accessible online databases from which to mass-create articles. This is relevant to the overall representation of topics, since there will be extremely strong bias toward the ones where there are both "presumptive" guidelines that permit creation of articles with minimal sourcing, and abundant databases containing exactly that sourcing. So arguing that the current proportion of biographies is remotely representative of real-world interest is not tenable, and yet that seems to be part of the defense of having so many bios -- that sports people are just so much more popular at every level than any other discipline. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: They competed in '32, '36, and '48, but I believe the general notion applies: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aage_Leidersdorff. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what Leidersdorff has to do with anything under discussion here. I understood Joelle to refer to an AfD on an Olympic non-medalist whose first name was not known that had been controversial. In any event, NOLYMPICS has been reformed, and Lidersdorff falls on the outside and has no bearing on the current proposals. Cbl62 (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an example of an non-medalling Olympic deletion that is controversial. There first name is known, but I don't believe that should make a difference.BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leidersdorff really doesn't have any bearing on the current discussion since the article falls outside the current bounds of NSPORTS. I thought you might have just been canvasing for others to participate in the AfD. I agree Leidersorff should be deleted due to the lack of SIGCOV but am reluctant to vote there in response to a non-neutral notification. Cbl62 (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bearing is that you asked for an AfD on an Olympic non-medalist whose first name is not known that has been controversial; I didn't have any examples with the exception of bundled AFD's where the first name is not known, but I felt that was close enough. And I wasn't expecting your input on that discussion, just your acknowledgement in this one that there is resistance from sports editors even when NSPORT does not support keeping the article. BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And rereading what I wrote, I don't believe it is a non-neutral message - although I didn't give that possibility as much thought as I should have given it is still open. I will make sure to correct that in the future, and consider waiting till after the discussion is closed to use it as an example. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of those sports bios are decent articles (C class and above), and what percentage of those non-sports bios are the same? BilledMammal (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is crowd sourced. It's presumably a reflection of its editors' interest, as they all work as volunteers. Is it a "true" reflection of the real world? Probably not. We are only enforcing that the individual articles are notable. We don't have oversight that articles are created proportionally to the real world, which women, non-white communities, LGBTQ, etc. would also debate what that "real world" truly looks like.—Bagumba (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, a one-line stub on an Olymic competitor whose full name we do not know gets a majority vote to keep, is deleted anyway, and goes to DRV. This is mainly because they were a member of the team that came in second in their particular competition out of 2 teams, and so they won a "silver medal", well their team did. A-we should only treat entities that won medals as default notable, so have an article on the team (but only if we can create reliable sourcing on the team, I have doubt about that for the second 1904 team in a particular sport that was sposored by the St. Louis Turners organization. The very fact that 1904 teams were not country teams, and some of the 1904 Olympics were competitions that were all sponsored by organizations in the US with all competitors being US residents, makes calling it an Olympics highly questionable. B-The medal rule should not apply for competitions where there were less than 4 competing entities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood but that example suggests further tweaking of NOLYMPICS to say that in team sports not every participant of a medaling team is presumed notable. (I raised this when NOLYMPICS was up for reform -- for example, a backup player on the bronze medal field hockey team clearly doesn't warrant a presumption of notability.) Such example, however, is not a basis for eliminating NSPORTS in its entirety which has many valid and well-calibrated sub-parts. Bottom line: fix the sub-parts that aren't properly calibrated to GNG. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Cbl62 (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT is full of rubbish and constantly lets in rubbish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Keller (boxer) is an example of the rubbish nsports produces. I was going to nominate him for deletion. I still have no significant coverage. However the person who created the article based on a database did so poorly he did not even extra the fact that Kelly won a medal at a British Commonwealth Game. These sub-stubs are so bad, they do not even extract all info from the databases used. They are not biographies, they are Olympic participation points. Mass deleting them and then letting people come back and recreate them after being able to find significant coverage would be what we would do if we at all believed in quality in Wikipedia. For now I will move on to a clear example of not passing notability, but this is clearly a junk article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't satisfy WP:NSPORT, so it's another nonsense example. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does medalling as a representative of your country at a Commonwealth Game not meet NBOXING? JoelleJay (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but the fact that we had a very short article sourced solely to an Olympics database has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:NSPORT. --Michig (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? Of course it does. It was created when NOLY presumed notability for all Olympians, and therefore was allowed to be created sourced only to a database. JoelleJay (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, NOLY has since been tightened. Those types of pages will now need to be considered notable per GNG directly.—Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously be arguing that WP:NSPORT should be trashed because of what it used to say. These arguments just get more and more ridiculous. --Michig (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are persistently refusing to address the substantive points, choosing to deflect and find a strawman to refute instead. You are more than aware that the example given is simply illustrative of how loose guidelines have been exploited by article creation counters and completionists to produce tens of thousands of copy-paste database-entry stubs on non-notable subjects. Yes, NOLY has been tightened, but persistent obstruction (and, on occasion, downright stonewalling) by interested parties and WikiProjects has prevented meaningful progress with the remaining 95% of NSPORT. Even the tightening that has been achieved, e.g. NCRIC last year, has been extremely limited and notability is still presumed for an unacceptably high proportion of non-notables about whom we know almost nothing; it is also problematic that many guidelines defer to WikiProject essays that are not overseen by NSPORT. The best solution is to scrap it and start again. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to consider any well-thought out arguments, but we have consistently had specious strawman arguments from those looking to trash the guideline. If you want to demonstrate the NSPORT as it stands now is the problem then the onus is on you to do so, but arguments based on what it used to say, proportionally how few biographies we have in other areas, and articles being created that don't even satisfy the current guideline do nothing to convince me that you have any good arguments. --Michig (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments have been presented, many times over. However, many of those opposing change choose to stonewall them, repeatedly. C'est la vie. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of the argument here is whether NSPORTS is "fit for purpose". No one's arguing that it's "the problem" but many think it's "a problem". NSPORTS and other SNGs in many ways define what articles are created and which one's aren't, and that's what they're meant to do (with AfDs for those at the margins). It's clear that many aspects of NSPORTS have resulted in the creation of large numbers of biographies in this area, making it out of line with the vague nebulous consensus that seems to apply in other areas of Wikipedia, and resulting in such a high proportion of biographies being sports competitors. This is all clear. The question then is, does it matter that NSPORTS is so out of line with the vague nebulous consensus used elsewhere in Wikipedia? My own view is that it's not a good idea for one area to be so out of line. Clearly your view is that it doesn't matter, but let's not dismiss the arguments of those you disagree with, simply by saying they're using some specious sort of argument and saying that one side's got some sort of "onus". Nigej (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can put forward convincing arguments showing that NSPORTS as it stands is causing a specific problem that can't be solved by making changes to specific areas of the guideline, then please do so. But stop presenting misleading arguments that are not directly related to the guideline. --Michig (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, it starts with "RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS". We're not arguing here about "specific areas", we're supposed to be arguing about NSPORTS as a whole. My answer to "Abolish the current version of NSPORTS" is Yes. Nigej (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't have any convincing arguments why NSPORTS should be abolished - just an opinion. --Michig (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point continuing this since you don't pay any attention to what anyone else says. Nigej (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would reconsidering the wiki's use of sports databases be helpful?

I think that the discussions above and in the project page indicate that many editors are at odds as to how Wikipedia should approach the use of sports databases. Would having some kind of discussion on this point, whether at WP:RSN or elsewhere, benefit the project? If so, what would be the best format? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPORTSCRIT, they can be reliable for facts, but are not counted as "significant coverage" for the purposes of notability.—Bagumba (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So this means we should have a procedure to Proposed delete any article based solely on databases in a way that the Proposed deletion can only be removed if a sourced is added that is not a sports database, right?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, I'd appreciate if you'd rephrase your comment as I do not understand what you mean. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we currently have a Proposed deletion option where if someone finds an article on a living person with no sourcing, they can put a Proposed Deletion on the article and it cannot be removed unless someone adds at least one source that meets certain quality metrics. So I am proposing we create such a Proposed Deletion option to deal with this huge glut of articles on sportspeople sourced only to a database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like that proposal is somewhat outside the scope of my comment above, as I was thinking about a general discussion (e.g. something akin to brainstorming and evidence gathering) rather than creation a PROD option, Johnpacklambert. I will say though that I do like the PROD idea if editors believe that would be applicable to hundreds of thousands of articles. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A prod akin to what JPL suggested is the subject of subproposal 6. Cbl62 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you'd need a consensus at WP:RSN that sports databases aren't reliable sources (which has been mentioned there before, but never with any consensus). Then, probably BLPPROD should be updated to be if there are 0 reliable sources (rather than 0 sources, as it is currently). This would also solve all the crap film articles just sourced to IMDB too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302 that's more along the lines of what I was meaning by explicitly referencing RSN. I kind of don't like how this overall discussion on NSPORTS is kind of tunnel vision-ing onto NSPORTS and missing a really good chance to revisit some of the nuances that are applicable elsewhere on the wiki. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal that sporting databases aren't reliable sources would miss the point. As Bagumba noted above, most of these sporting databases are reliable sources. They are reliable for the statistical data found therein. Reliability is not the issue. The issue is that, per longstanding consensus, such databases do not constitute the sort of SIGCOV needed to pass GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting databases do not provide indepth coverage and so do not add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is doubting that...but that does not mean they are not reliable or that they should not be used. Giant Snowman 16:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specific guidance on databases would help clear up conflicting advice, since we currently have WP:SPORTCRIT which excludes databases from establishing notability, followed by individual sports criteria which apparently can be satisfied by a database entry that shows participation in a certain event. This reminds me of the geography guideline, which has Wikipedia:Notability (geographic_features)#Sources which excludes maps and tables from establishing notability, even though an entry in a census table (or similar) is often considered sufficient to meet the legal recognition requirement of WP:NGEO. I wonder if a Wiki-wide "don't create articles sourced only to databases" guideline would be appropriate? –dlthewave ☎ 16:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And that guideline is so bad it lead to us having 6,000 articles on wells in Iran. Was that also curtesy of the same editor who has given us so many sub-stubs on sportspeople?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Johnpacklambert hold on, what?! Could someone please give me a link to the 6,000 article discussion. That feels like wikilore I've been missing out on. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - John is referring to the Carlossuarez46 stuff from last year, although I'm not sure what conclusion he's trying to draw from that as there's pretty widespread acceptance here that database entries should not be sufficient to create an article. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hmm, that was a different editor than I was thinking of. It is a true mess, and no it is 100% true.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure which one you mean--this isn't the same person who created a lot of the sports stubs, but if there's another editor besides Carlos who created 6000 articles about geographic places in Iran based on a mistranslation of a word that could mean "water-well", I'd be pretty surprised! Alyo (chat·edits) 21:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we actually sure databases are reliable? Marcel de Kerviler was based only on a sports database, and per the discussion in the deletion discussion in that article it appears that the database may have been listing him as 3 years younger than he is. I know in another area where we over rely on databases and turn out way too many articles with almost no prose, actors and actresses and films, IMDb which is the only source on literally thousands of articles we have, is not considered to be reliable at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or Francis English (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis English) who died in 1984 ([1]) but was still alive in 1990. Nigej (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Database sites can be reliable. Like other sources, each one needs to be vetted out. It's not all or nothing. And even reliable sources have occasional errors.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the reliability of all databases, but those published by Sports Reference LLC (including Pro-Football-Reference.com, Baseball-Reference.com, Basketball-Reference.com, and Hockey-Reference.com) are quite good and professionally maintained. In rare cases where errors have been discovered in the past, the operators have been quite prompt about investigating and correcting errors. ProFootballArchives.com is also quite good. Cbl62 (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Imdb is a completely different and not comparable creature because it is an open wiki that anyone can edit. Cbl62 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try on Francis English, but the database actually shows he died in 1998 and was alive and well in 1990. I don't know what your point is. Smartyllama (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it didn't when the article was created, or when is was nominated for deletion three years later. The point is quite clear; these databases are not as reliable as some would have us believe, especially when it comes to early Olympians – e.g. we aren't really sure who came third here but you wouldn't know without looking for hidden text. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, interesting to compare https://web.archive.org/web/20211117125130/https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/40633 (died March 1984 in Newburgh, New York) from November 2021 with the current https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/40633 (11 December 1998 in ?, Pennsylvania). Perhaps they follow Wikipedia, and us finding out their blunder has perhaps triggered them into finding the true date. Nigej (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case citogenesis becomes a really serious concern to me, Nigej. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point really is that the stuff in olympedia probably comes a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs (like us) scouring old newspapers and the like. Someone in that organisation could find out some information (whether it's correct we don't know), add it there, and then reference it here as a reliable source. Nigej (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olympedia and Sports Reference are professionally maintained. Some databases are not, however, and we don't accept those as reliable sources. Smartyllama (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Professionally maintained" absolutely does not equate to reliable; indeed most WP:DEPRECATED sources are professionally maintained. With regards to early Olympics, the reliability is certainly questionable. Another concern is that it's obvious that WikiPedia editors are (or have been) involved in maintaining it, therefore making it a WP:SELFPUB/WP:CIRCULAR source. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call Olympedia a database. It is a wiki, just like this is. I agree with Bagumba that each database needs to be considered on its own. Rikster2 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that that professionally maintained databases are generally reliable, at least for US sports. --Enos733 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would y'all think about creating a page like Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/Databases - WP:RSNP/D, i.e. a subset of the perennial sources list dealing with databases? I think that could be very useful to improve our ability to tackle the database issue, and a neutral first step that isn't assuming any of the extreme positions in the discussions here (databases are entirely reliable or unreliable). It would also help those reviewing articles either at AfD or AfC to see if the database sources an article is based on are considered reliable or not by the community. Of course, this is just an idea. What do y'all think? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62 had mentioned earlier (15:41, 18 February) that the issue of reliable sources and databases "would miss the point". Perhaps the grandiose metaphor by some that Wikipedia has become a sports database is the source of this misunderstanding. I dont think anyone is generally questioning that these bios are about real athletes, or that the information is habitually not factual. The individual athlete's notability is the concern, not any specific database.—Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba what is the current way for editors unfamiliar with olympedia to know about the dating issue raised above by Nigej. I remind you Olympedia is used in 22,417 articles. What about other less known but sport-specific databases, or geographic databases? My point wasn't about sports databases specifically, I just think that a number of editors have raised a concern that how the wiki uses databases might not be the best way due to reliability issues so I'm proposing one way to deal with that. I think there are many topics of discussion that are being brought up in the context of NSPORTS but we would do well to think of in a more general context. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something (TLDR), but my impression was that it was the accusation of Wikipedia replicating a sports database, or an actor database, etc. without filtering for notability standards. If you have specific examples that are different, it would be helpful.—Bagumba (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there's two separate issues here. 1. Is the data accurate and 2. Is it sufficiently detailed to be an in-depth source. As regard 2, I would say that it often isn't. The Francis English example https://www.olympedia.org/athletes/40633 is basically family history stuff, nothing of any real substance, but useful to pad out an article. As regard 1, I would say it was quite variable. As noted, you'd expect stuff from the professional leagues/tours/etc to be pretty reliable. A few sports like cricket have a long heritage of maintaining stats and biographical information (via Wisdens obituaries etc) and are very reliable (CricketArchive for instance) but other sports are in a much worse position. As regards Olympedia, I'd say it was a useful source but wouldn't be sufficient as our only source. My impression from the few cases I've followed through is that I find the same stuff that they provide, showing that we've both got a subscription to Newspaper.com and do similar searches. Nigej (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those who divide this into two separate questions: 1) Are databases reliable? and 2) Are databases substantive enough to indicate notability?

On question 1 - It depends on the specific database. Some databases are reliable and others are not.

On question 2 - My feeling is: No, while a (reliable) database can be used to support details, no database is substantive enough to support a claim of notability. We need more. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the relevant text from WP:SPORTSCRIT, referenced earlier:

Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases.

—Bagumba (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future Discussion at RSN

I think the topic of how wiki handles databases seems to merit wider discussion based on the comments above and so I will proceed to start a discussion in WT:RSN. I'd appreciate input here on what to asks and how to word the discussion thread. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about one of Olympedia at WP:ORN in the context of whether it is a primary source. A broader discussion on WP:RSN should be had, although in the case of that database since creating that thread WP:COI concerns have also emerged - the possibility of Wikipedia editors silently editing that database and using those changes without explaining that they made them to support changes here. BilledMammal (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to post!

I started reading through the content, but I don't have the attention span for this, what ever this is. I want to slap an oppose down! Sadly people are not keeping this simple, this feels like a yard full of crap that you have to wade through! Someone post my complete oppose for me! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial sources has an RFC

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial sources has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, a sub-RFC of the RFC. Great :) Giant Snowman 20:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this RfC is different to the NSPORTS discussion, covering a wider array of topics. I understand your fatigue towards the NSPORTS discussion, GiantSnowman, but I genuinely think a really constructive piece of wiki infrastructure (to call it some way) could be built from this that would be terribly helpful to the community and especially to newbies. I hope you give it some thought :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming close on #5

@Wugapodes: Thanks for tackling this. Due to the importance, I'd like to ask for clarification comfirmation of one aspect of the close on #5. Is it:

It passes as proposed, except without the "from inception"? or is it
"...that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject."

North8000 (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first, consensus aside from the "from inception" bit. — Wug·a·po·des 20:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that was basically the essential part of the proposal. ??? Cbl62 made that clear numerous times. "My intent in proposing this is to create a prospective restriction on the creation of new articles." Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing the close

This should not be done by those involved in the discussion. It should be done by the closer only. Giant Snowman 20:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my talk page, I don't believe this is something I ought to do. I don't think that unilaterally rewriting policy is appropriate for a closer except in incredibly simple cases. There are implications and interrelated criteria that maintainers of the policy understand better than me, and they are the best positioned to discuss the specific implementations. Further drafting and consensus-building after an RfC close is typical, and while a little hectic, I think BRD is yielding better results than if I simply wrote my own policy wording. — Wug·a·po·des 20:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then at the very least you need to be policing the edits. I came back from two days away to utter carnage. Giant Snowman 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman Wugapodes has no need to do anything, they were nice enough to volunteer to close its not their job to 'police' edits. That is both outside the scope of a closer's responsibility and (in my opinion) contradicts the non-compulsory nature of participating in discussions (by closing or otherwise participating). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Closing does not trigger new "after close" responsibilities for the closer nor restrict activities outside of the close to the closer. North8000 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the implementation of the RFC results have been the equivalent of taking a hatchet to long-standing policies. There has to be a more organized and coherent way of implementing the results of an RFC than slash and burn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subproposal 8

The close of subproposal 8 has been used to drastically change NSPORTS by excising every instance in which the guidelines referred to a presumption of notability. This may be argued by some editors to mean that NSPORTS is no longer a guideline at all and is now demoted to an essay. Such an outcome is fundamentally inconsistent with the overwhelming majority's vote in the main proposal. I have asked the closer if it was their intent that all references to a presumption of notability should be stricken. Also whether it was their intent that NSPORTS be demoted from guideline to essay. The closer has not provided the requested outcome, which I believe is of significant import. IMO, it would be inappropriate in the extreme to make such a profound change in the status of NSPORTS flow from subpproposal 8, which was poorly attended for reasons noted in the closing statement, and would be especially regrettable given the low level of participation and closeness of the voting. The Main Proposal was an effort to gut NSPORTS entirely -- and one which was heavily attended and soundly rejected. To then allow the demotion of NSPORTS to "essay" status via such a poorly attended item as subproposal 8 would be a fundamental misread of the overall consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the above interpretation is accurate. The proposed change just clarifies that NSPORTS is an indicator whether a sports-related topic is likely to have attracted significant coverage and thus warrant an article (by virtue of having significant coverage and not by virtue of meeting an arbitrary participation criteria). This is already what the guideline has been saying all along (since long before this whole thing began, and in the very first sentence: 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, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.) and also how it was applied in most instances (i.e. as recent adventures at DRV and AFD show, sports players who obviously fail GNG do get deleted even if the previous text suggested there was a "presumption"). Suggesting that this would make NSPORTS meaningless has already been refuted at the RfC, where many examples of notability criteria which do defer to GNG and which do have a practical purpose have been presented. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we're in agreement that NSPORTS remains in full force as a guideline and has not been demoted. Excellent. I thought the anti-sports brigade might try to misinterpret things based on a razor-thin margin at a poorly-attended subproposal. Cbl62 (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subproposal 1 closing statement

To be clear, I am not necessarily asking for this close to be overturned. I would be fine if the closing statement was deleted, or, better, replaced with something like "This subproposal sought to impose a deadline for when GNG-compliant sourcing must be produced for sportspeople. While a slim majority of participants supported this proposal, it failed to gain a substantial numerical advantage. [Accurate description of discussion]."

As the closer has refused to engage in further discussion of his close on his talk page, I'm bringing it here. I have serious issues with his interpretation of the subproposal itself; with his evaluation of consensus for the proposal; with his conflating (minority) opposition to the proposal with, somehow, rejection of the consensus interpretation and application of NSPORT as a whole; with using the lack of supermajority support for 1 as evidence that consensus at other, entirely separate subproposals should not be implemented; and with using the aforementioned reasoning to prescribe a NEW interpretation of NSPORT that was not only not the subject of proposal 1 and not a remotely reasonable read of the prevailing opinions in that discussion, but was in fact the subject of a failed subproposal (with the nominator even specifically acknowledging the pre-RfC guideline consensus interpretation as "subservien[t] to GNG").

For clarity, this is the main substance of subproposal 1 (minus the hypothetical amendment suggestions): All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD.

This is the closing statement:

Subproposal 1 closing statement

This was the second-most participated-in proposal with over 70 participants. Editors debated whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG. Editors were evenly split, and no consensus emerged. Editors in support of the change generally argued that this was simply codifying the existing consensus that In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding (see also deletion review outcome). I would also point out that "should" (in the guideline) and "must" (in the proposal) are meaningfully distinct. Editors in opposition generally argued that this change from recommendation (should) to requirement (must) is tantamount to repealing NSPORTS as it obviates the purpose of a SNG. Editors did not come to an agreement on these issues, and so a strong requirement as phrased in the proposal is not supported by consensus.

These are the issues with the closing statement:

Editors debated whether NSPORTS should be revised to require biographies to meet the GNG. This indisputably is not what was proposed. The proposal was explicitly restricted to changing the timeline for when GNG coverage of a subject must be demonstrated, from "eventually" to "within the course of an AfD".

Editors were evenly split, and no consensus emerged. The numerical count was 36 support to 32 oppose. However, one or two opposes were clearly misplaced due to misunderstanding the hypothetical amendments and should have been counted as supports for the actual proposal. At least 3 comments were also supportive, while 1 was not. At least 2 opposes actually did support the proposal, but wanted it to be raised at a different venue and to apply to all SNGs. That leaves us with around the same split as seen for subproposal 3. I'm not arguing subproposal 1 should pass, but I also don't think the close was a fair representation of the !vote distribution.

Editors in support of the change generally argued that this was simply codifying the existing consensus that In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The ammount of opposition suggests this is in fact not the consensus understanding (see also deletion review outcome).

As I pointed out on Wugapodes' talk, this is a bafflingly misguided assessment of the discussion. Opposition to subproposal 1 is not equivalent to opposition to the requirement that NSPORT subjects must meet GNG, and that eventually this must be demonstrated by sources in the article. While some opposers either were unaware of or actively ignored the longstanding relationship between NSPORT and GNG, a number of them simply opposed on the grounds that 1 week at AfD should not be enough to remove the presumption that GNG sourcing does exist for a subject. At least 6 opposers even acknowledged, in their comments on this subproposal, that evidence of GNG was ultimately required (and even more acknowledged this elsewhere in the thread). So it is completely specious to claim the discussion of subproposal 1 (which, as a reminder, had majority support) not only failed to find consensus approval, but ALSO was sufficient to overturn the existing consensus on NSPORT.

It is further highly problematic that Wugapodes cited, as "evidence" that the existing NSPORT interpretation did not have consensus, one DRV that was NOT brought up in subproposal 1 discussion and which did NOT prescribe a judgment of that interpretation, while at the same time intentionally ignoring the literal dozens of counterexamples that actually were provided in the discussion and did directly and explicitly testify to the consensus interpretation of NSPORT.

I would also point out that "should" (in the guideline) and "must" (in the proposal) are meaningfully distinct. Editors in opposition generally argued that this change from recommendation (should) to requirement (must) is tantamount to repealing NSPORTS as it obviates the purpose of a SNG. Editors did not come to an agreement on these issues, and so a strong requirement as phrased in the proposal is not supported by consensus.

This statement fails to acknowledge the fact that NSPORT does say "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. It also fails to acknowledge the numerous places where the guideline outlines its scope as a predictor of GNG and where it explicitly calls GNG the inclusion criterion for meriting an article. The closing statement offers no text from NSPORT to support the assertion it overrides GNG, but it's obvious Wugapodes is referring to the second sentence. Attempts now and in prior NSPORT RfCs to explain to him the intent and (I have to keep highlighting this) consensus interpretation of that sentence as well as the overall purpose of NSPORT have been met with hostility and downright derision:

Your comment is based on multiple false premises. NSPORT specifically requires article subjects meet GNG This is so false I suspect you haven't actually read NSPORT or N. To quote the big bold text at the top of NSPORT: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below (emphasis original). You incorrectly interpret policy on the talk page of that policy, and yet you seem to think that making more and more restrictive rules will improve compliance? Call me suspicious.

Additionally, Wugapodes cites the failure of subproposal 1 as why subproposal 8 (@Dlthewave) only "partially passed", with the reasoning that passing both parts would overrule the "rejection" of subproposal 1. This is despite a) that portion of the subproposal not having a meaningful difference in support from the "passing" part, and b) Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG not being at all interdependent with subproposal 1.

In summary, I believe the closing statement (but not necessarily outcome) of subproposal 1 should be overturned and reexamined by a neutral admin. It is also my opinion that the closes of the other subproposals, especially the ones that passed, should also be reexamined, as others have brought up the substantial discrepancies between what was proposed and participant opinion, and what the closer claimed was the consensus decision. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoelleJay, I'm generally in agreement with this analysis. Would it make sense to move it to WP:AN where a close review has been opened? –dlthewave ☎ 03:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, I hadn't seen that. I don't want to derail that discussion too much with all this text, and I don't have the time to reframe it right now, but if others want to link it or paste it they can, and I'll consider how to move it there tomorrow. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I commented at the AN. JoelleJay (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure review

A review of the close has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#NSPORTS closure review. –dlthewave ☎ 13:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]