Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

This page vis-a-vis the GNG, numero deux

Following on from the previously titled discussion above, I just want to get this clear. If someone agrees that an article fails the GNG, but states that NSPORTS means that an article is notable, is that a valid argument?

If the answer is yes: The wider view is that the bar is lower for athletes because (while some don't like it) they tend to meet the GNG more easily, warranting articles, and that this guideline is useful as a rough gauge of when you'll probably find sources. The wider view is not that people who technically meet NSPORTS are definitely notable.

If the answer is no: could we possibly make that clearer? Even today I am coming across people who are arguing exactly along the above lines. I've been chastised in the past for trying to make this explicit in the lead, being told there is no need. I (grudgingly) accepted it at the time. But when contributors whom I respect are going along the above lines, then I'm sorry, but there is a need to re-address it. --WFC-- 13:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is simple as per WP:CONLIMITED :

“ Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right. ”

The WP:GNG is the community wide consensus on notability and there for overrides anything else. All any WikiProject can do is draw up guidelines that help to highlight what should make a subject is notable but can't escape the need to have "ignificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Codf1977 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason you get people arguing along those lines is that NSPORTS is meant to protect articles from over zealous delete attempts. Most of the time the people who are saying that an article which meet NSPORTS but which they say doesn't meet GNG haven't actually done a thorough search of sources that would actually have the references required and instead have only done a google search. By introducing the kind of sentencing you want at the top of the page, you weaken the point of this page. Simply point people making the argument you don't like to this page, which does already clearly indicate that GNG superseeds it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

NSPORT actually has both types.

• Most of the guideline (pro sports, for example) are the type where notability is presumed as long as the NSPORT criteria is met even if the GNG is not; this is based on the presumption that athletes that meet that criteria either have sources that are difficult to get on immediate notice, or have a high likelihood of having sources in time (near-term, 1-3 years-ish). That is, with proper sourcing, they would meet the GNG. As Djsasso suggests it is to prevent overzealous deletion of likely-notable topics.
• Some of the guideline (under amateur sports) is the opposite: not only must the GNG be met, but also must meet the more limiting criteria. This is to prevent what topics that may be covered routinely in local sources (like high school athletes) from being notable.

Aslo to Codf1977's comment: NSPORT was passed through global consensus before it was asserted to be a guideline (I still disagree with the laxness of it, but admit that the RFC for it received consensus). It should be considered on par in terms of community consensus as the GNG, not indifferent from it. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

NSPORT was passed with approximately 56% support, while several supporters expressed that they were primarily doing so because ATHLETE was inadequate. I don't disagree that there was consensus to promote, given that several opposers also agreed that it was an improvement on ATHLETE. DJ is right, something on athletes is necessary, if only to put the burden on deleters to do a good faith check of notability. But it's completely wrong to suggest that this is anywhere near being on a par with the GNG.

I'm confident that the above is correct. But let's suppose I'm wrong. In that instance, it would be fair to say that the community was misled by those who insisted that this should be seen as a suppliment to the GNG rather than a replacement. If now that the dust has settled it is to be considered a replacement, that would call into question the validity of this being a guideline. --WFC-- 15:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It was still passed by the global community. Sure, you can argue that the bare majority (in WP's !voting system) shows it had barely enough consensus to pass, but I wouldn't argue that "GNG is more important to be met than NSPORT because NSPORT didn't have strong/global consensus". (Heck, I could argue the GNG probably is not supported by a large fraction of the editor population based on long-standing problems with it, but that is neither here or there). It is appropriate, however, to note that NSPORT is a "sub-notability" guideline, meaning that the GNG should still be the ultimate goal for any article that otherwise passes NSPORT. I understood throughout the NSPORT creation process, it was meant to outline criteria that would be used to prevent the deletion of articles that otherwise immediately failed the GNG. In other words it followed the pattern of the other sub-notability guidelines like WP:NFILMS and WP:NM (for music). --MASEM (t) 16:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the second half of what you have posted above. But I think that a significant proportion of sports editors are taking this guideline far more literally and as far more concrete than it was initially intended to be. Don't get me wrong with the way I quoted 56%. I conceed that there were opposers who saw the positives in this, albeit complimented by supporters with a few reservations. It's testament to the work done here that it got a majority. And given that most people elabourated on their positions, the numerical count was probably a better evaluation of consensus than a poll usually is.

That said, the fact that this narrowly passsed is relevant if this guideline's standing in relation to the GNG is different to where people were led to believe. Would you mind if I dropped a note on User:SoWhy's talk page about this discussion? It might provide a useful insight. --WFC-- 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say But I think that a significant proportion of sports editors are taking this guideline far more literally and as far more concrete than it was initially intended to be.", can you provide examples? (I'm guessing AFD discussions, for one). It may be better to address what the perceived problem is instead of guessing around it. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that guidelines and policies on wikipedia are meant to be descriptive not prescriptive. In other words they are meant to resemble what actually happens (as opposed to tell you what to do), if a majority of people are using it as a keep reason, then technically it has the support of the global community as a guideline which means if its met then you keep it. This is something that is often forgotten when it comes to wikipedia policies/guidelines. Note this isn't a comment on if I think this should be the case or not, but if you are seeing it widely used as a keep reason, that is often proof it has consensus to be so. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only widely used by editors active in that particular field. --WFC-- 16:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that at all, I see it used all the time as a reason to both keep and delete by people who have nothing to do with sports articles normally. Either way it already clearly indicates what you want at the top of this page, so I am not sure what you want. It will take time for this to sink it, it is a new guideline afterall. I wouldn't expect many people habbits change until its atleast a year old. WP:ATHLETE was around a loooong time. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Masem: I'm trying to go for discussions that are not active, and article subjects that would no longer be affected by this discussion. I can justify the age of a couple of these on the grounds that as far as football is concerned, the criteria did not really change with the birth of NSPORTS. This is one that I came across during a recent RfA, and this de-PROD, while admittedly two and a half years old and now irrelevant as he has subsequently played quite a bit more, has been cited as recently as July 2010 as reflective of the opinion that one game between two lower league teams confers notability. A more recent example is Gavin Massey. He was deleted at AfD and then recreated by someone on the grounds of passing WP:ATHLETE. That was later speedied. But judging by the response to it being speedied and keep arguments at a more recent discussion that I cannot quote just yet, it would appear that Gavin Massey's article only ended up being deleted because WP:FOOTBALL regulars were not made aware of the discussion. --WFC-- 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see the types of cases you seem to be talking about where technically based on the language they pass ATH/NSPORT (I think the cases you list would still meet NSPORT) but, through common sense, clearly shouldn't. This was one of the issues I had with NSPORT in development in that these aren't considering the actual contributions of the player, but simply being part of a professional team was making them notable. (Personally, my opinion is that much of what's in NSPORT is not needed, since pro players will get coverage if they are notable players within their sport).

The way to remedy this, I think, is to consider that the criteria here are considered a temporary respite from meeting the GNG in the long run. The criteria that have been selected should be providing reasonably assurance that sources do or will exist in the near future, but if it's clear after some time (particularly for past athletes) that there are no sources being added, it's not showing notability in the long run. So NSPORT needs to work not as alternative to the GNG, but as a implicit acknowledgment of working towards the GNG. But I wouldn't argue that at any immediate time, an article that meets NSPORT must also meet the GNG. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll rehash a bit of my argument from earlier. By blindly sticking to an ambiguous standard "significant coverage" of GNG, WP is artificially limiting the knowledge it can host. Just how much is "significant"? Two sources, three, ten? If you get the wrong AfD people in an argument, they could see blood and start circling. Yes, I have equated those types of personalities as sharks. Sticking to GNG assumes that all the knowledge of the world is already available on-line and essentially turns references into a locator service for said sources. That might work, kind of, for contemporary subjects, but as you go back though time, on-line sources are (I'll say) exponentially fewer in number. This would hold true for most subjects, but certainly for athletes. However we have also determined through guidelines that if one is notable for historical events, that notability does not disappear. The sources might not be available or could literally disappear (libraries and museums have fires or disasters etc) and cause this to happen. Should we penalize the subject of the article because the internet is not perfect. I think not. If we can find a source that establishes the notability of the subject, that alone should be sufficient to let that article survive. As I have found, when a legitimate article exists, it naturally gets improved over time. Trackinfo (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem that ATH and NSPORT still has is that it presumes playing in the game makes one notable. It's becoming clear that that is not the case, at least when put up against every other bio-related notability approach - participation is not the same as notability, no matter how much that player actually participates; it is what makes them exceptional (positively or negatively) that notability is based on. Consider that you've already advised that local players should not be included due to routine coverage; this needs to extend to pro players as well, otherwise you're treating pro players on a higher level than any other person for Wikipedia. That said, I'm well aware of the sourcing issue - that anyone from pre-Internet age is going to be more difficult to source than those today, but it is not that sources don't exist, just difficult to get. What NSPORT needs to be doing is outlining cases where one is assuredly going to find non-routine coverage of sports figures in reliable sources for that sport. I can easily accept that every first-string pro NFL quarterback and head coach is likely going to be notable since they are the backbone of the success or failure of the team and their decisions overall will be commented on; anyone other position, I question.

If it is an issue with editors ready like vultures to delete older sports figures should ATH/NSPORT disappear, that's a problem not with notability but with those editors understanding about the lack of WP's deadline and all that. I know I proposed a grandfathering clause to help carry over the gap to give a year or so to help improve such articles.

Of course, NSPORT has passed, and there's no point to try to revert that. But that means we have to understand why it was opposed, in part to its laxness. Thus, the case listed above of an athlete with 4 whole minutes of playtime to his name should not be mechanically kept just because it meets this. All these cases should be taken as rules of thumbs, with allowances both above and below the line when they make sense. A player that only plays 4 unremarkable minutes in a pro game and has nothing else may be able the line to be kept, but clearly isn't notable; at the same time, a draft rookie player that was promoted to be the season-changing player that suffers a pre-season injury that ends his career prematurely, never having played a pro game, will likely be notable and be kept. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing that is often forgotten, and maybe its that people don't agree. Is that in order to make it to the professional leagues even if its only for 4 minutes means that you were probably a notable amateur player. Maybe they aren't a notable pro soccer player at 4 minutes playing time, but chances are they are notable for amateur soccer or they wouldn't have been boosted to pro. Notability doesn't begin at some high 1st string level, notability often begins years before a player has even turned pro which is why we use the pro line as a clear red line of when they are likely to meet notability guidelines. -DJSasso (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability (in a wikipedia sense) begins and ends with the GNG. It is easy to show that someone is notable by putting sources in the article. If what you say is true it should be very easy to do so. I don't think I've seen an article yet on a footballer who has made a single appearance which demonstrates the GNG. Yet they go through AfD and are kept time after time by the same group of vested contributors with no improvement made to the article. The situation is grossly at odds with the rest of community norms regarding notability of BLPs. Quantpole (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to soccer because I don't follow it. I know for any of the four major sports in north america, a single appearance in any pro game at any level and you can guarantee to have many many articles written about you. I agree articles need sources, I definitely don't disagree with that in the slightest. That being said, the soccer standards seem to be out of line with the rest of the major sports. All the other major sports require you to play at the #1 league in the world or a significant amount of time in a secondary one. Perhaps the football project could work on their section to bring it into line with the other sports. This might allay some of the concerns. -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But again, this is still putting athletics above most other professions when you put this next to WP:BIO. We don't have articles on every entertainer, for example, but only those that clearly meet the GNG or otherwise meet the few allowances in WP:ENT, all which are based on exceptional contributions to the field. Of course, for a person to become a major motion picture star, they've likely had to take on a number of mediocre roles that would be non-notable for purposes of Wikipedia, just has athletes would need to show their abilities at college or amateur levels before they become pros, and for that, most will not be notable (when one takes into account WP:ROUTINE). The only aspect that changes most of this for sports is the shear volume of media dedicate to sports coverage over any other profession, but we should be taking that into account as well and make sure we're not mistaking routine coverage as significant. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually thats a poor analogy. Playing at the highest professional level is like being an entertainer in a huge blockbuster movie or an academy award nominated movie. Its not like just being a professional entertainer. Plenty of people watch and are entertained by secondary leagues, but they are not necessarily notable under NSPORT. I agree that soccer needs to be a bit less inclusive, since it seems to include minor leagues in its notability clause, which I disagree with. --MATThematical (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is newspapers and the like write about these athletes at those levels in ways that are not just routine (ie stats sheets and single sentence mentions). They don't tend to do that for every mediocre entertainer or people of other professions. Wikipedia reflects the real world. -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Box scores and game stats are routine coverage; it's expected when one reads about a game or series. You can also bring up WP:NTEMP here; just because a player scored a grand slam in baseball is not sufficient for notability - despite the achievement, if he did nothing else, that was simply a temporary event and should be Wikinews. We should be looking for notability as a result of a season or career, not from a collection of single games. --MASEM (t) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I was saying that box scores and the like are routine. But articles about the player on the other hand are not, because its not routine to write an article about every player on a team. -DJSasso (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I misunderstood, thanks. I would still be careful on some player coverage, as this is where the local issues come into play and a lot harder to distinguish. "SmallTown News" covering a star high school athlete from that town is hard to use as a notable source. "HugeNational Times" covering that same player certainly is not. The problem comes when "BigCity Gazette" (aka New York Times) covers a local high school player in the same manner they would cover a local professional player and a non-local professional player. We have to use good judgement here as to when that source is really of a scale that would be considered notable for WP. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to go at least a small way towards doing that DJSasso. Admittedly the way I tried to do it could be considered a flawed approach by some, but the very thought of even slightly strengthening it didn't prove popular. The error in promoting this is now manifesting; very little work was done to improve ATHLETE for the biggest sport in the world, and most problematic sport on Wikipedia. Of the identified 25,000 unreferenced BLPs site-wide, nearly 1,600 of them are association footballers. Sure, part of that is down to the nationalities of notable association footballers compared to baseball or American football players, but a lot of it is down to the fact that a lot of them really are not that notable.

I don't deny that NSPORTS was a step forward for some sports. But as far as association football is concerned, it has made things worse. At least with ATHLETE it could be treated as a generality, as a presumption, as a slightly flawed compliment to the GNG. But now that other sports have precise criteria which on the whole are very good, one appearance is very much treated as the rule. It may be that the wider community looks at the situation with association football and decides that it's fine (which would be a shocking but plausible outcome). But it sorely needs looking at. --WFC-- 22:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

South Shields FC The Football League Years by George Thompson page 58. "Some sort of prize ought to go to Chape -his only appearance was at Bradford City in midweek- no North Eastern newspaper printed the line-ups and when reference was made to the Bradford Telegraph and Argus it was found that his name had been obliterated by a blemish in the print" Do professional Footballers really automatically meet GNG? Has anybody here ever read a 50-100 year old sportspaper? Cattivi (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No one automatically meets notability. This is just a guideline of when its likely to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure the current guidelines work well for American sports. But I'm not so sure for other countries. In England and the Netherlands it was not unusual for 2nd or 3rd team players to play a few first team matches, sometimes they just got lucky, being at the right place at the right time. (many English clubs did have a third team ) Their names appear in the books, but you will find virtually nothing about them, even in local newspapers. In the Netherlands you can become a member of a club when you are six years old and continue to play for them until you're old and grey. (well it used to be like this, in the last 30 years most professional clubs were seperated from their amateur section) Remember there is no such thing like drafts in most countries. players join clubs before they have achieved anything. American journalists were also much more focused on the statistical side of sports than journalists in other countries. Holland is actually one of the most difficult countries in Europe when you want to research appearence records of footballplayers. The available records of the Eredivisie are partly based on some educated guesses. (The Dutch FA threw away all their old records) Cattivi (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, subguidelines of notability reflect when it's likely that a given subject will meet notability. However, if a good search for sources is found, and only very thin if any sourcing turns out to be available, it does not allow for notability in the event that the subject actually does not pass the GNG. Nothing is notable "because it's a" (though there are common misconceptions in some areas). Notability is verifiable—we check if reliable sources have, in an in-depth manner, noted the subject.

That being said, subguidelines can be more strict than the GNG, just never less. Passing the GNG is a requirement for a standalone article to exist, but there are other requirements as well. Passing GNG is necessary but not sufficient. It should be clarified here that nothing here loosens the GNG requirements or allows for any article where it is demonstrably failed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When playing 1 match in professional football is only the first step in establishing if a footballer is notable then we agree Cattivi (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My recent experiences at AfDs suggest that if a sports figure has enough reliable press to pass GNG, it does not matter if he/she passes the sports guidelines. Thus, any common US high school quarterback, basketball center, home run hitting hero or hockey sticking defenseman can get a stand alone article. Please see Anthony Davis (basketball) if you have any questions. ----moreno oso (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My recent experience at AfDs suggest that if a sports figure meets the criteria set out here, the GNG is actively ignored, even when multiple editors explain at length why this is the case without being refuted. The only exceptions are when a nominator attempts to be actively deceptive by not informing the appropriate wikiproject. In these instances, the consensus among a broader group of contributors tends to be that not meeting the GNG equals not being notable. --WFC-- 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's a problem; notability is not just meeting a simple criteria about that topic; it is how well we can actually talk about that person beyond basic details (this for sports figures includes their play stats, etc.) NSPORTS' criteria cannot be taken mechanically , as Seraphimblade points out - if it can never be improved despite meeting a criteria, it is still not notable. Notability is always based on presumption of being notable, not the absolute quality of that. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. But to be picky and clear, NSPORTS' criteria can be and are taken mechanically. They shouldn't be, as doing so is not in line with the wider view on notablity. But they are. This behavior is rarely challenged (at least as far as association football is concerned) and it's even rarer that such a challenge actually results in the GNG being adhered to. --WFC-- 18:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So what I am seeing is a lack of a heading paragraph on "Professional sports persons" or possible within the "Notability guidelines on sportspersons" section to identify that these are not mechanical rules but instead rough metrics and that the GNG is still a target for these articles. That would then be the necessary to counter "But he played one game, therefore he must be notable!" claims you've shown are being made at AFD. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think so. I'm going to keep an eye on whilst trying not to edit this conversation for a few days (I'm gradually winding my editing down generally). But while I think a root and branch review of the association football section is needed, that might be the way forward in the shorter term. --WFC-- 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There already is such a paragraph and I quote. "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources." -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, up in the lead, but if people are trying to argue "keep" based on just meeting a mechanical requirement, the message of that statement is not being made apparent. I can't see how restarting that lower down - particularly right in the section where the criteria are listed, cannot hurt to remind editors that these are not simple pass-fail rules. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If this discussion dies through apathy (as previous ones have), I will be very tempted to bring the entire guideline back to WP:CENT, for discussion on whether it is helping or hindering, and on whether the notability criteria are consistent with other fields. My view is that promoting this was a backwards step even in relation to ATHLETE as far as association football is concerned. ATHLETE was widely accepted as a vague outline of when someone might be notable (albeit it was still taken pretty literally). For football this has solidified everything that was wrong with ATHLETE. It has enshrined into wiki-documentation when someone is notable. And don't tell me that guidelines are guidelines; the way AfD works they are as near-as-makes-no-difference hard-and-fast rules.

I'm utterly convinced that if brought before a truly representative cross-section of the wider community, they will reach similar conclusions. I don't think anyone can argue that someone who has made one or two Football League Two appearances spectacularly fails passes the Pokémon test. How much further that rationale extends is obviously subjective, but as Masem says, these criteria should set the theshold above which someone can be presumed notable, not the threshold below which they can be presumed non-notable.

I think it would be constructive for the NSPORTS community to look at the association football criteria, and decide whether they are in line with other athletes. If so... well... presumably everything's hunky-dory. If not, figure out how we get there, and when WP:FOOTY inevitably tells us to (I can't possibly type this), consider whether or not to put the matter to central discussion. But I've tried enough times to initiate the process, strongly believe that a large majority of non-sports editors and even a significant proportion of sports editors think that the bar is too low for association football, yet nothing has happened. --WFC-- 22:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you. But generally lack of anything happening is often a very huge sign the community is ok with the situation. As for athlete vs nsports for soccer players. Athlete used to let in even more soccer players that it does now, athlete was a guideline just like nsports is, nothing has changed in that respect. Nothing got worse with this change, if anything it got better. Do some of the guidelines need to be tweaked, yeah probably. But that is another matter than reversing all the work that has been done by numerous people and took about 5 years to be implemented. -DJSasso (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, nothing was done about the BLP situation for about 5 years. It took another 3-4 years for us to finally devise a reasonable system, and we are still dealing with the backlog to this day.

This guideline should only contain specific guides for sports where we are satisfied that they are a true reflection of community consensus, and that it is substantially different from what ATHLETE previously gave us. The logical compromise is to identify which sports were improved by this guideline, and which are wholly or partly rehashed versions of what we had before. ATHLETE should then be restored in WP:BIO, with a note that it is superceeded by any sports listed here. That would strengthen the better parts of this (hockey, baseball etc) and at the same time provide acknowledgement and awareness of the fact that other sports remain problematic and remain largely influenced by the widely discredited ATHLETE. --WFC-- 01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this really only numero deux? I would have thought a much higher number! Seriously, though, I've been watching this talk thread even though I haven't said anything until now. WFC, obviously you don't need my permission to do anything, obviously, but my unsolicited advice would be not to make the proposal you just described. It would be a lot more efficient, and a lot less likely to be met with howls of opposition, to work on improving what we have here. For whatever that's worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The most efficient way to improve something on wikipedia is to ask nicely, and if nothing happens, seriously threaten the existence of something that a group of editors have a vested interest to protect. Prove that editors here are capable of improving the poorly developed parts of this so that the page as a whole is deserving of being a wikipedia guideline. Otherwise I will do exactly as I threaten. I'm in no doubt that something will happen, as it is beyond question that the wider wikipedia community will not settle for nothing being done in an area which has such a huge impact on the quality of our BLPs as a whole. As an aside, check out my recent contributions to see the quality of articles that doing (a-word-that-I'm-better-off-not-using) all to improve the guideline will leave us with. Articles that I haven't prodded are articles that pass this guideline, and will fail at AfD because WikiProject Football treat this as canon law, as you well know.

I'll bow out of this conversation until the end of the month. I have absolutely no faith at all in the ability of editors here, or at WP:FOOTY, to do anything at all, but look forward to being proven wrong. Given that the initial decision to promote was narrow, controversial, and subject to continuous improvement taking place, any threat to part or all of this guideline's status will have a very real chance of succeeding. It's up to you lot to decide whether that remains a hypothetical statement. --WFC-- 23:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You keep assuming bad faith of editors here. I would suggest you stop doing that. We have no vested interest other than that of any other editor on the wiki. If you want to improve something then suggest a fix. All you have done so far is say this is bad and make threats. That is not how things work on the wiki. In fact the more people make threats on the wiki the less things actually happen. Thats why it took this guideline about 5 years to get promoted. This wasn't some spur of the moment change. Things generally work better if you attempt to work on improving it instead of making threats and assuming bad faith of everything. The community as a whole did settle for nothing being done for many years, to get this far was a great accomplishment. Frankly to go back to what we had before would likely be met with more opposition than you think, people opposed because they wanted it stricter not lest strict which is what you are basically suggesting. So thinking that the wider community will agree with you to revert to WP:ATHLETE is remarkably short sighted and somewhat laughable. Essentially right now you are making a WP:POINT argument. -DJSasso (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also a suggestion might be to you know ask the footy project to see if they can't come up with more specific guidelines. I notice you hadn't put a notice on their talk page at all, and without the help of the "experts" its pretty hard to expect the wider community who don't know about soccer to come up with them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that I have done so on multiple occasions. Each time the discussion fizzled out after a certain period of time.

Is it point-y to suggest that the sun does not shine out of this guideline's arse for every sport? Is it point-y to suggest that the decision to promote was hasty? Even if I (uneasily) accept that it was appropriate to promote at that time, is it point-y to remind editors here that the recommendations set by the admin at the time of promotion have not been met, or that the inertia on this talk page reduces the possibility of them ever being met? This guideline got through because editors of the sports for which it works very well argued, in sufficient numbers, that the guideline in its entirety should be promoted, despite the fact that large parts of it simply strengthened the old WP:ATHLETE. If you want to accuse me of lacking good faith, then feel free. You have tenure, so you'll probably get away with it. But to accept that the old WP:ATHLETE was wildly inappropriate, and then go on to copy it word-for-word for the most covered sport on Wikipedia, and strengthen it by including it in this guideline, was at best a naive oversight, and at worst utterly stupid. Good or bad faith doesn't come into it.

In the interests of letting qualitative discussion come first, I'll hold off on a central RfC until the discussions that I am aware of on the GNG and footballers have run their course. —WFC— 14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean this to sound flippant if it sounds that way, but where have you invited them to come to a central discussion here or at the football project to discuss changing the football aspects of this guideline? Complaining about it in AFDs isn't the same thing. I don't see any discussion at the football project about it nor do I see a section here specifically on the football aspect of things, so I can't see anywhere that this has been brought up amongst the people who would know best. What I suggest you do is create a new section below (ie don't continue this one) and make a recomendation for what you think the guideline should be. And then link from the footy project that the soccer notability guidelines are being rediscussed . Anything less than that isn't truely trying to discuss the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Soccer competitions

I'd like to recommend a slight tweak of the wording for notability for soccer players; currently, the guideline reads "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable." I'd like to add "or domestic cup competition" after "fully-professional league". It has long been accepted that players who play in games between fully professional teams in, for example, the FA Cup or the Football League Cup in England, or the DFB-Pokal in Germany, or the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup in the United States, would meet the notability requirements. Adding these couple of words would eliminate any ambiguity that may arise. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A question, coming from a position of complete ignorance on my part: are there any domestic cups in nations that have a much smaller involvement in soccer, such that it would make sense to somehow narrow the definition of the term, to apply only to important domestic cups? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, most countries in the world have one (occasionally two) domestic cup competition(s) that run concurrently with its regular league season, but not all leagues are fully professional (as per the list linked in the soccer paragraph). I would say that, for any country where the league is fully professional, that country's main domestic cup competition would be fully professional too, and therefore cup games between clubs from the pro league would meet the notability guidelines. For countries where the league is not fully professional, it would be impossible for the cup competition to contain games between fully professional clubs, and they would fail the guideline. Does that make sense? It's a little convoluted, I know... --JonBroxton (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that adding that language would be helpful. When the guideline was first being developed I asked a similar question, but it never made it into the final version (probably due to lack of discussion). Jogurney (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Understood, thanks. How about making it "fully-professional league or fully-professional domestic cup competition"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be absolutely fine with that. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say go for it! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great as long as it makes explicit the fact that, for example, a Conference team playing a league team in an FA Cup match does not give any of the players involved notability.--EchetusXe 20:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although I'd be worried about making the rule too complicated. Saying something like "players who play in games in fully professional cup competitions are notable, except when one of the two teams is an amateur team, in which case any players who play in that game could not use the game to assert their notability" might be overkill. I don't foresee *that* many instances of this eventuality happening, and we can just address them on a case-by-case basis if they do. In England, for example, no amateur teams can qualify for the League Cup, and only 32 amateur teams qualify for the First Round Proper of the FA Cup; taking into account the fact that non-league teams sometimes get drawn against each other, and only a handful of non-league teams make it through to the second round, you're looking at maybe 25 out of a possible 214 FA and League Cup games where you have a pro team playing a competitive match against an amateur team in any given season. --JonBroxton (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following wording: "Players who have appeared in a national competition fixture between two fully pro teams will generally be regarded as notable." It allows for pro fixtures in cup competitions to be included without getting bogged down in excluding amateur teams. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that "fully-professional" means that both teams need to be professional. Am I wrong about that? I suppose we could add "(both teams)" after "fully-professional". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, Tryptofish. I'd be happy with that clarification. So long as the clarification doesn't make the caveat any more complicated than it needs to be, go for it. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Under this wording if the person plays in a cup competition for a fully-pro side against an amatuer or semi-pro side they would not be notable. Surely they would be just as notable as someone playing for fully pro against fully pro. It would be the players from the non fully-pro which would not be notable. Wouldn't it?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But it is not a fully pro fixture if only one team is fully pro. However, anomolies remain: this would give notability to members of two fully pro Conference sides if they are drawn together in the FA Cup, but not if the two teams play each other the preceding week in the league, and yet the league is a higher priority for such sides. Kevin McE (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In the discussion here I suggested "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league or in a national level domestic cup competition (where both teams are from a fully-professional league - as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable."--EchetusXe 16:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this inclusion. Until it is actually shown with some evidence that people who only play a single game are generally notable (i.e. meet the GNG) we should not be extending this woeful and often misapplied guideline. Quantpole (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC) And can I add that you should wait more than an hour or two to enable other people to contribute to a discussion before making changes to the guideline. Quantpole (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this wasn't a new addition, this was simply a clarification to ensure that the guideline reflected what the members of WP:FOOTY actually enforce already. For example, under the wording of the guideline before I changed it, if a player made his professional debut in, say, the FA Cup final or the UEFA Champions League final (unlikely, I know, but not impossible), that player would not be considered notable, which is clearly ridiculous. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Below, you have stated that 95% of players that pass ATHLETE also pass the GNG. I don't necessarily agree with that statistic. But regardless, 100% of players in that position would pass the GNG, which would make this page kinda moot. —WFC— 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but my intention was simply to clarify the position and make sure all the bases were covered so that there was no confusion or ambiguity. Having the information in two places to make sure nothing slips through the cracks is hardly overkill. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I might otherwise have disagreed but said fair enough. But you are simultaneously arguing that it is wrong that we remind football editors that articles should be able to show that they meet the GNG. —WFC— 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I think that football articles *do* need to pass both ATH and/or GNG. What I disagree with is your assertation that football editors are wilfully ignoring GNG and creating articles willy-nilly on players who don't deserve them, because in my experience the WP:FOOTY project has been very diligent in enforcing article standards. I also have a problem with the generally aggressive and argumentative (and occasionally offensive) tone you have taken to push your argument over the last couple of days, but that's another matter entirely. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I take your last sentence on board, I personally believe that using a few expletives to draw attention to a point is far less offensive than aiming an insult at a named individual. I'm not the one that has done the latter, although admittedly I've come closer to it than I should have. Each to their own on what is and isn't acceptible IMO. Back to the main point though, I disagree that WP:FOOTY is particularly good at maintaining standards in articles. There are individual editors that are fantastic at it, indeed certain groups of editors keep certain categories of articles maintained to a high standard. But on a project wide basis? I'd say that at best we struggle. Certain editors are creating articles with little regard to the GNG, and certain others are explicitly stating that footballers don't need to pass the GNG, including people with the ability to keep/delete articles, and including yourself. [1] [2] And it invariably takes someone who either dares to step out of line at WP:FOOTY, or someone who has nothing to do with football, to actually remind football editors that they are expected to adhere to the GNG. [3] —WFC— 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your linking to my comment on the Adam Thompson AfD just highlights what I said before: that (IMHO) 95% of the players who pass ATH also pass GNG, and when they don't pass ATH, you can use GNG to "save" them if necessary. I personally think that Adam Thompson passes ATH and that the GNG on that article is sufficient, and that was the point that I was making on that discussion (I might not have worded it correctly, but I wasn't trying to imply that you can simply ignore GNG if ATH is met, because I have never thought that) - but that's beside the point to this discussion. All I was trying to do was simply add a caveat to the guideline to ensure that players who play in cup games between fully professional teams are considered equally alongside those who play in league games between fully professional teams, so that - in conjunction with the GNG standards - the guideline can be used to help inform editors as to whether an article should be created. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Cup competitions are often used to field weaker sides, and so if a player only plays in a cup competition it is likely that they are less notable than if they had played in the league. The current guidelines are already lax enough and this extends it further. If they are notable then they would surely play in the league anyway, so all you'd have to do is wait for that to happen. Alternatively, a well sourced article could be written to show that they meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me make a suggestion—with the understanding that I am completely unencumbered by any comprehension of the subject matter! How about allowing cup players only when they are members of a professional team that won the final, championship match of the cup? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think most clubs take the last few rounds of a national cup competition seriously (there are obviously exceptions), so if we were to set a threshold, I would suggest setting it at the quarter-finals, rather than only the cup winning side. Jogurney (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to ask: why bother? If someone only plays a cup game and then never again, the chances are that they aren't notable. If they go on to play league games then they are covered by the guideline. The only thing this means is that people don't start an article on someone if they make their debut in a cup competition. Of course, if there is sufficient coverage to show they meet the GNG it doesn't matter either way. Quantpole (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

So now we are the judge or just how serious each club is taking the cup competitions? Additionally can anyone explain why playing 30 seconds in a League game for, for example Barnet, would make someone that much more notable than someone who plays a whole game for Chelsea because it was assumed that they were not taking the cup seriously!!?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost sorry I brought this whole thing up now. I just thought it would be a simple, non-controversial clarification to ensure the guideline said what we all already knew. If I'd have known it was going to turn into the World Pedantry Championship I would have kept my mouth shut. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a minefield and a source of much heated debate, swearing and pointy comments and has been chewing on for as long as I have been on Wiki. Hopefully it might get resolved with some clear AND unambiguous guidelines but I won't be holding my breath!--Egghead06 (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

JonB, you have my sympathy! At this point, taking into account the controversies about cup playing, I think the correct thing for NSPORT to do is to leave mention of cups out. That puts it back to GNG, where it should be, instead of opening up what appears to be a dubious shortcut here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It would also leave many dozens of articles standed as they have been created for footballers who have played only one cup game. Limited coverage, youth/reserve team players, would fail GNG. As examples I would point out:- Chris Lewington, Thomas Ince and, of course Adam Thompson. I am aware of the danger of comparisons but there any many other articles that are remarkably similar.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely why this shouldn't be included as there is no evidence that those players meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

little leaguers

We seem to have come across a loop-hole here in that the amateur section doesn't take into account pre-high school athletes. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Durley. Spanneraol (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! You are absolutely correct, in my opinion. Who would have thought: seems like Wikilawering to say that high school is one thing, but pre-high school is somehow something higher. I'm going to boldly change it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Football recommendation

I'd like to request that the edit I have made to NFOOTBALL stick- i.e. that footballers be required to make some sort of claim to notability. This page's owners both seem determined to explicitly refuse that any article be subject to this hideous requirement. —WFC— 08:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't passing the standards set out for professional footballers set out in the guideline imply notability? Why over-egg the pudding? --JonBroxton (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No not always, as the lead to the page says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline" it is quite possible, for example, for a player to play for Manchester United and not meet the WP:GNG, if for example they play only one match as a sub and never play again, it is by no means curtain that they would meet WP:GNG so the addition that WFCforLife added is a good reminder as a large number of visitors to the page may come in directly at the WP:NFOOTBALL short cut. Codf1977 (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have no opinion about the page content deleted in [4], other than that it was discussed in talk and seemed to have consensus. And I'm not particularly bothered about the redundancy of [5], if it helps avoid misunderstandings. But the tone of both these edit summaries seems to me to reflect a WP:BATTLEFIELD mindset that is extremely unhelpful here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't need to adopt that sort of approach, if posters here recognised that a limited group of editors cannot decide that the GNG means fuck all. Which is indisputedly happening with regards to association football. —WFC— 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing you might need to realize, is that if no one else outside that group chooses to comment, it often means no one outside that group either a> cares or b> thinks there needs to be a change. Of course not seeing the discussion might be an issue, but being that the discussion is on the nsports page itself and not on the football project page, that really isn't a problem because people concerned with such things tend to watch the policy/guideline pages. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WFC, I really think you're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. 95% of players who pass whatever WP:ATH is now called also pass WP:GNG, as it's highly unlikely that a player would become a fully-professional athlete without attracting non-trivial mainstream coverage. Those who don't pass WP:ATH (usually for not being a full professional) can sometimes also pass WP:GNG for other reasons which are determined on a case-by-case basis. Those who don't pass WP:ATH or WP:GNG go to AfD - for example, the one I did recently on Estevao Franco. For those few players who pass WP:ATH but for whom the WP:GNG sources are sketchy, then we also discuss those on a case-by-case basis and come to a consensus as to whether or not to keep the article. And that's it. Why are you making it so difficult? --JonBroxton (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, I'm trying to ensure that what you have just said actually happens. As can be seen from recent AfDs that I have participated in, in the "5%" (not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing) where people pass ATHLETE and appear to fail the GNG, football editors use ATHLETE as an excuse for ignoring the GNG. When specifically questioned on this, they specifically state that the GNG does not apply to footballers, provided that they pass ATHLETE. —WFC— 16:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your view, but I think many AfD comments skip over the GNG because it can be challenging to know whether the coverage included in the article is trivial/routine (and even more whether the coverage available but not cited in the article is trivial/routine) rather than because they believe the GNG to be inapplicable. A bright-line test like NSPORTS simply saves time and effort. My concern is that the bright-line is probably too low (but no one will ever agree to a bright-line that is higher that 1 moment of fully-pro competition). Jogurney (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Skipping over the GNG where no-one has commented (and it can therefore be assumed that either no-one cares or no-one saw fit to mention it) is one thing. Actively saying "well he passes ATHLETE so he doesn't need to meet the GNG, he's notable" is quite another. As you say, the bright-line level is too low, but that's a relatively trivial issue compared to the fact that it is treated as a hard-and-fast rule, rather than the indicator that it's supposed to be. —WFC— 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)4

• Could set the bar higher, say:

Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in the top division of a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable.

Any player below that would have to satisfy GNG. Jon

Or leave the bar pretty much where it is but say, 'played for a fully-pro team in a fully-pro competition=notability'. No grey areas, no conjecture, no battlefield.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not likely to happen, the whole point of NSPORTS was to move away from people thinking that anything fully pro was notable. Not sure why football didn't change its requirements when all the other sports did. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Cricket

It's hard to parse the "cricket" rules about first-class cricket and so on. Does William Battcock meet NSPORTS? J. James (1814 cricketer)? Benjamin Dark? Viger (Surrey cricketer)? And assuming they meet NSPORTS, do they also meet the GNG? Finally, if yes to the first and no the second question, doesn't the cricket section needs some clarification and more strict rules? Fram (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Youth Olympic Games

I'll be short: Please discuss... See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 10 kilometre walk for links to a massive amount of redlinks, this event didn't even reach the news where I lived, how notable can this event really be? Greswik (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't make your local newspaper? Tough luck. But it made the BBC, NYT[6], AP, and plenty of other tertiary RS, not to mention newspapers in many countries which had athletes take part and do well. Just because you didn't know about it doesn't mean it's not notable - your argument isn't based in your claim. StrPby (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Youth Olympic Games probably made these sources, but did the NYT etc. really give info about the Boys' 10 kilometre walk? I seriously doubt it. Having said that, please see WP:CANVASS. Making opiniated posts about active AfD's is strongly discouraged. Posting "An AfD which is relevant for this guideline can be found at X" is the better way of doing this. Fram (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming CANVASS wasn't just directed at me. StrPby (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, my apologies, I was replying to you in the first part of my post, and to Greswik in the second part. You weren't canvassing, Greswik was close to it. Fram (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem with "canvassing" is if you go to people you expect will support you, in a case you have some kind of personal interest. If you notice my attitude towards the youth olympics you may see I fear it is junk, but I am willing to be proven wrong. I don't have any personal interest- I just feel we end up with a lot of articles about NN-kids sourced in insignificant news-reports. But if any people will save it, they will be found here. Just notice how the first person replying here is the person who has made a lot of this articles (even if this not was very clear from the answer.). Canvassing? Why do you bother to imply such a thing? I am honestly looking for a place to get some discussion about it, someone wants to nominate a massive amounts of articles for deletion, there are far to few !votes at the AfD, and this thing is not easy.Greswik (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)