Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion focused on two main issues: (1) whether to revoke the guideline status of NSPORTS and (2) proposals to improve perceived flaws in NSPORTS. There is a general consensus that the NSPORTS guideline still has broad community support, and whatever problems may exist, the community does not see them as justifying the deprecation of the guideline.

In light of this, the community considered 13 proposals for fixing perceived flaws in NSPORTS. A fundamental problem was that, by the time these proposals were made, most editors had lost interest. For example, the main proposal had over 100 editors weigh-in, but of the 13 other proposals, only two got over 65 participants, and most struggled to get even half the participation of the main proposal. While proposals with 50 participants could achieve consensus, editors tended to be evenly split on most questions.

That said, I saw consensus on two proposals. While numerically close, the weight of arguments shows a rough consensus for proposal 3 which removes participation-based criteria from NSPORTS. Proposal 5 had a substantial amount of support and participation, and there is a consensus to add an inclusion criterion for sports biographies requiring that they have at least one reference to a source which has significant coverage of the subject (which is slightly different from the original proposal 5).

Hopefully these changes improve the perceived problems of NSPORTS, and further improvements may be made by editing the policy page, holding discussions on its talk page, or starting follow-up RfCs. Extended rationales for each proposal are below. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1 - no consensus

This was the second-most participated-in proposal with over 70 participants. Editors debated whether NSPORTS should state that sports biographies "must" satisfy the GNG if challenged at AFD. While there is a slight majority for the proposal, discussions are not a vote, and we need to consider the arguments made and whether a sufficient level of agreement was reached. Supporters advanced two main lines of argument: (1) NSPORTS already requires that sports biographies meet the GNG and so the proposed change only documents existing practice, and (2) the guideline is not always interpreted as requiring that sports biographies meet the GNG and so the proposed change would bring existing practice in line with the overall intent. Editors in opposition countered with two main points: (3) the notability guideline (the section WP:SNG in particular) states that meeting an SNG alone may be sufficient to establish notability without the GNG, and (4) requiring sports biographies meet the GNG in addition to NSPORTS functionally eliminates NSPORTS as a guideline by undermining WP:SNG and WP:NEXIST. There is no consensus on how to resolve these policy conflicts and no consensus to implement the proposal. While the opposition is in the numerical minority, the main argument is consistent with the wider guideline at WP:N. Supporters have a slight majority, but arguments about current practice are not consistent and undermine the argument that this is a minor change reflecting an existing consensus. Given the strength of the wording proposed (i.e., "must"), a similarly strong consensus would be needed to support the change, but no such consensus emerged.

There is the additional question of what to do given the lack of consensus. At a basic level, the current wording is retained, but the meaning of those words remains unresolved. After the initial close, editors argued that a 2017 RfC should be considered the status-quo interpretation, but this has practical problems. For example, that RfC occured before the WP:SNG section existed, and that current section of the notability policy contradicts the 2017 close. A more technical issue is that the proposal claimed to be implementing the status quo, and the discussion cast doubt on whether such an interpretation is in fact the status quo; "defaulting" to that interpretation would be implementing the proposal through a technicality. For now, the path forward is to leave the wording as-is and have editors and closers consider the proper interpretation on a case-by-case basis. Ideally, a new RfC or other widely-advertised discussion will clarify the relationship between guidelines in the near future. — Wug·a·po·des​ (revised 01:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC))

Proposals 3 (consensus) and 4 (no consensus)

These proposals considered NSPORTS criteria which suggest an athlete is notable if they have participated in (only) one professional event. For example, a hockey player who only played one professional game. Proposal 3 would eliminate these criteria, and proposal 4 would increase the threshold. These proposals saw reasonable participation, with about half the number of editors as the main proposal.

There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria (except those based on olympic or similar participation). Participants refered to this is one of the main issues of the guideline, and this was also a point repeated in the main discussion. The argument is that a single professional match does not seem to guarantee that sufficient sources will exist to write a well-sourced article. By removing them, editors will need to demonstrate that other SNG criteria or the GNG are met.

Opposition to the elimination of these participation-criteria fall into two camps: no replacement and not strong enough. I gave little weight to the "no replacement"-type arguments as they miss the point of the proposal and are procedural rather than substantive concerns. To be clear on how they miss the point: the replacement is the GNG which applies to all articles; the proposal was to eliminate certain special criteria, so of course no alternative criteria were specified.

Arguments relating to increasing the threshold were covered in proposal 4 which failed to achieve consensus. The argument against this view was that any higher threshold would be arbitrary and not generalizable. There is a meaningful difference between playing 0 professional games and playing 1 professional game in all sports, but other units depend on the sport. For example, 100 games is a career in American football, but less than a season in Major League Baseball. Given the result of 4, arguments that the threshold should be increased rather than eliminated were also given less weight.

Taken together, there is a rough consensus that participation-based criteria are a problem and that the best way forward is to remove them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 5 - consensus

This was the best-attended proposal and had the most agreement. There is a rough consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. This is meaningfully different from the proposal; the original proposal required that the source be present from inception, but editors in opposition pointed out the problems with this. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG. Supporters point out that it has the added benefit of reducing the number of one-sentence biographies based on database entries. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 6 - consensus against

Editors are generally against adding a new layer of bureacracy to enforce proposal 5. A regular PROD or AFD is sufficient. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 8 - partial consensus

This proposal was, in reality, two proposals. The first part was substantially similar to proposal 1. The second part was to replace "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist". To the extent that the first part of this proposal would create a requirement that a sports biography meet the GNG (i.e., must), there is no consensus. Proposal 1 was better attended and did not find consensus, so proposal 8 is not sufficient to overturn that. With that said, editors are generally in favor of rewriting to make the lead clearer. The second part of the proposal complements that and has a clearer consensus. The purpose of a SNG is to give editors guidance on when significant coverage is likely to exist, and clarifying that requirement in the prose will help avoid misuse at AFD (a major concern brought up in the main discussion). — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposals 9 and 11 - no consensus

These proposals put forth specific rewrites of the lead. A lack of sufficient participation makes a consensus hard to justify. In both cases the opposition had a slight numerical edge, but editors were largely split without a consensus. The phrasing of the lead is something that can be worked out through normal policy editing and talk page discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 10 - no consensus

This proposal would require editors to do research and provide summary statistics based on a random sample of articles within 30 days in order to justify particular sections of the guideline or else those section will be removed. This proposal had far less participation than the main proposal, and had serious practical and policy-based issues. While there were a substantial number of editors in support, the opposition was significantly stronger in terms of policy (see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY) and practical arguments. Editors had issues with using an ultimatum to write policy, and suggested that the proposed work be done in prepartion for an RfC rather than removed arbitrarily. There were also practical practical issues such as the timeframe, methodologies, and thresholds that undermine a consensus path forward. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposals 2, 7, 12, and 13

These proposals were not closed by me. 2 and 7 were closed as unsuccessful during the RfC. 12 was moved to a different page. 13 was a proposal to stop having more proposals. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Abolish the current version of NSPORTS

Abolish the current version of NSPORTS. This page, far from being rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article, does not help the decision process, but actively hampers it. Examples are countless of one group of editors (whether it be football, olympics, or plenty of others) arguing that an article should be kept because (correctly or not) its subject "passes N[some random sport]" or that "sportsperson from long time ago, there WP:MUSTBESOURCES"; and others correctly arguing that the existing coverage is not sufficient to write an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a database entry). This leads to needless conflict, pointless AfDs and DRVs, and above all bureaucratic waste of time. Abolishing this guideline and falling back directly to GNG would also help in reducing issues of WP:BIAS and the disproportionate amount of (usually white, male, European) sports figures that are included, as well as make policy more understandable to newer and more experienced editors alike by avoiding issues of WP:CREEP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (NSPORTS)

FYI (massive hidden pinging all participants here, I hope this is okay!), ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ there is an extremely helpful tool where you can "subscribe" to a thread and receive a bundled notification for each new comment. If you click on the bundled link (modulo this bug, which should be resolved today), it will highlight all new comments in blue and take you to the one closest to the top of the page, and then you just have to scroll through to see the other highlighted comments. You can also expand the bundle to see a preview of each individual comment, which you can click on and it'll take you right there. This allows you to link to specific comments. Another thing it does is give you a "reply" option for each comment, so you don't have to click edit at the top of a section if you just want to leave a second-level comment. This has been a godsend to me for navigating this thread. You can enable it by going to your preferences > Beta features > Discussion tools and checking the box. JoelleJay (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) EDIT: moved this comment outside of RfC lead. Re-sign to fix hidden pings. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Second hidden ping set. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC) EDIT: moved this comment outside of RfC lead. Re-sign to fix hidden pings. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Third hidden ping set. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC) EDIT: moved this comment outside of RfC lead. Re-signed to fix hidden pings. JoelleJay (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This entire discussion has gotten too convoluted with overlapping proposals that it is impossible to follow at this point and There is no way anyone could get any sort of consensus out of this mess.. Time to end this discussion as no consensus and move on already. Spanneraol (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

We need a word for the moment in an RFC when someone voting with the minority claims the discussion is such a mess that we should declare no consensus and move on. Levivich 15:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can determine who is in the minority as there seems to be about even support on both sides from what I can tell... Spanneraol (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I can tell who is in the minority by looking at who wants to end this discussion as no consensus and move on. Levivich 16:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed this. Cbl62's SIGCOV proposal is going to pass at least, and the overall sentiment is certainly that NSPORT is problematic. JoelleJay (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "move on". What needs to happen now is that one of these is selected (I would suggest no. 3) and brought back somewhere in a specific form. That my idea of "moving on". Nigej (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on the main proposal

• Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  N.B. This is without prejudice to rewriting it from scratch RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Update. I agree that the current text is very woolly, but it is better to stipulate for sports, very much like academics is tough and specific. Sports need a proper and rigorous guideline.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Davidstewartharvey: The problem is that even updating the guidelines takes unreasonable effort and time (see, for example, this massive RfC which dealt just with Olympics). While more rigourous guidelines might be desirable and even necessary (although, in the end, GNG is a reasonable fall back), I think NSPORTS is currently so disappointing that it might be better to kick the whole rotten structure down and start with a blank slate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The time saved is, by definition, on-wiki activity that is absent: it guides many quiet article creators in not creating articles for the large numbers of sports people who are less likely to meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. When a subject-specific criterion is written with a high level of accuracy regarding the ability for the subject to meet Wikipedia's standards, it also helps filter deletion discussions to those that are closest to the border line. For this to work in practice, though, the criteria must be refined as needed, and the underlying consensus that supported the establishsment of the criteria must be taken into account during deletion discussions, rather than each one trying to establish that consensus again from scratch. In particular, each deletion discussion shouldn't have to re-establish the consensus view that the entire set of subject-specific criteria has support, including any deference to the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Conversely, the time "not saved" is also that of seemingly experienced editors ([well known editor with over 90k created articles] as the prime example, but surely not the only one) creating hundreds and even thousands of articles on people who meet subject-specific criteria which are actually too generous (which often happen to be the ones from the most popular sports...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Consider what would happen if there were no additional guidance: articles on sports figures playing/coaching in local leagues with local game coverage would get created on top of the ones that are being created now, exacerbating the issue of screening all of them. isaacl (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Local coverage (which frequently is not truly independent either) is already not usually considered enough for most topics (Wikipedia:LOCALCOVERAGE redirects to NCORP, but in practice local newspapers are usually not enough, whether it be for corporations or sports figures). If absolutely needed, it would in any case be far easier to start anew and simply have a sentence like Routine coverage of local league games in local newspapers is not a reliable indicator of notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, as you know, I've discussed many times how local promotional coverage is not suitable for determining if a subject should have an article. But regarding your point about time spent discussing whether or not an article would be deleted, even more time would get spent if the sports-specific notability criteria for certain popular sports were eliminated. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree with the premise that local coverage "frequently is not truly independent" -- such a statement is broad, unsupported, and potentially biased.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  It does not make sense to say that deletion would loosen the criteria. WP:Notability says that if it meets GNG, it does not need to meet the SNG. So the SNG is only capable of bypassing GNG, not toughening it. North8000 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I didn't say that the criteria would become loosened. The point is that more articles that are candidates for deletion would get created, thus more time would need to be spent on them. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Update I agree with Davidstewartharvey's point above. I see deleting the guideline wholesale will do much more short-term harm than good, so I'd rather even a short 3-4 paragraph replacement be added and then the community can build on that. A good, well-written list of concerns with the current version that can gain consensus and then be added to that talk page could help prevent it becoming the mess it is now, as well. Additionally, I know most of these sports have WikiProjects, so I wonder if some of the information on the page is better suited to be placed within the WikiProjects.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  If an updated version is to be rewritten and deletion opposed, where should this happen? Would a subpage of the talk page of NSPORTS be the proper location to draft the new guideline in? I'd be interested in helping improve the guideline once I'm more free in February. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I definitely think we have a problem with our coverage of sports and especially individual athletes. The SNGs, though, aren't really rules so much as peace treaties that exist between the forces that want certain content deleted and the same content kept and the attempt to simply abolish SNGs is (i) likely not to work, (ii) if successful increases IAR voting at AfD, creative interpretation of guidelines, and general resistance to follow policy, and (iii) lowering of trust between the sides. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, but significantly rewrite - There remains a need for a guideline… but the current version isn’t it. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose All notability criteria work both ways, as isaacl explains above. Articles that fail the criteria are quickly deleted, yet the deletionists ignore these in their efforts to get rid of the SNGs they don't like because they like the current result for those articles. The reason there are a ton of sports articles on Wikipedia is because sports are one of the most popular things on the planet, and sports generates a ton of coverage (primarily at the top tier of sports). Also, the point about bias is just plain wrong, having objective criteria reduces bias. If GNG was the only thing we looked at, the only articles that would get written are those covered in English language sources, which would disproportionally be about primarily white, male, European/North American, modern and wealthy sports. Iffy★Chat -- 17:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Plain wrong. The number of white, male, European sportspersons which are included because of overly loose SNGs is far larger than the amount of non-white non-male sportspersons which are also included because of it. And the fact is, there are far more non-GNG meeting examples of the former (the countless early 20th-century footballers) than of the latter (not that both kinds shouldn't be deleted, since this is an encyclopedia and not a database], and as it stands the former are far less likely to actually be deleted because, guess what, they "meet N[SPORT] and there are likely offline sources". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think you're underestimating how much football and cricket is played in non-European countries when considering how many athletes are filtered out by rules of thumb. isaacl (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The "needless conflict" is often WP:WIKILAWYERING around Wikipedia:Notability clearly stating (emphasis added): A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right... Fear not, NSPORTS allows that meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. It's up to !voters to decide what is appropriate for a given case and for closers to respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants (WP:DGFA)—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's an (interestingly partial) schema for the "meets NSPORT, doesn't need to meet GNG, keep" line of argument. Another (some would say more natural, given an express proviso of NSPORT I imagine you're familiar with) reading is "doesn't meet GNG, delete". If you want less wikilawyering, have clearer rules. As it stands, we might as well remove the guideline, and just have "IAR, keep", "IAR, delete", and "I counted the !votes, and we decided to delete/keep accordingly". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    If you want less wikilawyering, have clearer rules. It goes without saying.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

    This is a serious misconception. Attempting to make rules more specific will (without exception) lead to more arguments. Theknightwho (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

    As it stands, we might as well remove the guideline, and just have "IAR, keep", "IAR, delete" Without getting into WP:BEANS, I'd wait to see if a new pattern forms. As currently written, the top of WP:N and WP:SNG clearly allow citing SNGs to establish notability.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Of course NSPORTS also says In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. and A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject., so we wouldn't be here if editors actually respected that part and ensured that articles they wrote or voted on actually had substantive coverage. Reywas92^Talk 05:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    It reads (emphasis added) ...articles should should meet the General Notability Guideline. Those that want it tightened should get consensus to change to "shouldmust meet the General Notability Guideline." As an aside, I generally cite ~3 sources of significant coverage when creating bios.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support NSPORTS has been used as an excuse to create vast number of articles for non-notable sports people. The excuse given is that the person "passes" NSPORTS, even though the article created does not show notability. OK, the article can go to AfD but the effort required to delete an article is vastly more than that needed to create it. In the time taken to delete one article though AfD, Countless 100s of new non-notable articles have been created. If the article does go to AfD there's often "votes" along the lines of "KEEP Passes NSPORTS" (substitute the sport of your choice here), as if satisfying NSPORTS was relevant at this stage, when the purpose of the AfD is to determine whether it passes WP:N. Many attempts have been made to tighten specific NSPORTS. Nearly all have failed (although WP:NOLY is the one notable exception), with members of the relevant WikiProject almost always opposing along the lines of "we're happy as it is, leave it alone." Many here will say that it just need a bit of fine tuning. I'm afraid that's a million miles from the truth. The only sensible way forward is to delete NSPORTS completely. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I suspect the community's frustration is with a few specific sports, who blindly assume that because sport X gets sufficient coverage in one English-speaking country, it must get the same amount of coverage for any countries' top league. Because there's Google hits (from a site most here aren't fluent in and wouldn't know if it's reliable either) Many other sport criteria are more restrictive and true to the 95-99% "truly notable" rate that SNGs should strive for.—Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I suspect a lot of the problem is that everyone suspects the problem is some other sport than their own area of editing! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support deletion (but allow more thoughtful re-creation from scratch.) This SNG has become the bane of the entire wp:notability universe. An example of a serious problem is the "did it for a living for one day" criteria; meeting that criteria allows an article to bypass all notability sourcing criteria. Since that criteria applied elsewhere would mean billions of Wikipedia articles bypassing wp:GNG, it makes a laughingstock of the more credible wp:notability requirements. And, per a study I did, these have numerically flooded Wikipedia even to the point of significantly affecting the low percentage of articles on females vs. males. And then the individual items given notability (only) by the SNG ripples through into endless articles that are compendiums of them, ones like "players who scored more than 20 points in the 2013 season playoffs" The "did it for a living for one day" criteria alone is embedded in many many places in the SNG, and add in the other significant problems embedded in may places that it would take at least dozens of changes in the SNG to fix it, which is never going to happen, and doubly so by the sports fans who run the sports SNG. So the only way to fix it is delete it, but allow it to more thoughtfully start over. Each addition should meet the "is it good to bypass WP:GNG and sourcing requirements with this?" test. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I did my own study about a year ago: User:Nigej/sandbox. I compared the number of articles were have for different sports with this list: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5, which has no status but is a carefully thought out list of 50,000 vital articles. In that "50,000" list there are 1,200 sports people out of 15,000 people (8%, although it was only 7% when I produced these numbers). In contrast over 30% of all biographical articles are sports people and its not far off 50% for living people. Some sports are even more stark than this. There are 110 Association football players in the "50,000" list, 0.7% of the 15,000 biographies in that list. However they make up nearly 10% of all Wikipedia biographies and 15% of those for living people. 0.7% or 15%, quite a difference. Nigej (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  My study was on 1,000 random articles. 31% of all biographies in the entire Wikipedia were sports people, and 86% of all sports bios were on males. North8000 (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Remarkably my numbers 580000/1870000 work out at 31.01% Nigej (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is a meaningless comparison, as the number of biographies from Level 1 to Level 5 increases from 0% to 30% (and sport-specific from 0% to 8%), and we should also expect the reasonable percentage of sport-specific biographies to differ from Level 5 to Wikipedia's entire scope. This is because some fields will be more suited than others to large numbers of bios on the lower end of notability (while still comfortably over the line). — Bilorv (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose but only because ... this should be "Delete all SNGs". You can't deprecate one and not others, especially as there are far worse ones than NSPORTS. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Nearly all other SNGs have criteria based on merit or recognition by the topic, whuch are things that one can presume discussion about that merit or recognition (eg secondary sourcing). Most of NSPORTs criteria are less about merit and more simply defining by stats, which do not necessarily show evidence of possible secondary sources. That leaves us which articles that are simple career profiles but do not explain why the athlete is notable. --Masem (t) 18:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • "Merit" is not how I would describe SNGs/GNG/notability. It's not about success, but coverage of any form. For instance, in WP:NFO#1, we see that two major reviews is a good standard for a widely released film being notable—whether those are raves or tear the film to shreds. (See Notability is not a meritocracy.) In contrast, I would say that NSPORTS is almost uniquely about merit, as it requires successful performance at lower leagues to be recruited to a team where one game played will grant you a pass on an NSPORTS criterion. — Bilorv (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could view doing it to the most problematic SNG as a step towards that. For the others the issue is less serious and would require a bigger fix. Which would be to evolve wp:notability the to point where SNG's are no longer needed. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see the evidence for such a nuclear option, so would appreciate more clarification on why SNGs are inherently problematic. Hope this doesn't sound passive-aggressive A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @A. C. Santacruz: I wouldn't use as strong of a word as "problematic" for the others. More like "it would solve and tidy up a lot of smaller issues". Happy to expound but that is a huge topic not directly relevant here.North8000 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  North8000 I'd love to hear you out at my talk page at some point :). Always good to learn more about the effects/issues of PAGs.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, take WP:NWEB. "High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can also be notable". Well, thanks for that ... and don't get me started on WP:BAND. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The fact that nearly 50% of all biographies of living people are sports competitors convinces me that the problem is with NSPORTS and not with the other SNGs. Nigej (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't particularly like NSPORTS, especially the guidelines where a single game in a certain league is viewed as evidence of notability, while a whole career in another league is dismissed. It fails both when used to include people and to exclude people. Generally, I'd like us to develop better ways of merging / listifying the information we have about athletes: we could still keep most of the information, but only write individual articles when there is something to write about. Just dropping NSPORTS now would probably result in a bit of chaos. —Kusma (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Supporting per some people below and experience with deprecating other SNGs, but I still suggest to attempt some mergist way forward to combine database-sourced entries in a useful way. —Kusma (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I don't believe that the SNGs quietly guide article creators to help them make articles about notable subjects and avoid making topics about non-notable subjects. If that were true, we wouldn't have so many non-notable articles. In fact, I think it does the opposite: it gives license to mass-article-creators to create thousands of articles about non-notable subjects simply because those subjects meet an SNG.
  I also really disagree with BK's stance above, that we should not delete NSPORTS unless we also delete all the other SNGs. People said we can't delete wp:PORNBIO unless we delete other SNGs, too, but it just wasn't true. Deleting PORNBIO was a good idea in retrospect; none of the negative outcomes that some predicted have come to pass. We have problems with lots of SNGs, and we should tackle these SNGs one by one; NSPORTS is a pretty good place to start (actually, PORNBIO was the place the start, and NSPORTS is a good follow-up).
  Articles about sports (especially athlete bios) should be governed by WP:GNG. Some make the argument that SNGs restrict article creation because more athletes would be notable under GNG than under NSPORTS, due to the ubiquity of media coverage of modern athletes. I don't believe this is true, based on my deep dive into footballer BLPs in 2019. As long as the GNG requirements of independence, secondary, and in-depth, are properly followed, there are far more footballers that meet NSPORTS than GNG.
  Overall, I think removing the NSPORTS SNG will require all sports topics to meet GNG, and that will lead to more notable articles and fewer non-notable articles, which is a good thing. I don't think it'll cause too much chaos, I think it'll be much like what happened with porn bios after the deprecation of PORNBIO, which is that a lot of them were deleted, and that's a good thing.
  As a compromise measure, I would also support taking the lesser step of deleting the "Professional sports people" and "Amateur sports persons" sections of NSPORTS, as I think biographies are the biggest problem of NSPORTS. Levivich 19:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (EC). Rather than abolish it wholesale, I think it would be easier to formally redefine it as 1) a collection of rules-of-thumb to guide which subjects might be worthwhile for an article creator to look into creating and which ones are probably not worth their time; 2) a reference for the kind of sourcing considered "routine" and "not-SIGCOV" in sports; and 3) an easy shortcut for editors to find sports projects. This would involve very clearly mandating GNG coverage from the start for all new articles, and eliminating all instances of "presumed notable" etc. from the guideline text. It would probably also require an explicit note in WP:N clarifying its status (while still keeping a link to it). We would also want to discourage immediately nominating lots of previously-created non-borderline cases from historical periods or non-English locations and instead encourage individual sports wikiprojects to adopt the most vulnerable subjects and find refs on them. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As astutely, if perversely, argued by one editor (while ironically scolding unspecified others for bureaucratic wikilawyering!), at present by a strict reading of policy, one is entitled to say "Keep/delete per WP:GUIDELINEILIKE, ignore WP:GUIDELINEIDISLIKE, it's only a guideline", expect the closing admin to count your '!'vote, cut up rough at DRV if it isn't, and so on. Even without the need for recourse to IAR as such. Even deleting the 'rogue' (or commonly misapplied or cherrypicked) guideline doesn't formally fix that. What would do was to elevate WP:N, or some core part of it, to policy status. However, keeping WP:N as a guideline, and making NSPORT an essay or more clearly subsidiary guideline would likely have a broadly similar effect, such wrangling aside. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bagumba but not per Black Kite. The criteria, as others have pointed out, is poorly worded. WP:NAFOOT, for example, presumes that a subject is notable so long as they've participated in at least one game during the regular season or post-season. That said, the current wording also attempts to articulate that these guidelines are to exist on top of WP:GNG, not as an alternative to WP:GNG. Or at least, that's what the first sentences of its "Applicable policies and guidelines" would lead one to believe. The following sentence "subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline" could give readers the false impression that it's possible to have a sports-related article without passing GNG. It needs a lot of work, it may even need to be blown up and recreated from scratch, but I'm not entirely convinced that there's no utility in having a sports-specific criteria. I guess I wouldn't mind too much if it was deleted without prejudice under the assumption that a better criteria will be developed, but I'm opposed to deleting with prejudice or opening the door to abolishing SNGs.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn`t be opposed to starting over from scratch. However, in its current form, that`s about the best fate that could be envisaged for it. Abolishing the current version of NSPORTS would not prevent starting a new one in the future, but doing this one step at a time is more likely to achieve a clearer consensus and to allow more thorough discussion on each individual point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose outright removal. A lot of the OP's arguments are against subject-specific notability guidelines in general, rather than this particular one. The major problem with NSPORTS is that many of the criteria are extremely broad. Particular offenders are the sports where you just have to play for any length of time in any high-level match e.g. cricket or (association) football. This can be addressed by tightening the criteria to ensure that passing NSPORTS is more likely to correspond to a GNG pass. Hut 8.5 20:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Hut 8.5: It took a nearly two-month long RfC with hundreds of participants just to tighten one of them. It is not productive (due to the effort required) or desirable (due to the obvious potential such a process would have to generate animosity) to have to repeat that kind of exercise needlessly. It's well past time for the nuclear option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  My study (User:Nigej/sandbox see comments above) shows (to me, at least) that the worst "offenders" are (for the major sports) association football, American football and rugby football and (for minor sports) Australian rules football. Nigej (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose While usually I like dynamite, there are salvageable parts including Olympic. Fully support a radical rewrite of the "professional sports" section as the concept that sitting on the bench for one game makes someone notable is insane. We should be covering the best of the best and most athletes do not merit an article when compared against their peers. Compare to WP:NCORP where existence and routine coverage will get you nowhere.20:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  For better or worse, "best of the best" is not a standard used in any of the other fields covered in English Wikipedia. It's a perfectly fine goal, if the community agrees upon it, but I suspect it's not a standard that the community is willing to apply across the board. I do not believe it should be applied in just one topic area. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Except that the "best of the best" athletes are far more likely to be notable than, say, the "best of the best" potato farmers or bank tellers. That's why we don't have WP:NPOTATOFARMER or WP:BANKTELLER. Keep in mind virtually any athlete competing at the highest level is the "best of the best" just by virtue of getting there, and on the extremely rare occasion they're not, such as David Ayres, they would generally meet GNG from that oddity alone. Smartyllama (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  When most people hear "best of the best", they aren't thinking of every NHL hockey player, for example, but Wayne Gretzky. (This is alluded to in the original comment by saying that "most athletes do not merit an article when compared against their peers.") Every field has those who have been most influential on that field, or on society generally. isaacl (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm in a very similar position to JoelleJay. It needs radically overhauling; but it's useful as a collection of rules-of-thumb to guide which subjects might be worthwhile for an article creator to look into creating and which ones are probably not worth their time. There is clearly a need to mandate GNG coverage from the start for all new articles and to eliminate "presumed notable" - presumed is too easy to argue about its meaning. It always puzzles me that WP:N says meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline. I've never understood the rationale behind that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Re: “presumption of notability”… I have long thought that this phrasing should be changed to “a likelihood of notability”. The idea behind the “presumption” is that usually sources will exist to demonstrate notability… if you look hard enough. The problem is that it is not a guarantee. Sometimes, those sources don’t exist. “Likelihood” better takes the both “usually” and “but sometimes not” into account. Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, I think it would be better if, right from the start, all articles contained adequate sources to demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met. As far as I can tell, though, creating stub articles still has community support. (Some of that support is from editors trying to address systemic bias that has created shortages in Wikipedia coverage.) isaacl (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Jesus H. Christ, OP really has got a bee in their bonnet about this AfD decision not going their way haven't they?! A sport-by-sport re-write is sensible, with input from the relevant WikiProjects, of course. Complete removal of this SNG (and none of the others) is ridiculous. GiantSnowman 22:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and there will be far more 'pointless AFDs' and arguments if the SNG was scrapped, as people will continue to create articles on topics! GiantSnowman 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If other SNGs are also problematic, then what is ridiculous is using that as an excuse to keep the most problematic of all of them. Gotta start somewhere. Your other arguments have already been rebutted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are problematic, that's the point. Why are you focussing on NSPORTS? GiantSnowman 22:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

One more thing before I log off for the next 18+ hours - abolishing SNGs, in particular NSPORTS, will result in fewer articles about non-"white, male, European" people, not more. For example, under current NFOOTBALL guidelines I can create an article easily about international players from any country in Africa or Asia. With only GNG, due to language/sourcing issues, that would become so much more difficult. GiantSnowman 22:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

By creating tens or hundreds of thousands of effectively unsourced stubs, are we really addressing the issue of disparity in coverage, or are we just hiding the issue? BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As if a database-sourced microstub on an African woman football player that no one ever expands is anything more than an unintentional byproduct of personal mass-creation campaigns. Proudly gesturing at 45 seconds of work--that only happened because someone wanted to complete the rosters of all 2014 National League teams beginning with C, or whatever--as if it's some empowering gift to underserved minorities who would never receive Wikipedia's attention without the help of NSPORT is insulting and harmful. It is not a good thing for Wikipedia's coverage of Africa to be dominated by thoughtless permastubs of modern athletes, particularly when they're drowned out by all the modern white male athlete bios produced at the same time. Maybe eliminating the ability of stats-driven editors to autocreate dozens of entries per hour would encourage them to instead expand existing articles (yeah right), or maybe it would mean profiles of particular athletes would only be created by people who specifically wanted to make them and would put effort into the process. JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The point you've failed to address is how can it be that other SNGs are problematic too, when NSPORTS covers pretty much 50% of all biographies of living people. Clearly there can't be any other SNG with anything like 50%. Nigej (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 22:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Notifying all the various sport related projects doesn't seem like the best idea, for various reasons that I am sure will be discussed extensively if such notifications are issued. Best to list it at CENT and leave it at that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• It is standard for WP:FOOTBALL, we keep a list of all relevant discussions at WP:FOOTYDEL - and how many 'on the ground' editors actually read CENT? I certainly don't. The more people know about this RfC the better. GiantSnowman 22:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• The more the better, yes, but the trouble is that the "more" is not necessarily nonpartisan if we engage in these notifications. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Notified: centralized discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. NSPORTS is intended 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 in the process reduce the amount of time we spend determining whether these people or organizations are notable, but it does the opposite, through a bloated guideline that is not effective in determining whether someone or something is likely to meet GNG.

I will note that I agree that some sections are functional, but these are a minority, and the effort to reimplement them will be far less than the effort to remove or correct from the status quo the sections that are not, and so to avoid tens of thousands of editor hours being wasted WP:TNT needs to applied. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too radical. Erasing years of codified notability consensus in the blink of an eye doesn't seem appropriate. WP:TRAINWRECK normally applies to deletion discussions, but I think the spirit of it may also apply here: that issues with this particular SNG guideline should be addressed one issue at a time or one sport at a time rather than in a bundled nomination. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strategic support as a radical corrective to overly lenient sports notability guidelines. I might reevaluate my position if this seemed on track to pass with no available replacement and mass-deletions of probably-notable-but-unsourced biographies queued up ready to go. But we're not at that point, nor is it inevitable, so for now I'm happy to support this. I believe that the community should be applying pressure to tighten sports notability guidelines lest more radical action like this become necessary. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would note that if this passes I would support delaying its implementation to give time for a replacement to be developed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Are there too many biographies of non-notable sportspeople? Very probably. Is this a fault of the NSPORTS or is it a fault of GNG? That may be more of the issue. In the big US sports, or other major professional sports like (association) football or cricket, the amount of press coverage is so intense that you could probably find GNG-passing mainstream non-routine coverage of pretty much any player, even if they've only played a couple of games in the higher leagues. It's an inevitable function of how mainstream sports news works. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's a lot of one, and a bit of the other. NSPORT is largely to blame for permitting creation, and supporting retention, of any athlete bio as long as it has one source showing the subject meets a participation-based sport-specific guideline. The issue isn't so much the contemporary tippy-top pro leagues as it is the hundreds of lower-tier divisions with high turnover and low actual coverage whose players particular projects have decided meet their definition of SIGCOV. Now that more editors are mentioning the GNG>NSPORT relationship in AfDs and closers are openly giving less weight to "keep meets NFOOTY" !votes, some in the sports projects have pivoted to instead declaring almost anything published is "SIGCOV in secondary IRS" in order to keep their articles. If editors can't successfully challenge claims that 3-sentence refactored press releases contribute to GNG, then perhaps there is something that needs to be changed with that guideline as well. JoelleJay (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose it's a guideline to assist, not an absolute rule, and clearly states that people shoild pass GNG too. If you want to fix the problem, then deal with the places using it as an absolute rule, not by removing the generally decent guidance. For most of the sporrs, most of the people who attain that standard are notable, so having the guidance for this is useful. NSPORTS doesn't trump GNG, and so doesn't need to be exterminated to make people use GNG, because people should be using GNG anyway. Sledgehammer solution..... Joseph2302 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Would you agree that there is enough confusion from editors reading only the bolded second sentence of NSPORT that perhaps the guideline could be made much more explicit about its relationship with GNG? What if we changed it to require two pieces of SIGCOV in secondary IRS from the start like almost every other subject? JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose but make fundamental changes Basically in agreeance with what Bagumba and JoelleJay said above. As pointed above the three with fundamental issues are WP:NFOOTY, WP:GRIDIRON, and WP:RUGBY (occasionally WP:NBASEBALL causes issues as well). Instead of blowing up the entire system, it would be better to tighten these problem criteria as needed, as well as fix any issues with NSPORTS as a whole. The criteria is vague and this makes it very easy to litigate into eternity. This is quite reactionary to the deletion review, and while I agree that that DRV has become a shitshow, that doesn't mean we should shoot the hostage. Curbon7 (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • How is NGRIDIRON a "fundamental issue"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Having 2% of our biographies on people from a single sport that is played in just two countries suggests that there is a fundamental issue, though whether it is a WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS issue or a SNG issue could be debated - and I could see an argument that the issue is at the intersection of the two, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't find it an issue at all, considering that nearly every player passing it meets GNG; where it's played is irrelevant (and it's not just played in "two countries," as you say it is). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I've looked into several of the stubs, and I'm not sure that nearly every player does. BilledMammal (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
          • • Can you show me some of those non-notable NGRIDIRON-passing "stubs" you're talking about? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

              If you take a category such as Category:American football linebacker, pre-1930s birth stubs, which the exception of a few Pro-Bowlers, most just played a handful of games and got 0 non-routine coverage. --Ahecht (TALK
              PAGE) 17:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

          • The NGRIDIRON criterion only covers the leagues based in those two countries, and I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the vast majority of that 2% correspond to those (and one of them rather more than the other). It certainly strikes me as a little far-fetched to argue that the NSPORT problem lies with other, genuinely international sports (football, cricket). And that it's conversely completely fine to bootstrap some idea of the NFL's "inherent notability" on the basis of some highly limited participation, from some often sketchy sports-site coverage of them. "Played a few downs in one game of significance only in that it was actively in their team's interests to lose it, in a sport with unlimited substitution and the ability to field players employed on short-term contracts, verified by idle discussion of this fact in a couple of articles. Strong speedy keep." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment If kept (and I'm in two (or more) minds on that) I feel the idea of it being a "presumption" of notability badly needs to be fleshed out in a clearer and more procedural manner. Some editors clearly seem to feel that NSPORT and GNG should be "balanced" in such a way that the GNG can safely be ignored. (Notwithstanding that NSPORT explicitly invokes GNG in addition to the sport-participation part.) Or indeed that this a "notability floor", at least for their preferred sport, and that they should keep digging further below it. Conversely, some say: we presumed until we looked a little, now it has to meet GNG, simple as. So what is the intended relationship between the two? Presumption enough to keep it off speedy deletion? For some other time horizon? To shift what constitutes WP:SIGCOV to the benefit of such subjects? (We've a dozen trivial mentions and those flesh the article out to a couple of paragraphs, good enough.) Is the presumption open-ended: can't prove a negative (or are very unlikely to be able to), so the participation itself grants an indefinite stay. I don't have a strong view on which of these (or some other at least some slightly more explicit scheme) should prevail, but the clarity itself would be a boon. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Update conservatively Like other SNGs, it prevents countless AfDs on notable topics from deletionists caught up in WP:NOEFFORT and WP:RECENCY while making plenty of AfD discussions straightforward. Sure, those routinely involved in sports AfDs have a right to be frustrated, but AfDs often come about precisely because their subject's notability is debate-worthy. There are articles for plenty of non-notable sportspeople, and there are certainly improvements to be made to NSPORTS to decrease that number. But like many lesser-known GNG-passing topics, sports stubs often require a local fanatic willing to dig into archives in order to generate quality articles. The inherently hidden and non-collaborative (and generally short-term) nature of draft space make SNGs a necessary tool to incubate pages until those local fanatics (or particularly determined editors) come along. Star Garnet (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

But why should this exemption exist only for athletes? Why do sport stubs get to bypass draft/user/projectspace and wait for a local fanatic to come along in mainspace? JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's hardly unique to sports. Entertainers, academics, politicians, locations, and creative works (so, the vast majority of articles) do as well. Star Garnet (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are decidedly different sorts of guideline, however. To take the AVPROF one, on the one hand it's an alternative to GNG, rather than an "in addition" presumption, and on the other, it's a lot tighter. So we don't get into this sort of "passes one but doesn't pass the other, so !vote keep/delete according to personal preconception" situation. At least, not in quite the same way. If NSPORT (or any of its component parts) were to spell out "this modifies GNG, and here's how" I think -- OK, anxiously hope! -- we wouldn't see quite such sharply divergent takes on how to apply it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

While true to an extent, I was referring to their shared feature of setting base-level standards where GNG doesn't need to be demonstrated while the article is a stub. Sure, academics and locations have deeper non-GNG protections than the rest, but even AfDs there devolve quickly. "'Name on page for whom no biographical details are available' has been cited a few dozen times, so you can't prove they didn't have a significant impact." But I digress. Star Garnet (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some of the subparts need rewriting, but abolition is simply an invitation to chaos. Cbl62 (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • What degree of entropy would you say the status quo exhibits? "Passes NSPORT but not GNG, so delete." "Doesn't pass GNG, but does NSPORT, so keep." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    Sports-specific guidance should be calibrated to GNG, and if properly calibrated, that is the best solution IMO. But simply dumping the entirety of NSPORTS is the worst possible outcome. It strikes me more of a temper tantrum than a serious policy proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    • I intend to WP:AGF regarding the motivations of the proposal. And if you feel additional "proper calibration" is indicated -- and it seems you do, given you've argued for ignoring it in one area, in favour of more liberal inclusion, while implying it's too lax in others -- this seems like an excellent venue for airing such, as others have done, rather than just blanket opposition. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

      A blanket proposal to throw out the whole thing is not the right venue for fine-tuning. The right venue for such fine-tuning is Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). In that venue, I did recently propose eliminating Arena Football League from NGRIDIRON (accepted) and raising the bar on NGRIDIRON to a minimum of two games (not accepted). That's the proper way to address any kinks in the system. Cbl62 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would be ok with getting rid of all SSGs but if we are going to zero in on sports then just make serious changes to the problem areas instead of eliminating the whole group. Each sport has different criteria, some of which pass muster and others which don’t in my opinion. Also, if admins are accepting “passes SNG but not GNG” as reasoning to keep articles, they aren’t doing their jobs. Fair to ask them to tighten up their oversight on AfDs Rikster2 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – I am in favor of making improvements, and strongly opposed to throwing everything out. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose... Getting rid of the guidelines would create a free for all where thousands of minor league and semi-professional players see articles created and equally hundreds of thousands of professional players will be dumped into afd which will lead to all sorts of contentous debates with whatever people show up to those arguments. It is good to have straight forward guidelines so it can easily be pointed out if someone is notable or not. If you have specific arguments with certain of the guidelines then take it up there and debate it.. but this RFC is the wrong approach. Spanneraol (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I never imagined that I would come to the defense of sportball etc. today, but SNGs serve a legitimate purpose. No prejudice to updating and editing through consensus, but I am vehemently against the abolition of this guideline. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest possible terms. Misguided deletionism and the rationale of the trending of the articles is misinformed and also misguided. Removing this would only perpetuate the domination of athletes that are most frequently covered by wide sources. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 04:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support NSPORTS and its progeny are fundamentally broken. Their practical effect is to make notable subjects which otherwise would not be. We cover far more sportspersons than an encyclopedia should. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Says who? You not liking sports is your personal opinion. We cover "sportspersons" because sports are popular and have large fan bases looking for information on even the most obscure player. Spanneraol (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

We also have large fan bases for anime and Hindi soap operas who want detailed information on obscure characters etc. We have fandom wikis for those, and hundreds of statistical database sites for athletes that are helpfully linked to in lists of players/seasons/teams. There is no reason this material needs to appear as standalone pages in an encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can be interested in any arbitrary obscure topic, but that does not mean Wikipedia must have blanket inclusion for separate articles for all concepts or individuals in it. We have requirements for significant sources for a reason and sports should not be exempt from that. We are not a copy-paste of datebases like baseball-reference or whatnot, where such large fan bases are also welcome to find obscure statistics. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support The concept that sportspeople are automatically notable for playing a single game is such an astonishing mistake, and we need to be clearer that they need to meet the same standards as other people: with multiple significant sources. It is simply false that mere participation in a game or a few perhaps a hundred years ago or in some minor league results in notability or a presumption thereof. Of course the sports editors are already here to oppose this or to argue procedurally that we can't address the broad variety of sports at once, but when 40% of our biographies are footballers, there is something fundamentally broken. Reywas92^Talk 05:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In practice, it amounts to an assertion that they're automatically notable for playing a tiny part of a single game, in certain sports with unlimited substitution. And a near-automatic presumption that non-playing players working for the same organisation are too, because they get the same sort of low-grade coverage as the one-game, one-play players do. "Hingle McCringleberry hired to the Smallville Supers practice squad, having been released from his contract to not play for the Metropolis Mayors either." "GNG, keep!" 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and start from scratch. As others have said, there is great value in providing clear guidance to editors about what is likely to be notable. Clear lines are a useful starting place, and the expectation for each SNG is that there are reliable, independent, and significant sources about the subject. Looking at the current version of WP:NSPORT there are internal inconsistencies across sports and many assumptions that are made that there are reliable, independent, and significant sources for all categories presumed notable. --Enos733 (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. If people want NSPORTS (and this applies to most other SNGs), it should solely exist as a way of tightening GNG, not as some very dubious indicators of perhaps meeting GNG which allows the creation of thousands upon thousands of articles which then have to be individually challenged and will still be defended tooth-and-nail by some people who misuse the unclear language of NSPORTS and its relation to the GNG. The whataboutism and predictions of impending doom if NSPORTS is abolished or some of its worst excesses curtailed are tiring. A sports SNG which indicated that for sportspeople, you need more than databases, competition reports, and local coverage to even think about creating an article, could be useful. Fram (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  It currently states that routine game coverage and coverage in databases with wide-sweeping, generic standards of inclusion are insufficient, and emphasizes that local coverage must be independent. isaacl (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but these are both insufficient. Any database listing should be discounted (for notability discussions, not for referencing information), not just the "too broad" ones,as that only leads to more pointless discussions without providing actual indepth coverage. And all local coverage should be dismissed: your town newspaper writing about 14 year old John Smith winning the town 2km run for the second year in a row, with some background information about where he goes to school and that his father was a good local runner in his days - is no better than them writing about the local bakery which has reopened after renovation, and is now already twenty years old and the son starts working there as well. We shouldn't allow such sources for any topic (for notability). Fram (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I said elsewhere, I think articles should, from the start, include sources demonstrating that the general notability guideline has been met, so I don't have an issue with disregarding databases. For better or worse, though, it's not uncommon for editors to go through lists of people in a given field and create stubs for ones they feel meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. So I think this has to be addressed more broadly. Regarding local coverage, most coverage is local to somewhere. The key is to determine the promotional nature of the coverage (local papers, for example, cover things like local primary school kids and bakeries because that's what its audidence wants, not because of any long-term signficance). I've discussed this multiple times in the past so won't go into more details here. isaacl (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm neutral on the proposal, because while I agree with the nom that NSPORTS is too inclusive, the real nuclear option is to blow up EVERY notability guideline and rely solely on the GNG. (Yeah, PROF as well.)

  As far as "tightening" NSPORTS goes, while I agree there's a lot of that which could be done, you can't get around the bright-line rule that underpins just about all of the NSPORTS criteria: that participating in a single big league/top-flight match constitutes presumptive notability, period, full stop. That's an objective criterion, and ANYthing that replaces it will be entirely subjective. Three matches? Five matches? Subjective. Does league play count for more (or less) than international play? Subjective. Five matches, that's a large percentage of an American football season, but a tiny fraction of a baseball season: subjective. Top-flight soccer in England vs top-flight archery in Bhutan? (Never mind top-flight soccer in Malawi or Sri Lanka.) Subjective. Because the whole reason NATHLETE devolved into separate criteria for individual sports is that one-size-fits-all doesn't, actually, fit sports. Ravenswing 09:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I've a lot of sympathy for a lot of what you say here, but to inevitably quibble... Different numbers of matches aren't different in their (lack of) objectivity. Obviously there's a clarity about "some" versus "none". I agree that a number of games across the board would be very apples-and-oranges, but even as presently structured, while a whole lot of them use "one match", that's textually individual to each sport. So it'd be perfectly possible to say "3 gridiron games" but "7 English premiership" (which would even be vaguely proportionate, if we ignore the various still other differences). Incidentally three NFL games just happens to distinguish between people on an "active roster" contract and "flexed practice squad" ones, but that could change again at the drop of a hat, and is wildly overspecific here anyway. Obviously the fatal flaw in this is that each sport will inevitably want to bid "their" number down, and everyone else's up. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    In my experience there's plenty of association football players that play entire seasons but are only notable for having played the entire season (a statistic), so I'd imagine those are the kinds of stats-based articles that are created based on NSPORT more than GNG. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    But of course a change to 'default notability if they've played the equivalent of at least one season at x level, while playing less does not mean they can't meet GNG' would weed out the vast majority of iffy cases. That would necessarily require new, subjective standards for pitchers, goalies, etc., but I don't find that overly troublesome. I do like that that would avoid emphasizing recency too heavily. Rather than simply deleting the material for the less notable players, I'd suggest List of Watford F.C. players (1–49 appearances) etc. include sourced 3-5 sentence bios and minimalist team-specific statboxes for players that don't meet GNG or the redefined NSPORT. (But then for multi-team athletes, you'd need to forego standard redirects in favor of [List of team X players#Player|Player] and/or use a transclusion process.) Star Garnet (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree with IP user. I don't get the objective/subjective stuff. Surely NSPORTS got created because GNG is so terribly vague and a clearly defined set of rules was seen as a way of getting round that. Personally I think that NSPORTS could work for individual sports where coverage is generally related to success (ie winning something). The problem is with the team events where a player's notability is much less closely related to winning things. Hence, the notability for walking on the pitch sort of criteria. What I found interesting about the recent discussion about increasing this to walking on the pitch 3 times (Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC on WP:NFOOTY criteria being changed was that although the proposer started off with "Context: At many recent AfDs, there have been articles deleted despite meeting WP:NFOOTY by playing in one or two games." the discussion turned into the usual why 3? sort of argument. In the whole discussion there was no serious attempt to look at the actual issue at hand, are those who pass NFOOTY by playing one or two games actually notable or not. I'm afraid NSPORTS has turned into a sort of mad house and it needs to go. Nigej (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment'. GNG is not a ridiculously high bar so why do we need NSPORTS? It mainly results in the creation of massive amount of articles about non-notable athletes who have nothing to their name except some database listing. Alvaldi (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose abolition until and unless the nominator wishes to propose a replacement. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Because while its feasible a re-write could fix the current issues around SNGs, the reality is there is no way in hell each little walled garden of sports editors (or in fact, any other SNG group) is going to weaken their guidelines to the point where they would prohibit articles on people who once played a game and have no sources available on which to write more than a one-line stub. Which leaves us with three options, the status quo of endless SNG arguments at AFD (issue still unresolved), nuke the SNG's that are overly broad (resolves the issue), or alter AFD closure guidelines to explicitly state that regardless of SNG, if an article isnt brought up to the level where it satisfies GNG during a deletion discussion, it gets deleted (regardless of the closure of this discussion, that should be done anyway). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose OTT form, sympathise with concept, will propose alternate - So I was involved in the AfD that most recently bought this to the fore, and am in the DRV as well, albeit non-!voting. Currently NSPORTS is wildly over-generous for inclusion, and attempts to narrow it in the form of raising the presumptive standards have all failed. So I get where nom is coming from. That said, despite being on the anti-NSPORTS wing., I am an inclusionist and do think that SNGs (even those with neither de jure exceptions to GNG or de facto exceptions) have value. So. Until this DRV I had always felt that the timeline for challenged NSPORTS articles that met SNG to prove they met GNG also was an AfD-length. Since this is apparently not a shared position, we should write it in post-haste. And yes, of course I understand the issue that "well, if someone challenged every article, the SNG would have no effect" - I raised it in my RfA. But so what? That's not really a negative in actual practical terms. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd be pleasantly surprised if we can agree that timeline's anywhere south of a year, much less a week. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the OP's racist, sexist, effort to erase "(usually white, male, European) sports figures". If we suggested changing an SNG specifically to remove subjects of a particular race, sex, or national origin the OP would already be topic banned if not indeffed and the media would be publishing pieces on Wikipedia's targeting of specific groups. I am sorry the OP is motivated in this manner but we, as a community, cannot let this stand regardless of our feelings about the coverage of athletes (not to mention bulls and horses). full disclosure: I spent high school in marching band, not as an athlete. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not sure why this specific SNG is being targeted - it seems perfectly reasonable. If a criterion needs fixing, it can be revised. But short of abolishing all SNGs, I don't know why we need to get rid of this specific one. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Two particulars to this one. We have a lot of sportsbios. A ratio of those to others that seems decidedly unencyclopedic by any plausible precedent for what that might mean. And because it creates a "presumption" of notability, short of saying "yes, we definitely consider this person notable". We seem very conflicted about what should happen in that gap. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Is this a quota based on 'race', 'gender', etc for notability, that's being requested? GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: No, it's a request that people who write sports article kindly oblige with the GNG like everybody else, and that we don't have a "guideline" which is interpreted by way too many as having the force of law and which is so frequently misused that it fails to accomplish its purpose, which is to facilitate discussion, by actively accomplishing the opposite, actually hampering them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I feel like we do this quarterly. If individual sport SNGs need to be tightened then they can be tightened and if you think that those WikiProjects are not going to change their consensus then participate in those discussions. Plus, it's not uncommon for AfDs to delete athletes that fail GNG but pass an SNG (particularly WP:NFOOTY-which I do believe needs to be both tightened to specific leagues/tiers of professional ladders and also be adjusted to include more top-flight women's leagues). But unless you want to throw out all SNGs at once I don't think that this is a fair or reasonable proposal. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't comment on how common it is, but evidently some editors feel this very definitely should not happen, especially on a sport-by-sport basis, hence a lot of the annoyance if it does, or is even proposed. "What happened to our presumption??" I don't know if tightening the individual guidelines by amount or type of sport-participation would help this as a confusion of expectation, granting that it would presumably reduce the number of articles it happens with. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I could support an overhaul, but abolishing what we currently have is a step backwards. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Could you comment on what sort of overhaul you feel might be supportable, or indeed necessary? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support A bullet that unfortunately needs to be bitten. NSPORTS is far out of step with other notability policies, and the "presumption of notability" clause has sparked an unending battle at AfD. Editors have attempt to reform the guideline but the attempts always seem to become bogged down in minutae. We're better off getting rid of NSPORTS and starting again from first principles. --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it really that far out of step from other SNGs though? For instance, WP:NPOL presumes that members of US State Legislatures are notable despite some having the same lack of significant coverage/reliance on similar sources (government website election results, generic reports such as "x wins primary" with little in between in terms of SIGCOV, there being over 7,300 of them (there are 1,696 NFL roster spots by comparison), only having to have served in office regardless of time served, and less than 20% of Americans not being able to name their own representatives. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Since when is another criteria being also bad a reason to keep a worse one as is? At least NPOL has a plausible public interest reason behind it (hey, WP:BIAS aside, if 20% of americans can't name them, the more reason to educate the public) which could half justify it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If we go by topics that fewer than 20% of Americans know about as a metric for notability, then all footballers (as in soccer) and teams should be kept to 'educate the public'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much all SNGs have the same holes you can poke in them, whether you like it or not, and either they all have to go at once or they all have to stay and be worked out individually until new standards are reached via consensus. We're justifying notability standards, not what you consider is most beneficial to people, so unless you want to throw out WP:PROF, WP:NPOL, and all the rest then I don't see why this specific SNG should targeted. GPL93 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

NPROF and NPOL are absolutely essential for completion of the encyclopedia, so this is why even if a person does not necessarily meet GNG, they still get a notability pass. On the other hand, NSPORTS is very explicitly subservient to GNG.

I would disagree that both, as written, are essential to the encyclopedia. I would disagree that state level politicians or editors of academic journals are inherently notable, but I think this is where biases creep in. Rikster2 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Says who? What makes the "X endowed chair of Y university" more essential than someone under NSPORTS? Why should these SNGs not be subservient as well? I'll bet more people at the University of Texas came name the members of their starting defense than their endowed department chairs. Dak Prescott is viewed on average 3x more than Greg Abbott, reserve Dallas Cowboys linebacker Jabril Cox gets 4x more a day than Texas Senate president Donna Campbell. As many people come here to learn about NSPORTS passes as the people that pass the other guidelines. GPL93 (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

To quote Bearcat from this AfD, if he's served in the legislature at all, then he's notable, because state legislators are one of those fields where it's extremely important, verging on mission critical, for us to be a complete and comprehensive reference for all of them. Also dang I forgot to sign my reply above, that's embarrassing lol. Curbon7 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(Also relevant to @Star Garnet's comment) One of the biggest differences in my opinion is how much easier it is to create thousands of stubs on athletes than it is for any other topic. Power-users concerned with boosting personal creation counts will obviously flock to an SNG that has a) clear-cut inclusion criteria; b) abundant, reliable database/stats sites to template off for rapid creation; c) constant new subjects meeting a criterion; d) entire wikiprojects that will worship them for running through, e.g., all 2020 Olympic sport shooters. Even if 90% of sports editors are focused on creating particular biographies and rarely make stubs, it only takes a couple power-editors to completely skew topic coverage. This is much less of an issue in other SNGs where notability is less "presumed" (like in NMUSIC, where the language used is "may be notable") and where an accomplishment of a group does not confer notability to all members of the group individually (whereas playing a few minutes as part of a team that participates in a non-notable football match is enough to meet NFOOTY). Is it the "fault" of NSPORT that it has such easy methods for validating e.g. a pro appearance, or that all statistics that would appear on a subject's page can essentially be copied over directly from a database, or that each major sport has active wikiprojects participating in AfDs and locally shaping notability criteria? No. But these are substantial differences from other SNGs, and these differences allow much quicker methodical creation of ultimately non-notable stubs than in any other topic besides GEOLAND, as well as far more successful lobbying in deletion discussions and in RfCs on changing criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Then why not propose a ban on this type of editing behavior? Violators can be prohibited from creating articles in the main space and be forced to submit everything through AfC and its not like the pattern of rapid-fire, database regurgitating article creations isn't incredibly obvious. If they are using the crutch of NSPORTS to mass-create, what's to say that they won't move on to doing the same using college directories and and creating stubs on every department chair of every school? Then we'll be right back here arguing whether or not a school in a prominent enough university or that a certain department is not prestigious enough to meet the SNG requirement. GPL93 (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

NPROF and NSPORTS guidelines are both about 15 years old. One of them has been (mis)used to machine create articles en masse, to the point that footballers alone make up 40% of our biographies. The other has not. I'm not a huge fan of NPROF, but its issues are very different to those of NSPORTS. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

GPL93 - Well, the biggest creator of these sports sub-stubs got hit with a T-Ban at ANI, but it was major drama and only came after years of complaints. Frankly, I'd rather solve the problem before it begins rather than after 100,000 sports-stubs have been created with the attendant massive clean-up problem. FOARP (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, some subsections may need to be re-written, but getting rid of it entirely is just going to cause chaos, in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I said I would support deleting NSPORTS and I meant it. There is absolutely no reason for an SNG which does not serve as an alternative to GNG to exist, as there are no instances in which it actually serves a purpose; it is always subservient to another guideline. As it stands, NSPORTS’s primary role is to cause confusion. I’m an inclusionist, but I value sensible rules more than rules which favor inclusion. My first preference would be to make NSPORTS an alternative to GNG, but this is the next best option. Mlb96 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to point out that another option may be to demote NSPORTS from SNG status. If NSPORTS cannot establish notability, then we shouldn't call it an SNG. It should be downgraded to an essay, and a line should be included which unequivocally states that the page should never ever be used to establish notability, rather than the wishy-washy language included in the page currently. Something like, "This page is not a notability guideline. If an individual who does not have an article meets these criteria, it may be worthwhile to look for sources so that an article can be started. However, meeting these criteria does not conclusively establish notability, and athletes must meet the general notability guideline to qualify for an article. This page should never be cited in deletion discussions." This would solve every problem. Mlb96 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Essayfying (that looks even worse than I thought it might) was what I thought the OP entailed, as opposed to literally pressing the "delete page" button. In a way saying it's an essay might just give us a (hopefully better-tempered? -- one can dream) version of the status quo, as it's been argued that "just a guideline" implies "I can ignore this in whole or in part at AfD, even outside of IAR, and you're still obliged to count my !vote" -- at least unless the closer does employ IAR. I think another approach would be to say "here's what the presumption actually looks like". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as written, support in principle I'm not sure that deleting it and having nothing to replace it with is a good idea. I think it does need to be scrapped and replaced with a more coherent guidance for how and why to create good sports-related encyclopedia articles, but without something to replace it with, I don't like just trashing it. Too much of NSPORT guides editors to create articles which have no useful reference material to support the text in them. That's the key problem. I would be more in favor of replacing NSPORT with guidance that was more in-line with WP:GNG or WP:42 rather than deleting it with nothing else. What is there now is trash. Let's have something to replace it with before getting rid of it, however. --Jayron32 17:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support NSPORTS is abused so much it does more harm than good to the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Abolish and defenestrate altogether. This would not only rid us of AfD fodder but restore some balance within the encyclopaedia in how notability is treated across subjects and fields. It is a case where clearly a group of people interested in a specific project want to see in Wikipedia as many articles related to the project as possible. Clobber it up and start anew! I'm in favor of having for sports something beyond WP:GNG, as it happens, but the abuse has gone on long enough. -The Gnome (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I particularly disagree with the idea that to reduce WP:BIAS we must reduce the number of articles on white male Europeans. A better idea would be to create more articles on other people. I disagree with the OP in that abolishing NSPORTS would make it easier for articles to be nominated for deletion leading to increased numbers of AfDs and resulting conflict. NemesisAT (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'd much sooner have 1 well written page on any sportsperson (be they white, male and European, or anything else) than have 100 database-entry equivalents (even if 50 of those are about underrepresented groups: permastubs do not, in any way, help fix the BIAS issues). Simple statistics will show you that most sport biographies (which are already an out of proportion percentage of biographies overall) are about male (and, presumably, from the US or Europe) athletes. As for your disagreement about deletion, there are plenty of articles which fail GNG but meet NSPORTS which are routinely deleted. Removing NSPORTS wouldn't change this, and likely won't produce an immediate flood (the tightening of NOLY, something which opponents of course said that it would have such consequences, didn't, either). However, it would certainly discourage both the needless creation of statistical database entries, generate more thorough AfFDs discussions (by having people actually look for sources instead of using NSPORTS as an indefinite and increasingly frustrating delaying tactic), as well as prevent concerted efforts to disregard GNG by some sports editors cliques. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Cbl62. The practical reality of this proposal would be increased AfD activity and decreased article creation for people from the pre-internet era, and people from non-English speaking countries. Whether people like it or not, sportspeople from the modern era of leagues like the U.S. Big 4 or major European soccer are always going to meet WP:GNG. Individual guidelines that are problematic can (and should) be refined, if necessary, but to abolish the whole thing strikes me as throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Why is it better to have a microstub on a non-Anglophone athlete hang around for a couple years before being deleted due to not meeting GNG than to just not create it in the first place? JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  And the fact is, that for every such microstub on a non-Anglophone athlete, there are multiple microstubs on Anglophone athletes... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that some of the guidelines that make up NSPORTS need serious reform (particularly NFOOTY and its fully professional leagues), and I also agree that there's a problem with editors treating notability guidelines as a green light to create stubs on the least-notable subjects that technically meet those guidelines. However, scrapping every sports-related SNG as a result isn't the right fix. For a topic as broad-ranging, popular, and frequently contentious as sports can be, it's incredibly useful to have some guidance as to what's notable and what isn't. If you can just say that athletes who meet guideline X are usually notable and athletes who don't usually aren't based on past experience, you can skip over a lot of extremely similar arguments about the same sorts of athletes. (This of course becomes a problem if the guideline stops reflecting source coverage or community standards, but even then it makes more sense to have a debate about changing the guideline than a lot of smaller debates about individual topics - imagine if the recent tightening of WP:NOLYMPICS had to be rehashed over thousands of individual AfDs.) I also disagree with the notion that removing SNGs will counter systemic bias, because it's a lot more likely to just shift the systemic bias elsewhere. GNG leaves enough room for interpetation that it's easy to debate what counts as significant coverage or multiple sources at AfD, and editors can set those bars higher for subjects they're biased against, consciously or not. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose is it true that a number of increasingly vocal editors are dissatisfied with the prevalence of sports coverage on Wikipedia? Yes. Does that mean we should blow it all up and hope for the best? No. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are certainly problems with the present creation of sports articles, especially American college sports IMO, but to delete NSPORTS, with no replacement, will create more problems than it solves. Also, as per User:TheCatalyst31 and others, I simply don't believe that destroying it will do anything except make systemic bias worse, for the usual reason, i.e, the variable existence/accessibility of GNG-acceptable sources. Ingratis (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Ingratis: Do you sincerely believe that having thousands of database-entry microstubs reduces systematic bias issues, or that it really does justice to a subject from [insert minority group here] if the only thing that can be said about them is "Foo played X sport for Y team between 19AA and 19BB"? Again, for every example from a minority group, there are probably a few if not a dozen or more examples from non-minority groups... (as pure statistics will show you) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian, I think you're really overblowing the the systemic bias aspect here. It's true that since we're all in the Anglosphere, thus we're going to have a systemic bias towards primarily creating Anglosphere articles; however, I think focusing a critical aspect of depreciating an SNG on lowering this via nuking a bunch of articles is creeping into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory (I'm not disagreeing that those articles shouldn't be nuked as a lot should, just not for this particular reason). Curbon7 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian I don't think that your example "does justice" to the subject - no stub does - but it does a great deal more justice than nothing at all: even your example contains 4-5 pieces of information of use to an enquirer. How it is less patronising or denigrating to remove all coverage instead escapes me. Ingratis (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – If NSPORTS is being misused in AfD discussions, that's not a problem with NSPORTS, that's a problem that the people in the discussion and the admin closing the discussion need to pick up on. These are guidelines, not policies. If they are not being treated as such, then that's not an inherent problem with the guidelines but instead a problem with the way discussions are being conducted. Amongst motorsports editors, WP:NMOTORSPORT has been recently updated and it is used appropriately (in both directions) in deletion discussions (I follow or participate in virtually all AfDs sorted as motorsports-related, so I feel qualified to make this judgement). There is no inherent issue with SNGs. There may be an issue with their current iterations or use, but those are not inherent and this proposal is a massive overreaction. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't really see what we gain by removing the SNG. There are certainly ones that need fixing, but the arguments that it takes too long to fix them isn't a great one to delete the whole guideline. They are, remember, guidelines. There are certainly ones that do a good job of explaining what sorts of people should meet GNG, and that's what is important. Ones that are overly broad, such as WP:NFOOTY should be closed. The process of using SNGs at AfD to say "meets NWHATEVER so notable" needs to change to "meets NWHATEVER, so we should find suitable sourcing". If something doesn't meet an SNG, then the article itself needs to make a really good claim for notability or be quickly deleted in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Don't really see the point in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Something may well be wrong at AfD with sports-related articles, but that doesn't mean we scrap a well-written SNG. Maybe we need to make changes to WP:N, maybe we need to permit closers to have more discretion, or maybe we need to figure out how to make individual AfDs less suspectible to the extremes. Maybe we need to start enforcing WP:MEATBOT/WP:MASSCREATE or add explicit guidance into WP:N to that effect to handle database-like creation. Maybe some of the NSPORTS criteria needs to be tightened. But I don't think getting rid of SNGs is the solution. We have maybe 100 guidelines in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions for example -- the concept of SNGs or guidelines in general is not a problem, it's good and ensures consistency at a large scale. The problem is the wikilawyering at times used in their application. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: throwing out the baby with the bathwater will just leave a lot of confusion and time-wasting with no place to easily refer newcomers to and much more random fluctuation based on the opinions of the few people that will turn up at individual AFDs. I know people don't like admitting this, but GNG has almost no detail, and tells you very little by itself. Okay, so a book-length source entirely about a topic is "significant", and passing mention is not, but what about almost all sources, which lie imbetween? It is only community norms and SNG which let us apply a consistent interpretation of GNG.
  I gather that trying to tighten various NSPORTS criteria has failed—if this really is a bug and not a feature (it'd be a feature if the deletionists are out of step with community consensus), then how about more explicit guidance on when notable sportspeople should not have standalone articles? Recall, from WP:N, [GNG and being within scope] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Obviously deletion discussions are generally not just 'deletionists vs the community'. In fact, if you wanted to make a very crude first approximation, a better one might be 'subject-area editors vs random other people who just happen to turn up'. In this very discussion and others like it, you'll see strong hints that there's people who acknowledge there's too many sportscrufty bios... except in their preferred sport, which had the most wonderfully exacting standards. The more useful SNGs have exactly the point of firming up on the necessary vagueness of the GNG. Academic? Then this is what notability should look like in that capacity. And so on. But with the sportsbios we have to deal with the vagueness of the GNG and with the bizarre -- and frankly, bizarrely low -- participation thresholds. And with how those two things relate to each other, which could stand to be clearer, could usefully be more procedurally defined, and which some editors evidently reject, while wanting to cherrypick parts they like. 109.255.211.6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • To address the first part of your comment: the question was whether deletionists in this discussion are out of step with community consensus. Both inclusionists and deletionists are a minority of people, and I didn't claim anything about their patterns at AfD (where participants may indeed be better characterised by other attributes). — Bilorv (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been mulling this one over for several days. As a card-carrying sport agnostic, I find it sad that such a high proportion of bios are sportspeople. I've joked that put any common anglophone masculine name into Wikipedia and you'll come up with a disambiguation page of 10 footballers, 5 baseball players, 4 US politicians & one other; I don't think this is healthy. However, I don't think abolishing the sports notability guidelines will result in an orderly consolidation of sportspeople's bios into lists, where appropriate. There will instead be a chaotic period where those who are interested in sports create articles on people previously deemed to fall below the threshold, and deletion-minded editors put up thousands of bios lacking multiple strong sources for AfD, or even just prod them if the creator has retired. It would be preferable to tighten overly lax individual guidelines, and make more effort to find sources where notability is questioned. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - this seems to be (yet another) attempt to make a one-size-fits-all policy, that feels designed to make the lives of a particular sub-set of editors easier at the expense of the quality of the project. Whether or not NSPORTS requires improving does not justify getting rid of it entirely, simply on the basis that the proposer doesn't like that contributors to AfD might be able to point to specific policies that the proposer hadn't considered. It's nothing more than an argument that nuance is annoying. Theknightwho (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose While there may be issues with individual sports notabilty guidance, this should not equate to ditching the whole thing. If X sport's notability levels are causing concern, then they should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Yes, this can take a long time, but becomes more meaningful instead of ditching the lot. I believe WP:NFOOTY is the current guide under the spotlight, so maybe put together a case for tightening that, or whichever sport is the falvour of the month right now. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support putting NSPORTS to sleep. It is a ridiculous (and ridiculously unprofessional) state of affairs when we allow—even encourage—a crappy little guideline outweigh fundamental policies such as WP:BLP and WP:ANYBIO (yes, naturally SNGs applied to the living are of far more concern than to the dead, notwithstanding the hydra of 19th-century cricketing, etc, permastubs which someone was kind enough to saddle us with). An editor above even argued that we shouldn't deprecate this SNG because it would enforce stricter sourcing on these petty-bios. D'OH! But that's where our laxity in the post has brought us to today, people. SN54129 15:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. A ludicrous proposal. Better to get rid of the ill-thought out, arbitrary, and frequently used disruptively GNG instead. --Michig (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Complete removal of this SNGs is not solution if there are issues be addressed on a case-by-case basis.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd rather spend my time editing and improving articles rather than endlessly debating individual deletion discussions. The guidelines are helpful and reduce needless debate. They can be scrutinised and modified if need be, to remove them would instigate bureaucratic anarchy.--EchetusXe 19:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose NSPORT has been a bedrock of wikipedia for a long long time and it has helped with keeping edit wars to a minimum. There can always be tweeks in what is presumed notable, but to eliminate it or even eliminate it to start from scratch is hurtful to this encyclopedia building process. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Replace it with pure WP:GNG. NSPORT, like GEOLAND, has simply enabled the spamming of Wikipedia with hundreds of thousands of one-sentence database entries. This is not encyclopaedic content. This does not tell you who the sportsperson in question actually was. It is also not excused by the idea that someone, at some distant point in the future, might expand the article - for many of these that is very unlikely to happen, many of them are actually going to be delete eventually instead because actually they are about non-notable people. Even where they are eventually expanded, often this would have happened anyway and the original single-sentence stub did not actually help the expander. In contrast, a pure WP:GNG requirement, with at least two instances of WP:SIGCOV, would mean that an actual encyclopaedia article could be written.

As for whether all SNGs should deleted, I am very happy to delete them one-by-one, starting with this one. GNG is a very useful and basic standard and SNGs are only good to the extent that they conform to it. FOARP (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. SNGs, including this one, exist for a reason; there's any number of athletes who predate the internet, or from outside the anglosphere, who have more of a claim to notability than many athletes who meet WP:GNG. Yes, NSPORTS is often used to defend biographies of sportspeople who aren't very notable, but that doesn't invalidate the principle of the guideline. If there's specific pieces of NSPORTS that are proving problematic, we need to raise the bar for those pieces, or narrow the situations in which they apply. Also, I would strongly oppose the depracation of all SNGs. At least a few of them are essential to preserving some common sense with respect to notability (WP:PROF and WP:NPOL come to mind; and WP:GEOLAND too, though it's another that's frequently at the center of disputes. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Although I've disagreed with OP at AfDs on a few recent occasions I do completely agree NSPORTS and its subsidiaries are fundamentally broken and need to be built again from the ground up. Indeed, they are currently something of a "dumpster fire", as North Americans might say. Well-intentioned rule-of-thumb guidance has congealed into a dogma which has been abused, simultaneously flooding the encyclopaedia with non-notable dross and putting a chilling effect on the creation of other much more notable and worthy articles. Let's take WP:FPL, for example, as a sort of case study: a dark, grubby corner of Wikipedia – marred by long-term WP:OWN, WP:EDITWAR, WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS issues, among others. Somehow WP:BURDEN has been weirdly inverted there, by the page's guardians. So we have nonsense like execrable, 13-year-old tabloid "sources" [1] supposedly supporting a League's "fully professional" status when it actually says the complete opposite. Result? Wiki flooded with thousands of non-notable sub stubs for part-time soccer players. On the numerous occasions this false material has been removed it has been edit-warred back in, often alongside flagrant personal attacks. Certain favoured soccer leagues are granted a free pass to get on the notable list, even if it means looking the other way (or more edit warring), when overwhelming evidence shows beyond doubt they are simply not full-time professional. Meanwhile, the professional credentials of any leagues not favoured by the page's half a dozen owners are scrutinized with lazer-like intensity, often being excluded on the flimsiest pretexts. Believe me, I know that relaying this message is both boring and annoying to the general reader who is WP:HTBAE. But the delinquent editors (some admins) engaging in these disgusting abusive practices do so partly because they feel emboldened by NSPORT. Time for a fresh start. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - In my opinion, sports notability is not a problem at all, but is a good special notability guideline, and special notability guidelines should be independent of general notability. If we can define specific accomplishments to be notable, that is better than relying on churnalism to determine notability. Far from deprecating NSPORTS, it should be made independent of GNG. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, I see no problem with NSPORTS personally.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as it would result in more dubious BLPs being written that do not meet the SNG criteria. Tightening the SNGs is a more sensible approach even if it is protracted. A good marketing agency can manufacture GNG passing coverage but they cannot manufacture sporting achievements and records so a clear SNG for every sport is essential in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal is aiming to effectively remove the SNG, as it would serve no purpose if this was implemented. The SNGs should be strengtened, not scrapped. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, it serves as an excuse for thousands of non-notable articles that will never pass GNG. If this fails, which it looks likely to do, I also support a thorough rewrite. Cavalryman (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC).
• Support, kill it with fire. Obviously, we can't have poorly sourced biographies. Obviously, an article that has no reliable sources is poorly sourced. Obviously, an article that only has one reliable source is plagiarism. Two reliable sources must be the minimum, and each of those sources need to be independent, and each needs to contain a useful amount of information. Therefore this and any other SNG that undermine the GNG must be deprecated.—S Marshall T/C 10:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I haven't seen harm to our readers (remember them?) by the existance of these articles, so what's the problem?

The proposal seems to be catering to editors who want the Wikipedia to shrink rather than grow, to be smaller, lesser, to cast information back into the obscue chaos of the sucky internet. I don't see why we should cater to these editors. Naturally we're going to add material as the project moves foward in time, and you can't really stop that, and shouldn't try.

The first sentence of the First Pillar says "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias [emphasis added], and I mean sports encylopedias (they don't have to be named "encyclopedia") are certainly those. Why violate this founding core principle, and for what gain? The baseball encyclopedias, for instance, have entries for anyone who had an at bat in the major leagues in 1883 even if even his first name isn't known. If you want to make a change, instead make an RfC to amend the First Pillar with "...except for sports encyclopias". I mean we also have many thousands of articles on extinct fungi and places with population 11 and geographical features that haven't ever been visited and New Hampshire state legislators from 1927 and high schools in Burma and so forth. Seems like carving out an exception for athletes is just snobbery.

As to wasted time, if snobs would work on their own articles instead of constantly attacking these articles, time wouldn't be wasted. See the Wikipedian's Meditation. Editors like to make these articles and readers like to read them, so the river flows by itself. It doesn't need to be dammed. And it seems the onus is on the people starting a time-wasting kerfluffle by nominating the articles, with reference to THIS RULE or THAT RULE or THE OTHER RULE. The WP:GNG is a general guidline that is helpful for considering many article, but not athletes. The rules were made to serve the reader, not our people's personal pecadilos. So leave the articles alone and we're good. Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I am a little shocked but this proposal which has so much wrong with it I can't even begin to list them. Luckily most of the people above already have laid out many good reasons why this is bad. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Moral support, actual oppose, but make fundamental changes to NSPORTS. And these fundamental changes are not optional. There isn't a problem, in theory, with subject notability guidelines - WP:PROF is probably the classic example of a good one. But NSPORTS is wildly, wildly overinclusive as it stands, and AFDs are stuck in a chicken-or-the-egg problem of !voters citing bare compliance with some sports-specific guideline that says every player who played a single match in a second-division league in 1936 is worthy of inclusion. Basically, the individual sports guidelines should be modified so that they predict GNG compliance, at bare minimum, 50% of the time or better. Otherwise, the guideline is just letting in a bunch of database entries that probably don't pass GNG. The question might come up, "what's the big deal?" The big deal is factual accuracy - a sheaf of very thinly covered articles is asking for trouble and, yes, BLP violations. Or just plain erroneous information for dead subjects. The "value add" is very low on such thinly sourced articles (unlike, say, a professor who won an award, but is sourced mostly to their university's webpage and their introduction of books), and the risk is high. If nothing else, there's a maintenance burden. So take a giant pair of cutting shears to the existing guidelines, but having some sort of guidelines at the end is probably acceptable - I'm fine with saying that every NFL player player or the like is notable even if only for a single game, but secondary and regional leagues need major cleanup. SnowFire (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep but significantly rewrite, per everyone else suggesting this (they said what I would have, but more concisely than I would have). The problems pointed out by the nominator are real.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - procedurally the RFC statement is non-neutral and should be changed. On the merits - NSPORTS is certainly not perfect, but it is better than nothing and has been improved through the RFC process - recently WP:NOLY was changed to only give a presumption of notability to medal-winners. Separately, NSPORTS guidelines are used for two different purposes - they keep in some 19th and 20th century biographies sourced only to statistical databases (which should be changed, though not in the fashion of this proposal), and they keep out contemporary biographies of minors who are likely to meet the SNG in the future. Finally, there is sometimes value in completeness overriding the GNG - if every member of the 1985 Chicago Bears except one meets the GNG, the SNG exists to allow creation of the remaining article. A page that makes clear there are only statistical sources is better than the absence of a page (or a list article with only one entry). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It's easy to say now it can be rewritten from scratch, but that would take so much more effort than a reform. What in between that, would we have to discuss deletion of many articles? It seems like a waste of contributor time to blow this up if it isn't causing a lot of tangible harm. Why not just specify "an article needs more than a database source" in the guideline, since NOTDATABASE, anyway? Dege31 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - SIGCOV is the only way to determine whether or not an article meets GNG, and NSPORTS' attempt to predict it through other means has led to the creation of countless poorly-sourced articles of undetermined notability. Per JoelleJay, all instances of "presumed notable" should be replaced with "likely to have significant coverage" and the whole thing should be essayified. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons I laid out in previous NSPORTS related discussions, nothing in this discussion has changed since the last time this was brought up.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support if none of the sub-proposals are adopted. Something Must Be Done(TM). Ideally not this, but if nothing else can be agreed... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose one size does not fit all. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. --Donniediamond (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Some of these guidelines need revisiing, but that is a very poor reason to throw all of them out....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The guideline is (mis)used by many as an excuse for creating stub articles about people about whom little more is known than that they existed and played in some sports games at some time. Such "articles" are not biographies, but lines in a statistical table that would be better presented as such. Also, this is a much lower standard than what is used in any other field of biographies, and it encourages the growth of wide swathes of articles that cannot be effectively maintained to WP:BLP and WP:V standards because of the paucity of sources. Sandstein 22:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Having a SNG supplement to GNG may not a bad idea, but, if it's to serve only as SIGCOV-noncompliant spam in deletion discussions -- and, above all, if AfD regulars cannot be trusted to close such discussions based on that correct interpretation, as opposed to simple headcounts -- then deletion it is. Avilich (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I understand that this guideline has been misinterpreted by some users as alternative to the GNG, but I see no reason why we should delete just this one SNG while retaining the others. I would support tweaking the language in NSPORTS to further clarify that meeting its criteria alone is insufficient to establish notability under the GNG. Calidum 15:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Calidum: Not to nitpick, but is this actually an oppose? The "point" of the NSPORTS SNG, to my understanding, is that it describes circumstances where an article might not meet GNG but should be maintained nevertheless. If that was removed, that's essentially supporting the proposal, right? SnowFire (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Originally, I believe NSPORTS (like other SNGs) was intended as an alternative to the GNG but at some point in the last few years it was decided that meeting an SNG alone was not enough to establish notability. Now, NSPORTS and others set a presumption of notability. Why keep it? It still provides good guidance on what subjects will likely be notable enough for their own article. Calidum 06:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support There's no way a guy who played one game for the Washington Senators in 1894 would ever pass WP:GNG, and yet, there's Bill Wynne. Get rid of it and start over. Argles Barkley (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, NSPORTS is fine as is. I do not believe that articles created on sportspeople are the massive issue some have made them out to be. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support with the strong caveat they should be marked as historical. They are insightful as to who is more likely to be notable, but they should never be enough to make a catalog-like entry defy requirement for SIGCOV and like.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as backup option. It has proven excruciatingly difficult to get meaningful reform of NSPORT. Too many mistakenly see reform as an attempt to delete existing articles (which are ultimately subject to GNG anyway), while others want to keep what they view as a bypass to GNG (even through it isn't) for occasions when it's too hard or impossible to find sigcov for a subject they believe is notable. Therefore, if proposals 3 (as a bare minimum) and 5 do not pass, then it should be scrapped altogether and replaced along the lines of proposal 7. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal is nonsense. The way forward on notability is to scrap the deeply flawed GNG. Notability should be determined by compliance with 5P, provision of RS and meeting relevant SNG standard. If an issue arises with a single SNG component like NFOOTY, then fix it. GNG is a waste of space that causes no end of problems and arguments. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. NSPORTS is not a monolith, but rather a collection of 30-40 distinct guidelines. It seems the major dispute centres around a few controversial sections (NFOOTY, NCRICKET, NGRIDIRON, NOLY I think are the main ones) which may overestimate when a sportsperson is likely to meet GNG. These guidelines may well need to be amended or abolished, but surely any abolition does not need to include any sections well-calibrated to GNG? I mostly edit Australian rules football articles, which are governed by WP:NAFL. When players meet NAFL, I am almost always able to find enough sources to meet or exceed the GNG. Why should this section be abolished? – Teratix ₵ 02:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support We should at least get rid of the current sports guidelines. They are a mess and too easily a cover for articles lacking good sourcing that we should not have. Sports does not need a special guideline lick academics do, although I have come to wonder if post-2000 named academic chairs are still as clearly a sign of notability, and I think we have been too quick to save any article on the head of a tertiary educational institution. With sports, there is almost never a dearth of coverage for people who are notable. We need to stop assuming that every person who competes is default notable. Another big problem is the current guidelines have been abused to massively create a huge number of articles with very little substance. The only place where things are worse may be with actors and actresses, where we have a huge number of articles sourced only to IMDb. I really wish we had an IMDb proposed deletion option where people could only remove the proposal if they added one non-IMDb source. Today I removed a link from the cast list for a 1917 film going to an actor born in 1985. We also have a large number of film articles sourced only to IMDb. I do not understand why people think we need articles on every film every made, at least that was released in theatres. True, we are not quite there, but the number of articles lacking reliable sources is staggering. In the sane way we do not need to have articles on everyone who was on a sports team rooster ever. With the Olympics we have shown some Olympians had obituaries that did not mention them having competed in the Olympics. I think a sports guideline should not say anyone is presumed notable. If we are to keep one, it should mainly focus on what is not enough coverage. Although some of that might be solved by holding people yo the substantial point in GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• I know this is a bit off topic, but I feel we need to put something in GNG indicating that in most cases local papers aimed at a local audience covering a local subject are not enough to pass GNG. I have not seen this as much with sports as with politicians, but I wish we could better establish it as a universal principal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Per User:BilledMammal; It's so broken, it needs WP:TNT. Seems ridiculous in the extreme that we have special notablity rules for folks who participate in Orienteering and Rodeo. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm having problems understanding the logic of this proposal. If there's problems with NSPORT, fix it, don't delete it. Also, we have huge problems at Wikipedia with WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS. For example, there's an (AFD - currently with 19 keeps to 2 deletes) at the moment where a Luxembourg international player with dozen of 1940s and 1950s international caps, is being deleted, but some feel there's not strong enough sources - which is most likely because a complete absence on the Internet of reference material from that country. This is why we presume notability for such players - which helps eliminate systemic bias. Eliminating NSPORTS will increase systemic bias. Nfitz (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Hete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Albert is a discussion where people are clearly abusing a Sports SNg to argue to keep an article that lacks any Sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The pros and cons of NSPORTS go both ways. While lots of old, European players of marginal encyclopedic value from the 19th century get included, it also provides a bright line rule for areas helpful for countries negatively impacted by systemic bias (e.g. Tier 1 international matches involving smaller countries). While modern players of marginal notability get included, it also provides a bright line rule that players who dont' meet that standard are almost never going to meet GNG, saving time arguing over sources. Whether the bright lines (since the SNG includes thresholds for each sport) needs to be adjusted, is something that can be discussed and attempted before tossing out the SNG wholesale. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Oddly from a nearly deletionist viewpoint. Western press has so (so) much coverage of sports figures that nearly everyone on a major-sport, division I team in the US would meet our inclusion guidelines. A) I think that's a bad thing and B) so does nearly everyone else so we'd end up with all kinds of crazy reasons ("routine coverage" probably being the most common) for not having these articles. And that would be worse. Here is how I think this (and most) SNGs should be treated. "If the subject meets with requirement, we should set the GNG bar quite low. I the subject doesn't, we should set the GNG bar quite high." Because some college (and even high school) athletes do see so much coverage that they are way over the GNG bar. But many of them meet the minimal requirements of the GNG but we don't want an article on them. It also means, to me, that if the subject does meet the SNG, we should set the bar close to "meeting the SNG is verifiable" with the notion that a merged article (players on the Polish 1900 Olympic hockey team) may be a better way forward. Hobit (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  While stars and some starters might, the wast majorty of players on a major-sport, division I (college?) teams in the US don't pass GNG. Most of the Western press doesn't even cover US college sports. And those college or high school players who do get significant coverage over a significant period of time pass GNG and should have articles because they are notable, whether you, me or anybody else likes it or not. A 1900 Olympic hockey player with no coverage however shouldn't, as he isn't notable simply because nobody took note. Alvaldi (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  Have you ever read ESPN.com? Most division I football teams have their own page with articles that often cover the players in detail. You are right, it would be mostly "just" the starters, and not all of them. But that's 1000+ articles a year right there. And if you include sources like Detroit and Toledo newspapers and newscasts, the GNG is a trivial bar for a lot of players. College sports sells papers. And frankly so does high school sports in much of the US. The coverage is much more local, but there is a fair bit about the best players. Seriously, this SNG keeps out more articles than it lets in. If you aren't American, you might not see it as much, but here, college and high school sports are a non-trivial percent of any given newspaper. Hobit (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe it does; NSPORT doesn't prevent sportspeople who meet GNG from having articles. However, you do make a good point, and I would not object if we clarified what is WP:ROUTINE coverage of sportspeople that does not contribute towards notability, particularly for sports like Football, Gridiron, etc. BilledMammal (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Re college sports and fooball in particular - the top players on each team are generally going to meet GNG (and typically have articles here) but college football rosters are huge, often having over 100 players, many of whom never see game action and are basically a glorified practice squad. Is the third-string punter or 18th wide receiver in the depth chart going to pass GNG? Almost certainly not unless they're notable for some other reason besides their football career (in which case NSPORT is irrelevant.) There are exceptions but those are very rare. Smartyllama (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Quite right. There are more than 50,000 athletes playing college football each year. The portion that receives SIGCOV is tiny, probably less than one percent. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - There may be room for tweaking the guidelines but that is a different issue. Looking at baseball (which along with ice hockey is where I've spent most of my AfD time), I don't recall coming across a single 20th or 21st century player who played 1 game (or more) in the National League or American League that went to AfD where after some digging we were not able to find at least 2 reasonably good online sources (without even taking into account the fact that most contemporary sources for pre-1960 or so players are not available online). When it comes to 19th century players I don't think we ever encountered one whose first name was known where we couldn't find at least one decent source. The only times we were not able to find any decent sources was a few 19th century players whose first names were not recorded. And that was resolved by creating a page listing such players. Maybe there is a 19th century NL player out there who does not (and never did - since notability is not temporary) have 2 or more good sources, but the NBASE guideline is still worthwhile in avoiding wasting editors time digging for sources in a one-week AfD period that will almost certainly be found, and if not that will almost certainly because most sources from more than 100 years ago are not readily available today, and in the worst case, there are still reliable sources, albeit stat sites from which to write something reliably sourced about them and in those cases there is no BLP issue. Of course, if there is reason to believe that a particular player is an exception, and for some reason there really are and never were available sources, then that argument can be made at AfD (as it was for the no-first name players). Now that the Negro Leagues are considered Major Leagues we have not really tested whether a single Negro League game would likely result in significant sourcing, and so maybe some tweaking is warranted, although personally I feel that it is better to give articles on such players the benefit of the doubt, but that may not be the consensus of Wikipedians in general. For other sports, maybe a single game at the highest level is not as likely to result in souring as it is for baseball players, but that can be addressed again through tweaking the guidelines. No good reason to throw out guidelines that have worked well for over a decade. Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Long overdue. The nom makes perfect sense. GNG is all one should need. The current situation is near inpenatrable chaos. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Sandstein. Ultimately what matters when determining what to include (i.e. what we deem notable) is that we can write a decent, well-sourced encyclopedia article on a subject. That goes double for biographies, quadruple for biographies of living persons. NSPORTS as written permits the existence of single-line database entries that tell a reader nothing other than "person X existed". firefly ( t · c ) 11:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with above. There are far too many one-line articles that should redirect to lists or other articles. These articles exist and continue to be created, while at the same time articles of many paragraphs on medal-winning soldiers are deleted because their actions, while heroic, haven't received enough coverage to meet GNG/WP:NBIO. WP:NSOLDIER was mis-used in a similar way and was deprecated. Sportspeople don't need a de-facto back-door pass on notability either. MB 16:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. The current system works fine. Carrite (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Gog. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not adding anything that hasn't been said already. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose — Everything I could say has already been said but I felt the need to also vote oppose. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

BEFORERFC Discussion (NSPORT)

What aspects of NSPORT do people what to remove? Some of these are interrelated or may mootify each other. "Removal" can mean deletion or replacement. Feel free to add additional options (preferably w/ a timestamp if others have already !voted).
A. The presumption of notability (as used in AfD arguments)
B. The presumption of notability (as used in article creation--athlete bios need only 1 RS showing they meet a criterion rather than 2+ GNG-meeting sources)
C. Confusing guidance (e.g. the second sentence)
D. The language granting some indefinite amount of time for editors to find SIGCOV
E. Criteria that are not backed with empirical evidence they correctly predict GNG coverage 90+% of the time

1. All of it
2. None of it
JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I've changed this into a discussion. Please revert if you believe that was inappropriate, but I think this question is too broad, and too vague (for example, what are the "confusing guidance" sentences?) to be anything other than a WP:TRAINWRECK as a !vote, but as a discussion it will give us guidance for where future RFC's should focus. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• F) The murky relationship between NSPORTS/GNG in theory and in practice (how to avoid the stereotypical "passes NSPORTS/fails GNG" AfDs, and how to deal with cases where even the criteria of NSPORTS are sometimes ignored in practice) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  So to address this we have at least these options:

  a) remove the presumption of notability and replace it with an explicit, unambiguous statement that all subjects must demonstrate GNG when challenged by a PROD or AfD (but you can still create articles sourced to RS showing the subject meets an SSG)

  b) Require multiple GNG-compliant sources for all articles from the start (removing the presumption of notability entirely and relegating NSPORT to the "collection of rules-of-thumb" I described in my bolded comment in the earlier discussion)

  α) remove the presumption of notability and replace it with an explicit, unambiguous statement that a subject meeting a sport-specific criterion is automatically notable, no GNG sourcing required JoelleJay (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would change “a presumption of notability” to “a likelihood of notability”. It is true that if a topic meets the SNG it is likely that sources will exist that would allow the topic to also pass GNG… however, it is not a guarantee. This simple change would should shift us from (perhaps incorrectly) assuming notability to encouraging the demonstration of actual notability. Combine this with an admonition to do a thorough WP:BEFORE search before nominating at AFD, and the SNG would be much less problematic. Blueboar (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Suggestions. The key is to reform NSPORTS so that it is more closely calibrated as a predictor of GNG. We have taken some good steps in that direction in the past year, including major reforms of NOLYMPICS (now limited to medalists -- further modification needed for team sports) and partial reform of NGRIDIRON (eliminating Arena Football League). Here are my suggestions:

• Other subparts are in serious need of reform: I supported Fram's proposal last year to eliminate NCRICKET unless/until the cricketeers can agree on a stricter and more predictive guideline.
• Another reform I would support: eliminate across the board and for all sports the presumption that playing in a single game is sufficient to establish notability. Raise the bar to two (or even three) games.
• Mandate that new articles cannot be based solely on database entries but must include from the get-go at least one example of SIGCOV. (Frankly, this mandate should apply across the board and not just to sports.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I find three games is very attractive for the NFL (for at least very temporarily significant reasons, as I mentioned before), but to be at all comparably predictive or objectively similar, you'd want that to be a lot higher for soccer, and lower for five-day games of test cricket, and so on. (Which isn't to say there might not be an issue with cricket at present counting too many games and types of games, of course.) And of course, in most sports there's several different types of competition, of varying significance, and combining those into some bulk metric is... tricky. It gets very complex and messy very quickly, which in practice it's going to make it tremendously hard to get agreement to anything beyond the most obvious some/none binary. The SIGCOV requirement I very much agree with. If there's some need to create articles (or draft-articles) that lack this, it needs some sort of monitoring or process beyond the present 'languish indefinitely' concept. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Why do we need a "predictor" of GNG? Why not just look at GNG itself? If it does nothing except "predict" whether GNG will be met, then it shouldn't be given official status. It's just an essay at that point, not an SNG. Mlb96 (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Quite. I'm decidedly skeptical on this too. But I think the rationale is one (or some combo of two things): build it and they'll come, and collateral or 'inherent' notability. Insofar as it's the former, I think what we need is process and management. Facilitation of creation and development in draft, or conversely of provisionally having articles in mainspace but with a view to revisit their presence after a while, or periodically if needed. If it's the latter, I'm far from convinced, but I suspect it's a big factor in people's thinking. "If people from this [category of competition] are mostly notable, it'd be a terrible shame to have just a few gaps: gorra catch 'em all. So good enough, declare them all notable 'on average'." To put it less than charitably, perhaps, but I detect periodic traces of this at least. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Re: A Removing presumption of notability would be counter to the top of Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N) emphasis added: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right... If that is the consensus (no opinion), effectively SNGs become obsolete, and WP:N should reflect that and remove SNGs also.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...

  And if a subject-specific notability guideline explicitly defers to GNG, then that "or" becomes moot, because meeting NSPORT ultimately = meeting GNG. This wouldn't (and doesn't, as this is how it's already interpreted) affect any other SNG, some of which specifically do bypass GNG (NPROF). JoelleJay (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think the intent was for NSPORTS to "defer" to GNG in the strong sense that it was interpreted in that recent AfD. IIRC, it was a compromise to say that NSPORTS should be written so that passing subjects will meet GNG with 95+% liklihood. It was not intended to be a permanent pass to avoid demonstrating GNG, but nor was it generally expected that NSPORTS would not be sufficient in an intial AfD. Perhaps that was just an extraordinary exception. However, the current wording now seems open to accusations of WP:WIKILAWYERING by both sides.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  A well-attended RfC in 2017 found a clear consensus that NSPORT does not supersede GNG and Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. This is reflected in the hundreds of AfDs where athletes meeting an NSPORT subguideline but not GNG are deleted for that reason. That some editors are unaware of this consensus or just ignore it indicates it should have resulted in explicit changes in the NSPORT language rather than assuming users would abide by this result. JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  It was always intended from the start that the sports notability guidelines did not replace the general notability guideline. From the RfC that established the sports notability guidelines: Echoing many of the participants' concerns though, consensus can not be considered in favor unless the new guideline clarifies that it does not replace WP:GNG but supplements it and that articles that do not meet this guideline may still be included if they satisfy WP:GNG. When you read the discussion (both for the RfC and leading up to it), it's stated several times that the proposed guideline would not enable articles to be created for subjects that did not meet the general notability guideline. This has been affirmed repeatedly in subsequent discussions. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endless notable leagues Target the specific sport SNGs that blindly assume that because sport X gets sufficient coverage in one English-speaking country, it must get the same amount of coverage for any country's top league(s). Because there's Google hits (from a site in a language most here aren't fluent in and wouldn't know if it's reliable either) Many other sport criteria are more restrictive and true to the 95-99% "truly notable" rate that SNGs should strive for.—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Re: D "granting some indefinite amount of time" is a bit overstated. That was from NSPORTS's FAQ, which was more describing a rough practice, not so much a firm guideline. I'm not sure when it got transcluded on the main page, and not just the talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• "A" is an issue. There needs to be a short section in NSPORTS which says that NSPORTS must not be used in AfDs as an argument for keeping/deleting. Clearly it's of interest whether the person passes NSPORTS or not, but this should be stated once (unless there is some disagreement about the fact), preferably by the proposer and then never mentioned again (e.g. "Note: This person passes NFOOTY because they played one game for Rochdale A.F.C. in 1921"). I would suggest some standardized wording that people can cut and paste, to be used when someone breaks this rule, eg reply with "per WP:NSPORTSinAfD, NSPORTS must be not be used in AfDs as an argument for keeping/deleting." So if someone said "KEEP Passes NFOOTY" that reply would be posted immediately after. Clearly someone might say "KEEP Because he did play one game for Rochdale A.F.C. in 1921" instead, but in a sense that's a valid argument, albeit a excessively weak one, and hopefully the closer would take due note. Nigej (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't agree that sports should be an exception to SNGs. If the current NSPORTS is unacceptable, fix or remove the portions that are problematic. I could see if the concern is with SNGs in general, in which case academics or politicians, for example, would be held to the same standard.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've never really understood this "we must all suffer together" sort of argument. If someone's abusing the system it's them that should be punished. I don't see why those who are doing the right thing should need to do anything. The fact that nearly half of all Wikipedia biographies of living people are sports competitors (ie covered by NSPORTS) shows that the problem is with NSPORTS not with the others. Clearly there can't be other biographical SNGs with nearly half, otherwise there wouldn't be anything left for all the others. Nigej (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was under the impression the vast majority of these were from NFOOTY, but I haven't got the statistics to hand (willing to be told). There are lots of professional footballers, purely by the nature of a length of the sport having been played back to the 1800s and the sheer depths of money and worldwide appeal. It's clearly too broad, as, while being a professional athlete might be notable in certain sports, it simply isn't the case this widespread. The fix is to look at each SNG individually and tighten up the criteria, so that we know certain people are going to be more or less notable. Then, any that are (per the Rochdale example, it's possible someone was notable for playing in that game, being particularly bad/good, or otherwise) notable but don't meet the SNG can be shown via sourcing that they are so. I do agree that we should have less "passes SNG so notable" arguments at AfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  The issue mainly relates to living people. Outside sports, 40% of biographies are for living people but for sports its 77%. Less than 20% of biographies for dead people are sports people but its nearly half for those still living. NFOOTY makes up a third of the sports biographies, so it is a high proportion, but American football comes second which seems odds for a sport that's basically only played in two countries. There's other oddities: Australian rules football (basically played in one country) has 14,000 while tennis (a massive worldwide sport) has 8,700. And are there really 10,000 notable racing drivers? Seems crazy to me. (NB all data about a year old) Nigej (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Stats from 2019 - more association football BLPs than all other sports combined. Levivich 14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Couldn't find "all sports" in that link, only a selection. My numbers were Footy 153,000, All sports 450,000 (from Category:Sports competitors by sport), All BLPs 970,000. Nigej (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  What's the point of these counting numbers? Is there some quota as to how many articles athletes can have? Sports are more popular than academia so of course there would be significantly more athletes represented than mathematicians or whatever. Pointing that out doesn't help advance any argument. Spanneraol (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  There's no quota. However my own view is that knowing a few numbers helps people gauge how loose or tight the criteria are in certain areas. Obviously it's not an exact science, people make their own judgments about the merits of these numbers. In my analysis I compared the number of biographical articles with the number of "vital" ones (per Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5) - people we've heard of or perhaps should have heard of, again nothing precise here, just peoples judgment. For all non-sports combined, there's an average of 90 biographies for every "vital" one (living and dead). Fair enough, we can afford to have lots of articles about people we've never heard of. For soccer there's 1600 articles for every "vital" one. Some might think that indicates that the criteria for inclusion are too loose for soccer, some might not. For soccer to get down to the 90 level from 1600, we'd have to delete about 95% of all soccer biographies (or increase their quota of "vital" articles by the same factor). Anyway it's all food for thought, nothing more. Nigej (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  What's the point of these counting numbers? Is there some quota as to how many articles athletes can have? Yes, there is, when it comes to WP:BLPs. We are doing active harm whenever we publish a substandard BLP. I quote Tamzin, who wrote:

  But we are now the world's first-choice reference work, and we need to accept the ethical duties that come with that. Which include a duty to the people we write about. Some editors just need to accept that some names are going to be unlinked in their tables or football players and daytime screenwriting Emmy winners.

  Tamzin's entire comment is worth reading (as are her thoughts on her userpage), because she explains the actual harm resulting from poor-quality BLPs, particularly BLPs of marginally-notable people. The rule needs to be that Wikipedia is never the first publication to publish a biography of anyone, and so all Wikipedia biographies must be sourced to other biographies... not strung together from statistics and game reports (which are primary sources), but a tertiary-source biography built upon multiple secondary-source biographies. That's the only way we can be sure we're writing a proper encyclopedia biography and not just a dossier. Levivich 17:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've never really understood this "we must all suffer together" sort of argument: Similairly, I suspect the problems are with a few select sports, and not all of NSPORTS.—Bagumba (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)'m n

  That's true to a certain extent. As I noted above, it primarily relates to team sports, but its certainly not just soccer. Nigej (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• A and B are both issues. A - Something being thought to be notable at AfD is bad, when the range is particularly wide. Even if someone makes the argument "Passes SNG so notable", you should be able to challenge them for sourcing. B - This is almost the exact reason for having an SNG in the first place, but if the articles are sourced to meet GNG when they are created, then there is no issue. Perhaps we should be a bit stricter on sourcing, so when an article is created we need to at least give a good account that the subject meets GNG (this does happen at AfC). Expecting at least three sources isn't much that's needed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Sigh - each sport-specific entry needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Treating all sports the same simply won't work. GiantSnowman 18:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think the better way to approach this problem is with stricter BLP notability rules... for any BLP, any sport, or non-sport. Start there. Modify BLPPROD to allow the prodding of any BLP that doesn't have two GNG sources. Amend N to require consensus that there are two GNG sources at AFD in order for a BLP to not be deleted at AFD. Consider whether to retain the exception for NPROF (which is, AFAIK, the only type of BLP that has a formal GNG exception). This will avoid all the accusations/feelings that one particular sport, or sports altogether, are being "singled out". We have over a million BLPs and yes, this change would result in the deletion of a significant number of them. Levivich 18:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest an unusual RFC statement, and that would be:

"The community has decided that NSPORTS is too inclusive and asks that it be tightened within the next year. Amongst other possible changes, please remove provisions where NSPORTS passes an athlete in essence solely because they participated professionally."

Two notes on this. One is that is it is a general finding and request. Trying to make the large amount of changes needed by a specific community RFC is impossible, but the push needs to come from the community, not just the people active at the SNG, and this is a way to resolve that quandary. The other is that it does not specify "predictor of GNG". This leaves open the possibility that this is a unique field because much in it "coverage" is often created primarily as a form of entertainment and so needs a higher standard to be an equal gauge of notability. A higher coverage-type bar such as at NCorp might be required. As with ncorp, this could also vaguely/informally also calibrate GNG for sports. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree that we need input from the whole community. I'm not sure we'll ever get agreement to delete large number of articles. My own preference would be some sort of "from now on, BLPs cannot be created unless ..." Nigej (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would help to differentiate between "getting a biography" and "being mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia." A criteria that said something like:

• Played for at least two seconds and editors have located at least one article in an independent news source that contains at least 200 consecutive words about the player: separate article
• Played for at least two seconds and editors are unable to locate any qualifying articles containing at least 200 consecutive words about the player: add paragraph to the Wikipedia article about the team/season/roster, with suitable redirects.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This was essentially what happened in this 2017 RfC, which found There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Since this didn't result in a specific change to the guideline that AfD participants could point to, it was basically ignored by the usual offenders and here we are. I think for this discussion to have any impact whatsoever it needs to be codified in the guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That RFC close also stated that there was a rough consensus that sources on older athletes are concentrated in print media. Because it is impossible to prove the negative that the sources do not exist to support an article, some intermediate standard is required for determining when an article on these athletes should be deleted due to lack of notability. Seems the entire community has dropped the ball on formulating this "intermediate standard", not the exclusive fault of any specific "usual offenders".—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In my experience the large plurality of athlete AfDs the "usual offenders" !vote "Keep meets N[sport]" in are on contemporary American or English football players, not historical figures. JoelleJay (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• To me the real problem is E. I would like to see more confidence that 95% of the athletes covered under a sport-specific criteria would pass GNG. From my perspective, the presumption of notability may not extend through the history of the sport or for all athletes who participate in a particular event. Perhaps this is true with some sports in some eras, is this presumption always true? We saw this in the discussion of NOLYMPICS where the community determined that that presumption was overly inclusive, and it was best to rely on GNG for many Olympic participants. --Enos733 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that 2017 RFC is superceded by the 2021 RFC at WT:N - see Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 72#Request for Comment on the Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG). --Masem (t) 05:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The 2017 RfC wasn't overruled as a whole, its scope was just reduced to NSPORT and therefore was no longer generalizable to all SNGs. It still applies to NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Plus, SNGs serving as alternatives to GNG does not negate NSPORT's requiring GNG. It just means we look to NSPORT for guidance on notability, see that it requires GNG, and then look back at GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 1 (NSPORT)

All (edit, re: Theknightwho) athlete biographies subjects must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD. This could be added to, e.g., clarify the second sentence. Amendments to/additional guidance on this statement could include:

1. SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD.
2. Articles could still be created and exist in mainspace with only one RS verifying the subject meets a sport-specific guideline (SSG) criterion, but meeting a criterion would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion.
3. Editors would be discouraged from nominating very new SSG-meeting articles for deletion (barring non-notability issues).
4. NEW as of 22:10 22 Jan 22, restatement of Bagumba's comment below: Elements of WP:FAILN are prerequisites when nominating a subject that meets an SNG, e.g. (a) an article must have been tagged for notability for over a month, and/or (b) there must be evidence that a related WikiProject was contacted, asking for subject-matter experts to improve.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Edited: JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Support, with support of 1, and support of 2 iff a stronger change (e.g. GNG sourcing required from the start) does not gain consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Suggestion I would like to see elements of WP:FAILN being prerequisites when nominating a subject that meets an SNG. Say, article been tagged for notability for over a month. Even better, evidence that related WikiProject was contacted, asking for subject-matter experts to improve.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I think if we're going to make such a sharp criteria difference between the 'creation' threshold and the 'deletion' one, I think it might be useful to be a little more explicit about what the expected time horizon is. Article creators might feel that AfD-timeline+not-very-new is a signal they have very little time, and be deterred from going about that business. Or conversely, they might find it sounds very slack and easy-going, and then be enraged if it ends up deleted within a month. Or else to be a little be more explicit about what process might handle making that determination, case-by-case. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Another possibility is if the article does not meet GNG within a month's time to draftify it. It wouldn't be completely deleted so no work is really lost, but would prevent articles that do not meet GNG for staying on mainspace for too long. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sure. But I feel the guideline should be more explicit that a month (or a week, or a year, or whatever) is what's envisaged, rather than just moving the rolling dispute to wildly different theories about what "very new" might been, or indeed whether one should feel "discouraged" if one really wants to AfD something. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support in line with JoelleJay. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • To expand; the reason we require articles to meet WP:GNG is because of two core policies; WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Articles based solely on primary sources - articles that lack any WP:SIGCOV - violate WP:OR which states Do not base an entire article on primary sources and so cannot be kept. Articles based on a single primary source rely too much on a single authors view, and so violate WP:NPOV, which is particularly concerning for BLP's which constitute the majority of articles covered by WP:NSPORTS.

This means that keeping an article solely on the basis of NSPORTS is in violation of core policy, and if articles are being kept on that basis - and they are, despite NSPORTS stating that it does not replace GNG - then we need to make it indisputable that articles covered by NSPORTS must meet GNG when challenged, which is what this proposal does. BilledMammal (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a really muddled argument. We require reliable non-primary sources to satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:OR. It isn't necessary to satisfy WP:GNG in order to adhere to either of these policies. --Michig (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

First, I would agree that WP:OR can be satisfied with a single example of significant coverage. However, to comply with WP:NPOV we need WP:GNG or something very similar; without multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV we cannot write a WP:PROPORTIONATE article that complies with WP:DUEWEIGHT, as we are relying entirely on a single authors point of view.

Second, NSPORTS is used to support articles that fail WP:OR and articles that fail WP:NPOV, which tells us that either we need to explicitly require WP:GNG or something very similar. BilledMammal (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support sounds like a good way to clean up non-notable topic articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support in line with JoelleJay as well. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I think this misses the point of why the SNG exists. It's not just for articles to be created easier. We absolutely should not be suggesting to editors that we want them to have a single reference on a new article. We really want to have an article that demonstrates GNG on the outset. The issues are when we are talking about items that are either foreign language, or where the sourcing would likely be offline (or otherwise difficult to locate). The point of SNG is to point to a specific group of people, and comment that they should be notable, as similar articles we've already proven do meet the guidelines. Here's an example:

So, say a Japanese player from 1960 has a database entry and nothing else, a similar Japanese player from the same time period already has some offline sources. Would we really want to take the other article to AfD and have the article deleted simply because those reading the AfD don't have access to those sources and/or not speak Japanese?

I don't think we gain anything by saying the second bit at all, we should really promote articles being well created in the first place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, but I think requiring GNG from the outset would a) be a much stronger and more contentious proposal, and b) the outcome would be functionally identical to this proposal (athletes not meeting GNG do not get articles on Wikipedia), with the only difference being some articles are created first before being deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, as this seems to be a way to functionally relegating SNGs to granting only a probationary status. I don’t see how this could be compatible with WP:GEOLAND with respect to legal recognition, for example, where only a primary source may be available, or WP:NASTCRIT with respect to objects visible to the naked eye. Theknightwho (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC) No longer relevant. Theknightwho (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  I believe this will only affect WP:NSPORT - it will not have any impact on WP:GEOLAND WP:NASTCRIT. BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  The proposal begins with “All subjects”, which feels like it’s intended to be wider, given that we were inherently already talking about all subjects in NSPORT anyway. Would it please be possible to get some clarification on this @JoelleJay? Theknightwho (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Theknightwho: JoelleJay has clarified the proposal and I believe the clarification addresses your concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal Thanks for the heads up. Theknightwho (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Heck, this should be routine for ANY SNG. My response to Theknightwho is that yes, this would mean that article creators would need to do a good bit more digging to source their sub-stubs, but I consider this a feature of the proposal, not a bug. Ravenswing 12:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Pragmatically, is this likely to result in mass AfDs for articles where reliable sources are primarily not in the English language and therefore difficult to locate? The existence of a RS and the ability to check that source are not the same thing, and it is the first that matters here. It feels like the current SNGs offer some level of protection against this problem at the moment, which wouldn’t be there without some objective criterion for presumption of notability. Theknightwho (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support as also a good step to help ensure article topics are notable and articles meet core policies. Levivich 14:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on multiple and different grounds:

Procedural oppose This is an entirely new and different RfC that would dramatically change NSPORTS. For it to be considered, it should be opened as a new RfC, complying with RfC requirements, including notice to the impacted projects.

Summary: For those who don't see this for what it is, it's yet another attempt to crush NSPORTS -- after the last effort to do so failed -- and to impose a strong anti-sports bias on wikipedia by imposing new restrictions that do not apply to academics, entertainers, politicians, businessmen, or any other group or category. Appallingly bad proposal.

Oppose 1. One week (the duration of an AfD) is simply not a sufficient timeline in the case of pre-Internet topics. A topic should have at least a year after the article is created for editors to search for SIGCOV in libraries, paper archives, etc. Also, it's inappropriate for this requirement to be directed only at sports articles. If such a requirement is to be implemented, it should be across-the-board and not targeted at one group of articles.

Strong oppose 2. A rule stating that passing NSPORTS would have zero effect in AfD discussions would render meaningless the "presumption of notability" created by the SNG. It is really a back-door way to completely gut and neuter NSPORTS -- the very thing that was strongly opposed by the majority in the RfC above. As written, this continues to encourage creation of sub-stubs based solely on database entries. I favor imposing a requirement of including one example of SIGCOV (above and beyond a database) as a better solution.

Oppose 3. Hopelessly vague as to "very new" -- does that mean one week, a month, a year? It's also drafted to be completely toothless -- "discouraged", really?

The real solution: Don't gut NSPORTS. Instead, tighten the standards that are too loose, and impose a requirement to have at least one example of SIGCOV for all new articles (not just sports articles). Cbl62 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that I would oppose notification of wikiprojects, as this would cause WP:CANVAS issues specifically related to the partisan nature of the audience. If wide input it needed, it is better to widely advertise it in high traffic, relevant noticeboards.

As for "Oppose 2", shouldn't that be done by the creator of the article, before moving it to mainspace? BilledMammal (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So you think it's appropriate to fundamentally change (more accurately, "gut") NSPORTS without providing a neutral notice to NSPORTS and its constituents? Unbelievable. Notices have been given. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62: This is extremely inappropriate; not only is the audience partisan, the message is biased - meaning that you have managed to violate WP:CANVAS in two ways. I would ask that you rescind the notices, and publish neutral ones is nonpartisan forums - or at least hold a discussion here about which forums to notify before unilaterally doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a proposal which you admit is targeted at NSPORTS ("I believe this will only affect WP:NSPORT".) Yet, you oppose letting NSPORTS and its constituents know about this proposal -- a proposal that would render meaningless the presumption of notability for NSPORTS and no other guideline. If this change is to be properly considered, NSPORTS should be notified. Changes like this should not be made in the dark, but in the light of day. My notice (which you have now reverted twice) was neutrally worded and invited participants to weigh in one way or the other. Your substitute is meaningless and doesn't even say that the proposal has to do with sports!!!! In what way do you think my notice was not neutral or accurate? Cbl62 (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving this to your talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is being done in the dark here. WP:VPP is an open, community noticeboard; not a back room talk page.Tvx1 19:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is abolishing SNGs through the back door. GiantSnowman 14:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfairly targeted towards sports figures when other categories (particularly political office holders) have some of the same issues. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Exactly which same issues? Do you think (let's say) 'played one down in one NFL game' is an at all comparable standard for inclusion as being a state senator? Are we similarly awash in those, too? If they're a poor predictor of actual notability I'm all for tightening those, but on the face of it the two issues don't seem similar to me. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd support the automatic striking of any AfD vote which only made an argument along the lines of "keep meets N:BASE" (to pick the last example where I saw this employed) or "delete, fails N:BASE". I'm sympathetic to the idea of requiring GNG sourcing - but the issue here is that WP:N says that articles either have to meet GNG or an SNG. Decouple that - for all articles - and I'd be happier. The SNG (and that'd be all SNG and not just SPORTS) then exist as exemplars of the sorts of articles we should be considering rather than an excuse to create an article about someone that we have no hope of ever finding sources for. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  An SNG (NSPORT) requiring GNG doesn't contradict the statement at WP:N. It just means the "or" doesn't apply, because the requirements for the SNG equal that of the GNG. I think a lot of the confusion here arises from editors thinking each individual sport's "guideline" is equivalent in status to NSPORT, which is absolutely incorrect: each SSG is subject to NSPORT, and to meet NSPORT you must meet GNG. And WP:N certainly doesn't link us to each SSG, it just links to NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I agree there are players who have articles that probably shouldn't, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the solution. Tightening up criteria is much simpler and more sensible. There must be a set of clear rules to follow regarding which players get an article and which ones don't. Remember, Wikipedia ain't paper. Masterhatch (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I just realised I put this "vote" in the wrong spot. It should've been up at the top in opposing getting rid of NSPORT altogether. I actually can support "demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD." Things need to be tightened up a bit and as long as it doesn't lead to mass deletion of sports articles, I'm ok with it. Also, I agree with a lot of other editors, why is sports being singled out? Masterhatch (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The crux of the argument is attacking all WP:SNGs. I don't see why sports is being singled out. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Poor argument for opposing, start a RFC for other SNG's if you think there are some that need to be dealt with as well.Tvx1 15:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  That is not what I am saying. I don't think any SNGs need to be dealt with, at least not to the extent that they should be effectively gotten rid of. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support In reality, this is already the case. However, AFD closers seem to be generally not aware of that. So let's finally spell this out so that this can no longer be a source of dispute.Tvx1 15:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose What exactly would be the purpose of an SNG if this rule were in place? #1 is the abolish proposal by another name, #2 expressly permits the creation of articles that can be deleted at AFD, which is just silly and #3 is completely unenforcable as it only takes 1 editor to start an AFD. Iffy★Chat -- 15:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As said above this is essentially removing SNGs without offically removing them. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a transparent backdoor attempt to abolish the sports SNG (and SNGs in general, if the proposer intends to be consistent). I don't see how the passage of this proposal and the resultant flood of contentious AfDs is likely to be beneficial for the 'pedia, but then again I don't have an ax to grind against sports articles. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lepricavark makes a very good point, this stinks of an underhand attempt to get rid of SNGs. SNGs are an important part in assessing a subjects notability within a project. They enhance GNG and ensure that subjects being added have relevance to a topic and are encyclopedic. I'd argue GNG is too lax with what it allows in, whereas GNGs sieve content to ensure it is high quality and adds to the knowledge base. Inherently, people within a project know a great deal more about their subject area than most and this is where SNG really have great merits. StickyWicket (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  NSPORTS sub-guidelines are clearly not serving as sieves for high quality encyclopedic topics, unless you completely reject WP:NOT and believe the proliferation of non-notable athlete permastubs is a good thing. JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this is removing SNGs without actually saying so.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The GNG is a deeply flawed guideline that is often used as an excuse for deleting encyclopedic topics and keeping crap. Any suggestion that any guideline, flawed or otherwise, must be followed is a non-starter. --Michig (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Under this proposal, in essence the sports notability guidelines would become a non-exclusive list of criteria for a credible claim to notability, and thus prevent speedy deletion, but not deletion at a deletion discussion. Perhaps there's a middle ground: prevent speedy deletion if the sports notability guidelines are met, but allow for deletion discussions to be more flexible regarding weighing all relevant factors, thus allowing participants to agree to allow for more time to find suitable sources? isaacl (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  That flexibility already exists - there are plenty of articles covered by WP:FOOTBALL where the GNG is failed but SNG is met. Some articles are deleted, some are kept, depending on the circumstances. GiantSnowman 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, as you know from previous discussions, I am aware of this. I am suggesting that a modification of this proposal could preserve this flexibility and thus be a middle ground. isaacl (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Cbl62's and StickyWicket's rationale. MSport1005 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is removal of all SNGs by the back door, as others have pointed out, and it would affect SNGs which are explicitly set out as alternatives to the GNG (such as WP:PROF). It also essentially elevates the GNG to a non-negotiable policy, rather than a guideline, and changes the burden of proof in deletion discussions from those who want content be deleted to those who want content to be kept. The GNG is useful but it's far from perfect and it's easy to misapply it. "Subject fails the GNG" is usually code for "I, an English speaker from a Western country, Googled the subject and didn't find much". Sometimes that's an appropriate way to determine the significance of the subject, but it isn't always. Hut 8.5 17:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lepricavark, et al. This is an attempt to remove the SNG by the back door. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cbl62's rationale; this seems particularly targeted at sports and sports alone, and to disallow notices to impacted WikiProjects seems particularly absurd given that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support and rebuttal of the dubious opposes: Cbl provides the only oppose argument which is not an undignified complaint that this is "an attempt to remove the SNG". However, most of those arguments don't make any sense. The first claims that "one week is not enough time". But that has never been an issue for any other kind of AfD, so this seems like special pleading. On top of that, articles in an encyclopedia should most likely not be based on archival documents or other primary sources: if one finds some other form of content which is an acceptable secondary source, and which could reasonably meet GNG, there is nothing in the world preventing the AfD from being relisted. So that argument is dubious fearmongering.
• The second argument brought forward by Cbl is that the proposed addition would somehow be in opposition to NSPORTS as it stands. That is entirely unconvincing, as NSPORTS already states that subjects should meet GNG (despite lots of people ignoring that in practice, and their votes being naturally disregarded at AfDs). The proposal is thus simply an attempt to clarify the existing language and to prevent further useless AfD shenanigans (one of the current problems with NSPORTS identified by many people). I do not see any evidence or reason why sport figures should be exempt from GNG: all articles should meet the basics of WP:V and WP:NOR, and if the only sources available for some sports figures are only primary sources or routine databases or local newspapers match reports, they probably do not belong in an encyclopedia. If anything, given how many sports coverage there is, there should probably be even tighter guidelines (lest Wikipedia itself become a sports database).
• In short, the proposed language is convincing and unambiguous manner, which is likely to reduce wikilawyering and special pleading. Both of these are clear and good reasons to accept this improvement, and the defensive and irrational opposition (including by the most prolific sub-stub-database-entries creator of all of them, just above) does not provide any compelling, logically sound (not fallacies) and policy-based argument to the contrary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  As for the "real solution": that has been attempted, but only ever leads to the same stonewalling as every other one... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason I opposed the original. Either include all SNGs or none. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cbl62. Beyond the myriad of reasons provided, MMA is one of those sports where coverage is almost entirely in niche media not apt to get general consensus at RSN. If you want an encyclopedia written you need to leave it to WikiProject MMA to decide the allowable citations and the "top tier" promotions, which they've done a good job at these many years. If you want to purge pages like Rob McCullough from this encyclopedia that's ok but you're not only going to eliminate decent articles but you'll also alienate those editors. Maybe you don't care about either of them. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This position would appear to violate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; WP MMA cannot be allowed to decide to ignore core policies such as OR, RS, and NPOV, as it does if it is choosing to keep articles that lack multiple examples of significant coverage from reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Chris troutman How would this proposal purge pages like Rob McCullough? It looks like he has SIGCOV in multiple independent RS, are you saying that's incorrect? JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  • • @JoelleJay: Most of the citations are from MMAjunkie.com and sherdog.com; both key references in MMA but both have been challenged at RSN (MMAJunkie once and Sherdog multiple times). Chris Troutman (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - We need to have harmony between SNGs and what happens at AfDs. This creates a gap between what the SNG suggests will be acceptable in an article and what it says should happen at AfD. Experienced editors would be able to read between the lines as to the significance of this change, but newer editors risk being misled. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose' NSPORTS isn't the issue in my opinion here. Certain sport specific guidelines are the issue. The Olympic and cricket guidelines have been tightened recently to align them better with GNG to an extent that consensus could be reached for them, and other sports related guidelines could be tightened. Removing NSPORTS entirely (which this proposal is basically doing) seems like a drastic measure to a problem that seems to currently be AfD related and related to certain editors activity rather that the guidelines as a whole. I agree with many of the other oppose commenters on the fact that it seems to be an attack on sports as well, and have previously stated my views that GNG shouldn't be the be-all and end-all of guidelines anyway due to the flaws that it has in English and recency bias. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is certainly a backdoor way of removing SNGs which are essential to order and encyclopedia building. How many more editors do we want to drive away? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Óppose I can't see this as having anything but a profoundly negative effect in terms of equity, especially in regards to articles on women athletes or athletes in general from the global south (doubly so, for those from the pre-digital era). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  When you're right you're right. I couldnt agree more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Disagree. How great are what are essentially database listing stubs for representation anyway? It's tokenism. Many global south media outlets such as Iwacu of Burundi and Digital Congo of the DRC have dedicated sports coverage anyhow. Not to mention all of the random Western players that would get axed (or forcibly improved) too. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment. This would not eliminate the purpose of NSPORT, as the proposed change is in line with what is already ultimately required by NSPORT: all athlete notability is directly dependent on and requires meeting GNG. Per the 2017 RfC:

There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion.

EDIT (collapsing large quote blocks, per discussion at my TP) And per NSPORT itself:

NSPORT instruction regarding GNG

Per the 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. Per the Applicable policies and guidelines section of NSPORT: In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Per the Basic criteria section of NSPORT: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have participated in or achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. Per NSPORT FAQ1: Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline? A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. FAQ2: Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.) and FAQ5 Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5:No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

The intended purpose of the second sentence would also not be affected whatsoever, as it applies strictly to what refs are required for the creation of articles. WP:N can continue to reference those SNGs that do supersede GNG (NPROF, GEOLAND, NCORP) and the ones that don't (if N says a subject can be notable if it meets GNG or an SNG, and the relevant SNG itself defers to GNG, then the "or" is irrelevant).

This is also in line with the consensus noted in administrative close summaries of AfDs where subjects who pass an SNG but have been shown not to pass GNG and "keep" and "delete" !votes are numerically similar: Edvin Dahlqvist, Wei Changsheng, Raphael Noway, Francis English, Rafael Dias, Tony Frias, Lambert Golightly, Atul Raghav, Prateek Sinha, Salman Saeed (The result was delete. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met.), John Ford, Shahid Ilyas, Mohammad Laeeq, Obaidullah Sarwar (The result was delete. As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG.), and Qaiser Iqbal.

I will be leaving neutral notifications on the Talk Pages of closers involved in contentious athlete AfDs, including the few who closed contrary to the wording of NSPORT.

The articles that easily pass an NSPORT sport-specific guideline (SSG) should also easily turn up GNG-compatible references and therefore never need to be brought to AfD in the first place if BEFORE is done, with the only possible exceptions being subjects in non-Anglophone countries or from non-internet time periods. This proposal acknowledges time-based amendments could be made for these exceptions, and participants here are encouraged to submit suggestions. The article subjects that barely pass an SSG are also the ones for whom a BEFORE search may not turn up GNG sourcing and would thus be vulnerable to AfD nomination and deletion anyway based on the current wording of NSPORT.

I'm therefore asking ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ oppose !voters to demonstrate how this proposal would materially affect the intended purpose of NSPORT, as written and in practice. JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A note on the above, I was pinged, but didn't oppose on this particular proposal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying "the subjects of sports biographies must meet the GNG" and "all subjects of sports biographies will be deleted at AfD unless evidence that the subject meets the GNG is presented right now". Like it or not, looking for sources before nominating at an AfD usually consists of an English speaker Googling the subject. WP:BEFORE says that various Google searches is the minimum expected, and isn't mandatory anyway. If someone says "fails GNG" in an AfD, this usually means that they don't think the article contains references which show the subject meets the GNG, and they couldn't find anything better on Google. For many subjects, e.g. people from non-English speaking countries, people from developing countries or people from pre-internet eras, this may not find the best available sources, which may be offline or in databases which aren't indexed. (Contrary to what's been said above, the proposal does not include any special treatment for these cases.)

Right now we have discretion over these cases. We don't have to delete articles on subjects where GNG-passing source coverage probably exists just because we don't have it to hand right now. (WP:NEXIST says this.) On the other hand if we think GNG-passing coverage isn't likely to exist then we can delete the article anyway, especially if the subject only barely or technically passes the SNG. This proposal would remove that discretion and replace it with something with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. And yes this would eliminate NSPORT as a viable SNG. For all other SNGs you can cite passing the SNG in a Keep rationale at AfD, and your opinion would at least be taken into consideration. That wouldn't be the case for NSPORT if this passes. Hut 8.5 15:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This was explicitly what the 2017 RfC decided, it's really not a new proposal. If an editor can't find sources in a BEFORE search, and members of the relevant notified wikiproject can't either, and the only assurance we have that SIGCOV likely exists is that the subject meets a criterion that the wikiproject thinks would correspond to GNG coverage 95% of the time, then maybe that subject should be draftified into a subpage of the wikiproject where those editors who would be most likely to find sources could collaborate on writing an encyclopedic article rather than a permastub. JoelleJay (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that this is getting so much opposition should be a hint that it's not merely codifying existing accepted practice. If that was the case it wouldn't be controversial. Hut 8.5 19:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It is codifying existing practice, but after the sports projects were notified there was a flood of all the editors who always !vote "keep meets N[sport]" (regardless of how often they've been shown that argument is insufficient) in AfDs on athletes in their particular sport and don't !vote elsewhere. I would guess very few of them would care if this targeted only a particular sport-specific subguideline that wasn't "their" sport. There are no comparable wikiprojects to notify the many athlete AfD participants who don't !vote en bloc with a sports project. JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

To add to what JoelleJay said, even on AFD's regarding Olympic Athletes you still have editors coming along and voting to keep on the basis that they participated in the Olympics, despite community consensus being to change those guidelines. This proposal isn't controversial in general, it is controversial among the Sports Wikiprojects that were canvassed here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - This could perhaps go in some of the other sections but for the most part it goes here... The guidelines found in NSPORTS should be all designed in such a way that it is unlikely that the person fails the GNG. I think attempts to rewrite the guidlines in such a way seem to get delayed unnecessarily. Users complain about these things taking too long, or that wikiprojects set their standards too low, but when you have some carefully thought out improvements discussed Wikiproject:Motorsport, seemingly accepted on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)|Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_44#Motorsport but that is still not enough (see the later section with the same name, both are "Motorsport", in the archive). So I think improvements need to be made so as to avoid this being an issue at all, but bureachracy likes to get in the way of real, unopposed (and I would think in many cases uncontroversial) improvement. But assuming that NSPORTS is what it is supposed to be, I think this proposal here is reasonable. Of course satisfying some requirement uncer NSPORTS must be enough to dePROD, for example, and I think for the benefit of finding hard to find sources it should even be grounds for relisting AfD discussions. But ultimately we shouldn't be keeping articles for which the sourcing doesn't exist, or cannot be found in a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps an option should also exist (and this could apply to any SNG) where it is noted a subject appears to meet SNG but not GNG for undeletion if someone demonstrates they have sources which could be used to improve the original article? A7V2 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I'm an idiot and missed Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC on new Motorsports guidelines... A7V2 (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per JoelleJay's argument. NSPORT should only be an indicator of notability, not a determinant of it, and as the 2017 RfC and countless other localized sources of consensus have found, not a replacement for the GNG, but a supplement. Pilaz (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose In Switzerland sport had in the early 2000 century a low status. The newspapers rarely did a big portrait and only the results were printed. So it would be really difficult to pass GNG for all notable athletes. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  How are they notable if they weren't the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject? That is straight from NSPORT as it currently reads. JoelleJay (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per JoelleJay. --JBL (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Following the ping below (thanks BilledMammal), clarifying that I support the general idea; of the particular amendments / guidance, I support 1, I think 2 and 3 are fine but I don't feel strongly about them, and I do not support the over-prescriptive 4. --JBL (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cbl62 and others. As has been said, a proposed change this drastic should have its own new discussion. In addition to this being a clear backdoor to be rid of SNGs. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support It is useful to consider how often GNG itself is mentioned on the Nsports page, as RandomCanadian points out. Can someone explain to me how GNG is a deeply flawed guideline as Michig claims? SIGCOV in RS (which is what GNG highlights) appears to the only fair basis for creating articles on notable subjects that can graduate beyond PERMASTUB territory. SNGs seem to have encouraged laziness, whereby the only things that need to be demonstrated about a subject are existence within a given context (e.g. this person played a single professional game) and not how RS actually show some interest in the subject. If RS don't show interest in a subject, why should we? Troutman writes MMA is one of those sports where coverage is almost entirely in niche media not apt to get general consensus at RSN. First, niche media is not the same as non-RS media. Second, why would we be using non-RS to write articles, especially if they are BLPS? This whole thread seems to be crowd of people grasping at ways to protect their garden. As for the people saying what about the other SNGS; fine, let's start those discussions too. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  I literally explained why it's flawed in the same sentence that you selectively cut and pasted above. --Michig (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  The GNG is a deeply flawed guideline that is often used as an excuse for deleting encyclopedic topics and keeping crap. That is not an explanation of the supposed flaws written into GNG, it's a complaint about how it is used. You "literally" did not explain why the guideline is flawed. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - This should already be the case anyway, and ultimately amounts to deleting the NSPORTs guidelines as they can no longer be used as keep rationale. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support This isn't gutting NSPORT, it's just enforcing the part of NSPORT that says In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is just an end run around trying to remove SNGs without actually doing so. -DJSasso (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as fourth choice, if #2,4&5 fall. The "honeymoon" period is for me too short, especially for older subjects where the need for offline sources will be greater. Too big a difference between 'creating' and 'keeping' criteria for that time (or the rather vague 'discouragement') to be sufficient. Would be keener if this were, say, 3-12m. However if needed AfDers can address that point as and when. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposal and #1, Oppose #2-3-4 - Editors should be expected to demonstrate significant coverage when creating an article or voting "Keep" at AfD, not just presume the existence of coverage based on number of games played etc. Any article that doesn't demonstrated SIGCOV should be created in (or moved to) draft space until it is ready for mainspace. –dlthewave ☎ 00:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support requirement to meet GNG by end of the AfD - (and yes, this is what I believe the de facto setup is now...because it makes sense) I'm at a loss of reasoning like @Cbl62: saying that we must allow insufficiently sourced articles to persist for a year. Talk about giving inclusionists a reputation for dubious statements. We need a fair tradeoff between giving a reasonable chance to identify research and not have long hang-times of insufficiently sourced content. I'd be happy to keep all pages that meet NSPORTS but not GNG as drafts for that year - individuals can do research and find sources to promote it back in whether or not it is an article at the time. It needs a timescale, and other than a purely arbitrary one, the AfD is the fairest duration. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is what the guidelines already require, but evidently it needs clarification. Sandstein 20:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Sandstein. This is how the guideline should be pplied already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but I find #4 at the top to be confusing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I agree with that "All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD," (which is the current rule anyway, though not explicitly defined as such) I find the rest of this proposal overly bureaucratic. Calidum 23:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Calidum: Am I correct in believing that you support #1, but oppose #2, #3, and #4? BilledMammal (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm somewhat ambivalent on #3, but otherwise you're correct. Calidum 23:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  I intended the other additions to be possible, suggested amendments rather than anything tied to the bolded text. Amendments to/additional guidance on this statement could include: Maybe I should emphasize the "could" here? JoelleJay (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Graeme Bartlett, Ravenswing, Levivich, Tvx1, RandomCanadian, A7V2, Pilaz, JayBeeEll, Indy beetle, FOARP, Ahecht, Sandstein, BrownHairedGirl, and Rhododendrites: That is how I read it, but I'm not certain all the support !voters did. I've pinged those editors who didn't comment on the amendments to give them a chance to clarify which of the "possible, suggested" amendments, if any (as opposed to just supporting the general proposal) they support. BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  I suppose subproposal 5 is what I like the most? My main problem is that the sports guidance does not seem to be a great predictor for meeting GNG. I would prefer outright abolishing and replacing with GNG, but I'll take what I can get. Anything that includes providing more SIGCOV and not just assuming it exists. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry User:Indy beetle, I was unclear. Subproposal One itself contains four subproposals; it was those subproposals that I was hoping you and the other !voters who supported subproposal one would be able to clarify their position on. BilledMammal (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Qualified support. Multiple RFCs (on top of the hundreds of other discussions, including AFDs) have confirmed GNG is the bar for NSPORT, and that needs to be made more explicit than it is currently; it would also need to be incorporated in WP:N to avoid the current confusion. My support for this proposal is conditional on removal of Point 4, per NOTBURO and CREEP, since it goes way beyond the requirements of FAILN (where these suggestions are prefaced by "...look for sources yourself, or:") and BEFORE; it also implies article ownership by authors/wikiprojects. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support of 1 Everything else seems to be be an attempt make special accommodations simply because this is a well-liked area. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this would clearly create further systemic bias against players who are not in the anglosphere. We've occasionally seen AFDs for decades-old players in foreign countries with dozens of international caps, that result in overwhelming keeps, because there's simply not an availability of foreign language archives to search for supporting references. Besides, why then not delete WP:SNG in it's entirety then? In many cases, if GNG is not met, we can easily wait a few decades or so until it's possible to find the appropriate (or lack of) sources. Meanwhile, as long as WP:BIO is met, the article does no harm. Besides, there's a long consensus at AFD that WP:NSPORTS is ignored when there's an overwhelming lack of sources for athlete when we should be able to find them now, especially if the player is already past their prime. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support if all other subproposals fail. This would be almost gutting NSPORTS. It is not a replacement for GNG, but it is supposed to be and should be, even though it needs improvements, an indicator of potential compliance. The main concern is that this would impact non-Anglophone and non-Internet subjects a bit too harshly. However, if there is no consensus for any other solution, this seems like the only way to enforce the community's guidelines. Dege31 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the comments made by Cbl62 and Giantsnowman (and others). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Lugnuts (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
• Oppose - the guideline is fine as is. Where we already have a consensus that meeting certain criteria will nearly certainly mean that coverage meeting GNG exists (or has existed, in the case of older topics), the onus shoudl be on the nominator to show why the particular topic they want to delete is a likely exception. Rlendog (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose only because I think that applying this only or initially to one SNG is problematic and misplaced in this particular RfC. I would support a proposal extending to all SNGs but that would require a different discussion more widely advertised. ElKevbo (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support GNG is a low bar to get over, and it is necessary that sources exist for WP:V, a key policy, to be met. --Jayron32 13:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. When I was a highly active new page patroller, the fact that sports articles were de facto exempt from our expectation that encyclopedia articles should be able to support a minimum of prose content was a source of confusion and frustration. Specific notable guidelines were always intended to clarify the GNG, not replace it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support One of several possible ways to fix the big mess that this overly lenient SNG has created. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Better than the status quo, but there are tens of thousands of these database entries that need to be cleaned up. AFD does not scale to that task. MER-C 12:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support They should meet the GNG, period. The Oppose votes are entirely unconvincing. Politicians and entertainers routinely have significant coverage in reliable sources, hence why they so easily meet GNG when that is required (and why their SNGs often are a reason for deletion, rather than keeping, as just having reliable source coverage isn't good enough to meet notability in many of those cases). If you can't source your articles properly, they don't belong here. Silverseren^C 04:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What coverage is considered significant?

I've been invited to this discussion via a talkpage notification. The situation, per WP:SNG, is that "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found", so adding that a subject/topic must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged is not changing anything and will not assist clarity at an AFD because there will still remain the question of what sources or coverage is appropriate. The real question for this (as well as all other SNGs) is what sourcing is considered adequate and what coverage is considered significant. Looking though this discussion, I don't get the sense that people are questioning sources, but are questioning significant coverage - ie. is a five minute action less substitution at the end of an already won match which is noted as a fact in sources, but is not covered in detail, significant enough for notability?

I think the real issue with NSport is the question of mentions in sources, particularly database sources. A mention in a database that Smith came on as a substitute indicates the likelihood that a source might have written something significant about Smith's appearance in that game, such as that Smith scored the winning goal, but is perhaps not in itself proof of notability, even if Smith's appearance was mentioned in a leading newspaper. "Smith came on for Jones in the last five minutes" in a newspaper report of a match is evidence that Smith played in the match, but is that mention evidence of notability? "Smith came on for Jones in the last five minutes and galvanised the team into action with his energy and enthusiasm which culminated in Smith scoring the winning goal in the dying seconds. Smith is clearly a promising athlete, and the manager would do well to put him on as a starting player in the next match" would be widely regarded as fairly significant. Perhaps it would be helpful if folks agreed on what would be considered "significant coverage", with a particular focus on the question of is a mention that Smith played in a match significant enough, or should there be some comment on Smith's contribution to the game. SilkTork (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• I feel this is an important question; considering it, I believe significant coverage should be classified as "coverage that contains significant exposition in the sources own voice" which should exclude trivial coverage that we cannot build an article on such as "Smith was signed by Furness", or "Smith played against Kendal and scored a goal". BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Although perhaps a tighter criteria would be more appropriate; Schazjmd recently commented at a WP:N discussion that coverage of politicians during their campaigns is routine, and it seems logically that this would apply to coverage of cricket players playing cricket, ice hockey players playing ice hockey etc. As such, the alternative that I am starting to believe is appropriate would be "significant coverage outside of their sporting endeavours"; for example, if an article went into depth on Smith's childhood, or Smith's charitable endeavours, then that would count, but coverage of Smith playing well against Furness wouldn't.

I am not convinced that this alternative is superior, but I think it is worth considering, and the fact that it has precedent in NPOL suggests that it might work. BilledMammal (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No. The NPOL restriction only applies to pols' campaign for office and not their service in office. Using the same NPOL setting, your proposal is equivalent to saying there must be "significant coverage outside of their political endeavors". Or amending NACADEMIC to provide that there must "significant coverage outside of their academic endeavors". Notabiity should be determined based on the depth of coverage of an individual in their core area of endeavors and not solely based on whether they pursue some side endeavors relating to charity or visiting sick kids in the hospital or anecdotes about their childhood. Cbl62 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• There are some aspects that I believe all agree on. In particular, the following in the context of sports bios do not constitute SIGCOV: (1) mere database entries as are found in Sports Reference LLC web sites; (2) short transactional announcements that a player signed, was released, or placed on the injured list; (3) passing references in game coverage; (4) listings in a box score; (5) death notices submitted by the player's family after their death (as distinguished from obituaries published with independent editorial oversight); and (6) content issued by non-independent sources such as the player himself, the team he plays for, or the league he plays in. Beyond that, the issues to be decided are whether the coverage is sufficiently deep and whether the sources are independent and reliable. As with GNG generally, the debate typically centers on how deep is deep enough (four sentences? three paragraphs? 200 words?) and there is no clear guidance, leaving it to the judgment of all of us to weigh (and argue about) how much is enough. Cbl62 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

To answer your specific question, a mere mention that Smith played in a match would fall into the category of a "passing mention" and clearly does not constitute SIGCOV IMO. There needs to be some real depth or substance. Cbl62 (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• The other angle to this is of course, how far down the reliable-sources well to go. USA Today is deemed to be an acceptable source generally generally, but are we as impressed by anything they happen to put on their web-based sports coverage? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"Smith came on for Jones in the last five minutes and galvanised the team into action with his energy and enthusiasm which culminated in Smith scoring the winning goal in the dying seconds. Smith is clearly a promising athlete, and the manager would do well to put him on as a starting player in the next match" I would say that does not constitute SIGCOV, as it is not in-depth and, at only 2 sentences, far from significant. I would also argue it does not provide anything encyclopedic that we could add to a biography, other than perhaps "his performance in [game] was described as [...] in [newspaper]", which brings to question how DUE it is. At best it would contribute to BASIC, but I would be hard-pressed to give it even that unless we want articles on me and a large number of other people based off their performance in high school 2A regional tennis matches. JoelleJay (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point, but I'm not sure how we would address it - one solution may be to require non-local coverage to establish notability, as I suspect if such coverage is in non-local media it is both more likely to be WP:DUE, and it is likely that broader coverage will exist elsewhere. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry Joelle, but we have WP:NHSPHSATH, so you don't get an article based on your high school tennis matches, impressive though they may have been. Cbl62 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind basing a guideline that would apply to all athletes on that; it seems like a strong starting point. BilledMammal (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a guideline that is tailored to the unique circumstances of under-18 athletes. No f-ing way it should be applied more broadly. Fight to the death on that one. No other group of human adults is subject to such a requirement. Cbl62 (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Guess I'll just have to rely on scientific citations demonstrating GNG, then! One 9th-year grad student in my lab definitely already meets GNG if 2-3-sentences describing results of his first-author paper as "nice" and "interesting" in unaffiliated researchers' articles is indeed considered significant!

More to the point, if my mediocre high school tennis career excludes me because ~3 sentences talking favorably of my performance fails being "clearly beyond ROUTINE coverage", and ROUTINE is defined elsewhere separately, then it's the amount and depth of coverage rather than my being a high schooler at the time that makes the coverage ROUTINE. Therefore, ~3 sentences talking favorably of any athlete's performance would be considered ROUTINE. And if that's the case, then those local sources would also fail SPORTCRIT...which was kinda the point I was making with my first comment. :) JoelleJay (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least two out of three would be a bar to your high school tennis career. Depth of coverage is, of course, required. And even if there is depth, WP:NHSPHSATH has to be satisfied with a high school athlete. But WP:ROUTINE is a guideline for events not biographies. Cbl62 (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If ROUTINE is to be interpreted exclusively in the context of events, then what purpose does it serve being linked in relation to biographies in NSPORT? The wording is very intentional, so it must convey something, and I think if recognizing coverage as being "routine" is a necessity when evaluating HS athletes it certainly shouldn't be ignored. And I agree that depth of coverage is required -- which I'm arguing would exclude the example given by SilkTork and the vast majority of anything fewer than 5-8 disconnected sentences published in a newspaper. In my (and apparently Levivich's) opinion we shouldn't even be writing biographies on anyone who hasn't had a substantive profile written on them in IRS, but I recognize this stance is well in the minority. JoelleJay (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

When I was a new page patroller, I considered at least a short paragraph that was tightly focused on the subject to be significant. From what I could see of others, that was fairly normative. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose would essentially make SNGs useless, which is essentially just the first proposal.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As addended, it means articles get at least month's "grace" after being tagged for notability to demonstrate it -- as NSPORT already explicitly says they "should" do. Isn't that a useful distinction from the "outright abolish" original proposal? If not, how long would seem more appropriate? Indefinitely? Presume notability forever, but never actually get there? (BTW, you might wish to place this !vote above the previous section marker for clarity.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support SNGs that allow for one line bios of footballers from the 1800s who plaid a single game are broken --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support- SNGs that encourage editors to create hundreds or thousands of single-liner articles based on match scorecards and dressing them up as biographies, are broken. Reyk _YO! 21:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support All athlete biographies already have to demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - sorry if I've missed something but what proposal are you actually all !voting on in this particular section? @Dlthewave, Spy-cicle, Guerillero, and Reyk: GiantSnowman 21:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I presume Subproposal 1, but agree these should be moved for clarity. Thanks for the pings. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for catching that. I was going for subproposal #1, under the mistaken assumption that clicking Edit and scrolling to the bottom of the section would put me at the right spot. –dlthewave ☎ 03:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Possibly my bad on that in the first instance, due to the level five (5!) subheader for the related discussion. I've added another in the hope that's of nav help. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This just feels like a way to defang SNGs without explicitly getting rid of them. One-line "keep per SNG" !votes on subjects with no sources beyond a database are poor arguments, but closers can (and probably should) already ignore those. Where SNGs help is when a subject's sourcing is more borderline; the SNGs can be a good guideline as to whether more sources are likely to be available or not, even if it's not clear whether the known sources quite meet GNG or not. This proposal would prevent editors from using that argument even when it makes perfect sense to do so. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that pings work for we humble, humbler, humblest IP editors, but @Alvaldi:, @TheCatalyst31:, you should possibly move these comments to make clear to which proposal they apply to -- I assume SP1. I agree that closers should ignore such "!votes", and obviously that people shouldn't make them in first place. But they do, and then are outraged by if they're not counted, and then traipse off to DRV, where rinse and repeat. And they may even be technically correct in doing so: closing instructions expressly say to follow policies, but that doesn't expressly cover "only guidelines". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Pings do still work for you, and at this point there are enough unrelated comments about SP1 below the long diversion about significant coverage that they should either be moved en masse or just kept here IMO. I'll leave mine here for now, but if anyone feels like reuniting all the !votes feel free to move mine with them. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. GNG is the problem, not the solution. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

So having articles which cannot be based on multiple independent, reliable sources is, somehow, not a problem (nevermind the fact that articles which cannot satisfy these basic requirements are very unlikely to have anything of encyclopedic value, or to meet the more fundamental WP:V and WP:NOR policies)? @No Great Shaker: Do you want to write an encyclopedia or a sports database? Having at least some proper sources makes the former possible. Having none consigns the article to be a [verbose] database entry. And Wikipedia is not a database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, your proposal is nonsense because you have completely missed the point that it is GNG that causes nearly all notability issues. Read what I said above about 5P, RS and SNG as the common sense approach to notability. All this guff about proper sources and database entries shows that you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and you are ignorant of the one does exist. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

So which one is posing more problems? The one that seemingly is used to permit the existence of many, many, way too many perma-database-created stubs with no realistic hope of expansion; or the one that actually requires people to look for WP:RS, to make sure that what they are writing is an encyclopedia and not a database or a sports magazine, and to make sure that the content is not their original research through archival documents but actually published in reliable sources previously? Yeah, the problem is the SNGs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I know I'm wasting my time responding to your bluster but, even so, I'll summarise something I wrote in another place. If the likes of you would stop and think about why there are recurring problems with sports articles at AFD (i.e., the cause rather than the effect), it might just occur to you that there is a fundamental issue at WP:N under the section heading of General notability guideline. The so-called GNG is not a policy; it is an out-dated guideline only and it is deeply flawed. The best thing that could happen on WP would be its removal. The sensible way to judge notability is by an article's compliance with WP:5P, provision of suitable WP:RS and meeting the standards for inclusion set by the relevant SNG(s). WP:NOT, one of the 5P, begins with WP:NOTPAPER and that says: "Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content." The stubs you have linked above all meet WP:PSA because they comply with 5P and cite RS. They also pass their respective SNG standards so there is no problem with them and, in due course, someone will hopefully find some additional material, probably in a book as the three people were active before the internet. Your proposal, in fact, smacks very heavily of WP:RECENTISM. Oh, and please refrain from using tiresome and tedious expressions like "perma-database-created stubs" which are just too stupid for words. I suggest that you stop trying to make WP:POINTs and, per WP:HERE, create some articles, enhance some articles and expand some articles. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOT also includes (as its very next point, so hard to understand how it's been missed) WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The stubs don't meet WP:5P, as they are not encyclopedic content: they provide no useful summary of information besides a few trivial factoids (name, nationality, sport, ...) which would go in (and are, indeed, sourced to) a database. "Someone will hopefully find some additional material" - well, that's at best wishful thinking (as routine coverage of sports to the level we know it today is a rather recent phenomenon; and way back when the Olympics were actually [by regulation] mostly amateurs and not paid professionals); and the someone who should have bothered to "find additional material" is the one who created the article in the first place (again, if someone creates an article on almost any other topic but sports, and can't be bothered to provide adequate sources, then it is very likely to swiftly get passed on to AfD - the fact is, that NSPORTS, as used in practice by too many editors, who misuse it, willfully or not, acts as a de facto exemption, when it really shouldn't). Your view is very much at odds with not just mine but plenty of other people's too, and the rest of your argument looks like dubious accusations and some ad lapidem dismissals. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support in spirit but oppose procedural instruction creep (particularly no. 4): It already de-facto is the case (as affirmed by recent AfDs and DRVs) that articles which are challenged at AfD need to demonstrate they meet the actual criteria for inclusion (and NSPORTS is not in and of itself a criteria for inclusion, merely a rule of thumb, an indication that it might meet the actual one). There's no need to assume that editors are incompetent and can't assess whether an article seems to fail any inclusion criteria. The last point seems like just a poor concession which won't in practice solve any problems: adding bureaucratic red tape is unlikely to actually treat the root of the problem, it might merely attempt (with no guarantee of success) to deal with its symptoms. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• This problem exists beyond football. Sylvain Marcaillou is an article on a person sourced only to a database, who is not a footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Per Sandstein and BrownHairedGirl - Make it clearer for folks I guess. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Seems sensible, even obvious. So long as "very new" does not grow too long; it seems a month is the threshold[?] Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:N is the over-arching guideline, and itself requires that a subject meet either GNG or an appropriate SNG. Allowing articles to be written under an SNG, but then requiring GNG at any deletion discussion simply obviates the SNG. If this subproposal passes, then it should be applied to all SNGs, not just NSPORTS, but that is another discussion for another day. Please note that I make that last statement not out of WP:Sour grapes, but out of a belief that consistency should be required across the project. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes...and the appropriate SNG is NSPORT, not NFOOTY or NCRIC or any other sport-specific subguideline. Meeting NSPORT means the subject is presumed to have received GNG-level coverage based on the predictive value of a sport-specific subguideline criterion; what NSPORT uniquely allows is for an article on that subject to exist in mainspace initially sourced only to an RS that verifies meeting that criterion. Other articles would be targeted for deletion by patrolling editors or be candidates for speedy deletion or be rejected by AfC if they didn't include multiple pieces of RS SIGCOV. A subject verified as meeting NFOOTY etc. can escape these outcomes because other editors know the sport-specific criteria are directly calibrated to predict GNG coverage in 95% of cases. However, NSPORT does still require this coverage ultimately be referenced in the article rather than remain presumptive: eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. Subproposal 1 is merely asking for this "eventual" confirmation of notability to occur at AfD after the nominator has done a thorough BEFORE and not found SIGCOV, rather than letting a subject sit around as a microstub for another 10 years waiting for some local sports historian to add archival newspaper coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support point #1 only, this is, as pointed out, already required anyway, and that was reiterated by the 2017 RfC. As for "1 week is too short at AfD", the time to find an appropriate amount of reference material to demonstrate notability is before an article to mainspace or starting one there (and that is really what the "WP:BEFORE" shortcut should read: Before you start an article in mainspace, have your sources in your hand, not your hand ready to wave.) If someone thinks a subject is promising, but hasn't yet found sufficient sourcing, they can always start a draft to keep track of what they have, and move that to mainspace if and when notability has actually been demonstrated. If not, the draft just gets abandoned, no one's time gets wasted arguing over it, no harm done. And if someone needs a month, or a year, or whatever have you, during that period, no one will mind. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Every other biography article must so why not. It is an absolute requirement. scope_creep^Talk 12:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 2 (NSPORT)

PROPOSAL FAILED
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing statement: This is unlikely to achieve consensus, so closing per WP:SNOW to focus discussion on the remaining proposals. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Change NSPORT so that game becomes season in organized sports and nutshell explicitly state articles can not use database, personal, or team pages as basis of creation. Diffs of suggested changes (from a copy of NSPORT, others are welcome to use my sandbox or move to a more generally available area): nutshell, American Football, Association Football WP:GNG covers the exceptional, but brief careers.Slywriter (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC) For American football, what does, "have regularly appeared in at least one game" mean? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure what this proposal means. Does it mean that an NFL player would have to play in every game in a 17-game season? That a baseball player would have to play in every game in a 162-game season? In the majority of games in a season? This is quite vague. I would support a proposal doubling all "one game" provisos to "two games" or even "three games". However, and in fairness, I should note that I made such a proposal with respect to NGRIDIRON last year, and it was rejected. A similar proposal was also overwhelmingly rejected with respect with respect to NFOOTBALL. Also, I believe that such detailed proposals to tweak NSPORTS are more appropriately presented at NSPORTS (and not here as a subproposal). Cbl62 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Don't entirely disagree on placement, though not sure a fragmented conversation is to the benefit of wikipedia which is why its here. On the substance the SNG should be a high and obvious bar since the idea is "high likelihood of survival" at AfD if these conditions are met. Season may be excessive but its also a clear barometer that eliminates those who sat on the bench for a few games without meaningful participation.Slywriter (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Every game of a season would be clearly excessive. A majority of games would be exacting, but not wildly unreasonable. Maybe some sort of 'significant proportion' sort of standard? Two or three games of the English County Championship or of the NFL is quite a lot, but two or three out of top-level soccer season, not so much. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC) See comment above for more but I'd support any standard above "wore a uniform on the bench" and the closer to likelihood of a lasting and impactful career the better. SNG should be an obvious bar, GNG handles the rest.Slywriter (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC) The current rules require actual participation in a game. Just sitting on the bench without actual playing does not suffice. A better improvement is to raise the minimum number of games played. See Subproposal 4 below. Cbl62 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC) That certainly seems to be the case for NGRIDIRON, NCRICKET, etc, I'm not sure if NFOOTY applies a 'kit on the bench' standard. But it must be said that we have a number of present-day bios that don't even meet the "dressed to play on the sideline" threshold. So we have those articles on the alleged grounds they meet GNG. Such is the sport-website excitability about their career prospects. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose - proposal makes no sense and ill thought out. GiantSnowman 16:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Support as second choice, if #5 fails. I'd be receptive to a modification of this in addition to #5, with the proviso there's tightening up of the language of what "a season" means. (All? A majority? A high proportion? How is that assessed for sports with multiple distinct competitions in a year?) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. Subproposal 2 changes "game" to "season". As IP109 said above, "every game of a season would be clearly excessive." If this subproposal means something other than a full season, it is vague which invites more arguments. Cbl62 (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Strong Oppose What constitutes a "season"> Do they have to play every game of a season? That's clearly excessive and players could play for 15-20 years and never play every single game of a season, particularly in a sport like baseball where it is common to give players routine days off. Maybe it makes sense in some sports like auto racing, I don't know, but doing this as a blanket change makes no sense. Smartyllama (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. Too vague. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. Unworkable. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose Too vague and really doesn't fix the current problem. Alvaldi (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose because it doesn't make any sense. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 3 (NSPORT)

Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria give (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left.

The fundamental problem with NSPORT is the idea that participating in 1 or more games means the person is notable, but there's nothing about this criteria that assures more sources will come. On the other hand, holding a record, winning an individual championship, or awarded a well-recognized award, are things that are generally assured that more coverage about the person will come in time. Otherwise, we'd just expect individuals to meet the GNG to have an article. There should also be some type of grandfathering so that if passed, there is not a sudden rush for AFD. --Masem (t) 21:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - What you see as a fundamental problem many others see as a way to have easy to follow rules to stop edit warring and let new editors have something to follow. When new editors can be pointed to a set of criteria where 99% of participants meet GNG, they are much more likely to understand and create good articles rather than being pointed to GNG. It may not be perfect and some always slip through the cracks, but overall it works well and keeps arguing down to a minimum. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a claim that 99% of those people may meet the GNG but the way NSPORT is set up, editors don't have to do any work to show conformance towards the GNG or the key content policies like V and NOT. (Keep in mind a key NOT tenet is that we're not a Who's Who, which these "participation" criteria work against that. That doesn't mean less-than-star-players can't get articles with this due to no more participation, just that they should be based on what makes them notable. --Masem (t) 21:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • And that's the fundamental reason we disagree on this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I find this the most promising proposal so far. Two things it has going for: it's an actual compromise, which should be attractive to those who hope for the proposal to influence where we strike the balance in AfDs rather than being a wording that can be appealed to when looking for guidelines to bludgeon the opposition with, and it's directed at reworking the SNG to use criteria that are connected to those in non-sports guidelines. I'm not sure I support it yet, but it's along the right lines. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This really isn't a compromise at all. I support increasing the number of games required to support a presumption but, as drafted, this is just a disguised and wholesale (or near wholesale) repeal of WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NFOOTY, WP:NAFL, WP:NBASEBALL, WP:NBASKETBALL, WP:NCRICKET, and WP:NHOCKEY. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • And if you look at the issues presented above, that's almost what is needed, because it basically is leading to documenting every player in these sports, which begs the question of WP:NOT/IINFO and notability to that. No way every professional player in a sport is notable to the degree of an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 02:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support This is actual a root problem where NSPORTS has for years ignored one of Wikipedia’s core principles. Our content needs to be based on significant, not routine coverage.Tvx1 15:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose we should be tightening these criteria rather than completely removing them. For example WP:NFOOTY gives notability to everyone who's ever played in a fully professional league, which is excessive. But there definitely are football leagues where every player who participates is almost certainly notable, and a criterion which listed those would be perfectly fine. Hut 8.5 15:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. "Participation" is routine, and so is far too low a bar to signifying notability. BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree we perhaps can and should tighten criteria, not remove them completely. GiantSnowman 16:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  By removing this one, we would actually tighten the set.Tvx1 17:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  You voted to oppose tightening the criteria less than a minute after writing this. --RaiderAspect (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support, this is the most problematic bit about the sports SNGs. Given that "participation" doesn't even guarantee we know things like a player's name (recall List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names), it is not a suitable metric for deciding on having standalone articles. —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support with the modification that instead of removing the participation criteria, we reword them to say something like "Received significant coverage of their participation in 1 or more games in a fully professional league" --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose That is the most important aspect of NSPORTS. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's the part it's the most important to fix, assuredly. "Got paid one time to sport" is not even encyclopedia-adjacent. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm not philosophically opposed to the notion. I'm quite opposed to it uncoupled from any notion as to what's to replace it, or without it being imposed on other guidelines such as PROF. Ravenswing 19:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Why does it need a replacement? If there's no applicable SNG, then GNG is the standard -- and supposedly GNG "should" apply anyway, from the very text of NSPORT itself. I'm not 'philosophically' opposed to achievement-based presumptions of notability, just so long as a) it's clear how presumption differs from entailment, b) the "achievement" isn't utterly minimal mere participation, and c) it's actually a good predictor of notability, as opposed to a presumer by fiat. PROF stands up a lot better on those. If it simply said "the average academic is hereby presumed notable", rather than the reverse, I'd see the comparison. Actually a closer comparison would be if it said "if someone spends one day being paid to teach in higher education, article!" 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It is quite obvious that a lot of people -- judging from XfD discussions -- don't act as if the GNG's the default notability criterion, and certainly doesn't feel as if it supersedes a number of extant criteria such as PROF and GEOLAND. I put as much faith in your blithe inference that the average Wikipedian agrees with you as in your 'closer comparison' that suggests that your average academic gets as much as a hundredth the significant coverage as your average athlete. Ravenswing 03:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

      The type of SIGCOV garnered by academics isn't really comparable to that of athletes, and not usually nearly as widespread, but profs do get SIGCOV in the same way one could say a detailed right-up of a footballer's performance in a game would be (argued to be) SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • @Ravenswing: Do we need something to replace it? If this is implemented, the controlling guideline will be WP:GNG, and from there new, more conservative, guidelines can be added to WP:NSPORT if there is a consensus to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Object to grandfathering. Either a topic is notable or it isn't. I don't think it's a good idea for us to say that it's notable if it was created before a certain date but not if it wasn't. Given that we are moving in the direction of lessening systemic bias over time, this would also have the effect of calcifying our biases, which we should avoid. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I concur that "grandfathering" has an air of permanence about it that's unfortunate. "Temporary pragmatic stay" might be a better way of looking at essentially the same idea, i.e. of avoiding a "sudden rush for AFD", and indeed allowing a decent interval of time for the improvable articles to be properly sourced. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I meant by grandfathering in that existing articles would be subject to this but after some sunsettinf period to give editors fair time to try to improve. Not that old articles would be protected. --Masem (t) 23:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Noting that I interpreted it as meaning a sunset clause, and my !vote is based on that. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Sdkb: Given the clarification that grandfathering meant a sunset period, would you be willing to support this proposal? BilledMammal (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

    With that clarification, you can consider me a warm neutral on this. I forget exactly how I viewed this proposal compared to some of the others here and I don't have the time to review them all again, but I certainly feel that NSPORTS needs reform and I'll be happy to see any change that moves us away from the status quo with community consensus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as next-to-last resort if all the other sub-proposals are rejected. Gets rid of the most obviously flawed elements, but is likely to cause a period of chassis as people flounder around without it, and reconstructing the same flawed edifice via 'GNG'-themed arguments. Case-by-case adjustments would be preferable, but rather get rid of them and progressively reinstate better alternatives than do nothing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support- as I mentioned above, a guideline that encourages editors to scrape match scorecards and inflate one or two statistics into the ghastly semblance of a biography is broken. A guideline like this is only useful if some high percentage, say 80 or 90% but let's not quibble about the exact figure, of the affected articles meet the GNG on their own merits. However, experience has shown that it's more like 80 or 90% the other way. Reyk _YO! 00:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Cbl. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless we're going to replace it with something else, which this proposal suggests we should do but doesn't actually propose anything in place of it. As with many of the other proposals, this one can potentially be discussed as to how to best implement it for each subguideline, but this is not the way to do it. Smartyllama (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Basic participation criteria have proven awful as an indicator of notability with respect to GNG, so let's get rid of them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - per Wjemather, exactly. Participation isn't a reliable-enough predictor of notability; merit-based is better. Levivich 01:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a step in the right direction, with the clarification given later by Masem on what is meant by "grandfathering". This is in no way going to fix all the problems in NSPORT, but it is a reasonable step should the more drastic proposals fail. JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Wjemather. It's clearly the main issue and, as such, this is the obvious solution. Nigej (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. As the second-best option to removing NSPORTS altogether, this would help prevent the creation of articles without substantial or verifiable content. Sandstein 20:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support GNG is already enough for determining notability. Criteria based on participation and not coverage leads to thousands of non-notable stubs with no potential for expansion. As per above, it's the second best course of action after getting rid of NSPORTS altogether. Avilich (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Winning matters. Just participation is trivia and resume-stuff. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Coverage matters. These criteria are challenged so very, very frequently because they don't actually do a good enough job at predicting which subjects will have significant coverage. What few other SNGs we have that assert notability in the absence of readily available independent significant coverage have a reason for that (e.g. NPROF). I'm yet to see a good reason articulated for sportspeople to be given a pass (or to have a bar lower than the GNG). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose How about the subjects just show that they pass GNG from the get go? Alvaldi (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Alvaldi: While I agree with you in principle, this proposal would bring us closer to that ideal, not push us further away from it; I think it might be worth reconsidering your !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support mere participation in a a game is definitely not notable, and should not ever be the basis for creating or keeping an article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, although I have some empathy with this proposal as participation can allow what I might call the guest player in the form of some local bigwig or whatever to be given an article. As was mentioned earlier, some tightening of SNG criteria is needed but I stand by my contention that the real problem is GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support – As others have noted, mere participation absent an award, record, or championship should not be the basis for assuming significant coverage exists or will exist. We need more than a simple stat to justify article creation and retention. NSPORT should be a quick way to gauge GNG, not circumvent it with indiscriminate criteria. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support and Go further - Why are we excluding the olympics? Is the idea that every single olympic athlete is notable? That seems nuts. There are thousands of them every year. NickCT (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  @NickCT: Olympics is probably excluded here because mere participation does not grant presumed notability in WP:NOLYMPICS as of last October. Yosemiter (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Yosemiter: - Ah good point. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  @NickCT and Yosemiter: Olympic participation still remains in specific sport(s) e.g. WP:NTRACK.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - without clear guidelines on when articles should exist, we'll see even more creations, and discussions about deletion. We need some kind of clear line, to guide discussions, which reflects existing precedent. Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Bright lines can be helpful to editors. I do want all guidelines to carefully individually reassess which sports, which year, and which leagues nearly all participants would meet GNG. This may take the same effort as the community undertook to rework WP:NOLYMPICS. --Enos733 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose not that I would be inclined to support it anyway, but this proposal is not ready for primetime. No replacement has been provided and the 'grandfather clause' has not actually been defined. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There are absolutely leagues where everyone who makes it meets GNG. I am very confident that everyone who has ever played in the NBA or the Premier League are notable by Wikipedia standards, for example. The problem with NSPORTS is that the leagues covered don’t all actually meet that standard. That is something that should be fixed at the individual NSPORT guidelines. Rikster2 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Coming from a project with perhaps one of the strictest inclusion criteria going, this proposal makes zero sense. StickyWicket (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Only participating in a few games doesn't make one notable. Clog Wolf _Howl 15:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Except when it does... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

BeanieFan11: ...and those exceptions are rare. For every 100+ players that make a brief appearance at the professional level, there might be 1 that receives significant coverage. And Rudy's story is a special example that might be 1 in a million. The point getting missed is that the criteria is flawed when it's only right a small percentage of the time. We are erring on the side of not leaving someone out instead of erring on the side of not allowing junk in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Using the one start/appearance is literally a starting point to establishing the basic inclusion criteria for a given individual. The real solution is to take each individual sports' guideline and seek to improve them, if needed, similar to what was done with the Olympics. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The inclusion criteria are supposed to reflect the level at which articles are likely to meet GNG at least 90% of the time. They have consistently been shown to not meet this. The current Olympics guidelines are an example of writing guidelines without considering what they actually would mean. They were created while ignoring we have dozens if not hundreds of articles on medalists without any sigcov on them. They were also created whle ignoring the fact that in the early Olympics there were some competitions that involved 3 or fewer competitors, so that all who competed won medals. They were also written without considering the question does being part of a team that wins a medal make every team member notable, or should we only consider that to make the team notable. Also the fact that since then it has been a hard fight to actually enforce the new rules, and this editor specifically has tried every trick to stop it, including falsely accusing people of acting as proxies for other people because they had any conversation on the matter at all, I think the Olympics guidelines are not a good example of anything. They were clearly not written with actually being able to pass GNG in mind, and people are still ignoring that any article to be kept needs to still pass GNG. On the whole Olympics is not an example of improving guidelines so that they actually reflect likelihood to pass GNG, since there are still a lot of people who won medals at the Olympics who have never recieved significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - This does not address any real issue. If participation in one game in a particular sport at a particular level is not likely to result in significant reliable sources, then the guideline should be changed accordingly. If participation in one game in a particular sport at a particular level is likely to result in significant reliable sources, then the guideline is fine as is. Rlendog (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Some leagues are so elite such that a player that has appeared in one game in that league has is 95% likely to have received sufficient significant coverage from their achievements that earned them entry to the league and from any coverage surrounding their first game itself. If some specific sports have leagues that dont garner that level of coverage, those specific leagues should be removed, or that sport might even need to be delisted. This is no different than an SNG like WP:NPOLITICIAN, in which a person earning positions at certain levels of governement is presumed to have received significant coverage already.—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Then why start with game participation? If entry is enough, then simply include ALL professional players. The criteria is still flawed from that perspective, and an argument can be made that with the vast numbers that make it into these leagues each year, Wikipedia doesn't need an article on each one. Sure, they may have a quick blip on the radar in localized news coverage at the collegiate level, but if it never goes any further, then that "blip" is not necessarily worthy of encyclopedic coverage in a standalone article. They can instead be mentioned within an article or list covering a broader subject. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If entry is enough, then simply include ALL professional players: No, because not all professional leagues receive the same amount of coverage; that's the mistake that some specific sport SNGs currrently make.—Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"not all professional leagues receive the same amount of coverage" I think you were arguing that significant coverage exists upon making the roster in some sports, and for those sports, I was asking why start with game participation then? Seems arbitrarily set based on your argument, which actually reinforces my support for this proposal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I was referring to specific leagues of a sport. I don't assume coverage is necessarily universal for all league of a sport, or even between "top-level" leagues in different countries.—Bagumba (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• • the attempt to claim that participating in one game is the same as being a government official who has power to create laws is just plain ludicrous. I might see this if we granted members of constitutional conventions, that meet only to create a constitution, especially at the sub-national level, default notability. However we do not grant members of such conventions default notability. Nor do we grant winners of primary elections default notability. Default notability is limited to elected members of bodies that have power to create laws. The one game rule is just plain ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support. We are writing an encyclopedia. I am unsure that support "outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events" and I certainly don't support "grandfathering". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Partial oppose. The exception for olympic athletes needs to be eliminated. Why should we have unreferencable articles about olympic athletes allowed to persist? Makes no sense... --Jayron32 13:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Jayron, see Yosemiter's comment above about the wording of WP:NOLYMPICS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 and Jayron32: Olympic participation still remains in specific sport(s) e.g. WP:NTRACK.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: While I agree, I believe it is too late in the discussion for the proposal to be altered to address that - as such, would you be willing to support the proposal as an improvement over the current situation? I would note that I plan to list a proposal removing Olympic participation from all sports once this discussion is over, although given the recent nomination of subproposal #10 I am tempted to do it now. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Tvx1 and oppose grandfathering. I have found in my work as a new page patroller is that participation in a professional game often is not an indicator of the existence of significant coverage. It is wrong for our guidelines to imply otherwise. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support This goes right to the core of the main problem. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Tvx1. Articles need to have more than just routine coverage of people just doing their job. MER-C 19:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support iff subproposal #4 to increase the minimum participation requirement fails. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Additional comment for the closer: It is my opinion that subproposals 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive – either the minimum participation requirement is increased or it is eliminated barring the absolute highest level of competition. I pity the closing admin should both technically succeed and they must choose one or the other. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, the SNG inclusion criteria serve a valuable function in making resolutions more straightforward; it would be preferable to tighten the criteria than dispense with them. Aspirex (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose if some SNGs are broken, fix them. But don't throw them all away, other subproposals are way more sensible than this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Reluctant support, iff it is made clear that at the end of the day, passing the GNG is still required. This would at least tighten the guideline, but must not be considered to rescind or alter that requirement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Notability is not a participation award. See WP:1E for how people notable for one or few events (which I would consider less than a season as being) are handled elsewhere in wikipedia. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current system works. Carrite (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support The current doesn't work. By far the majority of article that are on the NPP are sports articles of the most dubious type. There is so many that can't get a handle of them. Never ending and the majority are non-notable. This will help clarify what is notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support – Wikipedia should not be in the business of granting participation awards to every person who ever played a game. There are probably specialized wikis for every sport on Fandom. — JFG ^talk 07:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 4

Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in "one" game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to "three" games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in. This is an actual and realistic compromise and one that provides a far greater likelihood that NSPORTS is tightly calibrated to GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Cbl62 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - It would definitely be an improvement, although a very small one, and I support a much higher threshold, like, "inducted to the Hall of Fame" should be the threshold for when an athlete has a biography in a general encyclopedia. Other thresholds, better than what we have now, would be "starter" or "played in a majority of games in a season" or at least "played in a reasonable number of games in a season", but, hey, three games is better than one :-) Levivich 23:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose but something has to be changed. Both "one" and "three" are, in my opinion, arbitrary numbers. What we need is tightening the tournaments and leagues, so that participating in them actually aligns with WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, NFOOTY for example uses all professional leagues. A profilic professional player, at any level is probably notable. The issue is the bit part players. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

By tripling the threshold, we at least eliminate the itty-bitty bit players. Cbl62 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A prolific one yes. But a player who just comes in as a substitute for a couple of minutes in injury time and never plays again? I don’t think so. Yet NFOOTY says such a player is notable.Tvx1 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually NFOOTY says the entire subs bench became presumptively notable as soon as they were named to it, regarded of whether they were used significantly, tokenly, or not at all. And football generally had rather limited substitution, so mostly they won't be used. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to necro this, but NFOOTY does require actual participation in the match, not just being named as a substitute. I have also !voted to delete in a number of AfDs for players who met NFOOTY due to having played a few matches in a WP:FPL but ended up not having long careers. Contrary to what appears to be the case in NFOOTY, we are more than prepared to delete articles for players who end up being non-notable in the long run. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I know most about cue sports, so the 128 professional snooker players are usually suggested to be notable, as they have to win, or place highly in specific national or international tournaments to compete. I've always found this to be suitable, as it's unlikely that any of these players wouldn't meet GNG. However, if it was just competing at a professional event, we would have hundreds of articles on invited wildcard amateur players who are decent players, but not going to have much in the way of significant coverage. Award and competitive rationale is fine... But only if the sport is individual. Team based games, which are the ones being talked about here, are much harder to give a decent rationale for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The proposal would not impact cuesports which has no "one game/match" proviso. It would simply raise the bar by two notches for those sports that already have a "one/game match" proviso. Cbl62 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support As incremental improvement.Slywriter (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment A punt on the fact that a few sport SNGs list too many crap leagues with no evidence of presumed notability, that probably don't even merit a 3-game threshold, let alone 1.—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree completely about "too many crap leagues" but this is a start. Cbl62 (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, well if you're going to make it three you might as well make it four, just to get rid of all of those nn three-gamers. And then you might as well change it to five ... might as well make it 59, because there might be an nn 58-gamer... Completely arbitrary number, in my opinion. This should be discussed sport by sport, not all at once, for 3 games is a much bigger part of an NFL season (17 games, previously 16 prior to 2021, ten prior to the 1960s, even less before that) than it is for, e.g. NBA, MLB. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree this in crude in that respect. "Majority of a 'season'" (or a quarter, or a "significant proportion" or something on those lines) would be more transferable, albeit sounding even more tortuously arbitrary. Maybe less so if instantiated per-sport on similar ones. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support No more arbitrary than the existing standard, and will curb some of the worst abuses. --RaiderAspect (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why three? The reason it is set at one is that is an easy simple standard.. any other number is just something arbitrary. Spanneraol (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Very easy standard. Hence, along with scant regard to the additional GNG requirement, half our bios being sportsbeings. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose in addition to being arbitrary, it doesn't reflect the difference in game counts in a given sport (eg baseball players have 100+ potential games w/in a season while gridiron football has only 18). --Masem (t) 02:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per RaiderAspect. BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as per arguments in above sections. This is a cure in search of a problem. This cuts down on so many minor squabbles and helps new editors with structure. This would hurt so many women in sports articles. It goes on and on as why this is a bad idea. The few that slip through the cracks get brought to a WikiProject's attention and if they don't pass GNG they get eliminated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't follow the logic here. Topics not passing GNG get eliminated, but it would hurt "so many women" if slightly more articles more explicitly had to GNG without a participation-based threshold? Why? Indeed, how? And why would a slightly higher participation-based threshold hurt those in particular? What's the pressing need to presume notability of people who've played two pro games ever... of any gender? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You need to realize that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.Tvx1 15:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is simply an attempt to relitigate Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#RfC_on_WP:NFOOTY_criteria_being_changed (Football is the most popular sport and is presumably the target of this proposal), which failed for many of the reasons given by Oppose !voters above. Iffy★Chat -- 11:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - why three? Why not 5 or 10 or 20 etc? The point of the current '1' is that going from 0 apps to 1 app is the kind if event that means something and will result in significant coverage to meet GNG. That 'jump' is not the same at 2/3/4/5 etc. GiantSnowman 16:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Why 3? (1) Because it's a reasonable compromise. (2) One and two games are a minimal level of participation. (3) We are serious about building an encyclopedia. (4) If we don't demonstrate as sports editors that we take notability seriously (and that we are able to agree even to a minimal compromise), then we face changes that are a whole lot worse than a three-game threshold. See my "plea for reconsideration" below. Cbl62 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Plea for reconsideration by oppose and sports voters. @Lee Vilenski: @BeanieFan11: @Spanneraol: @Masem: @Fyunck(click): @Iffy: @GiantSnowman: @Bagumba: I am a sport editor, and I love building Wikipedia's quality coverage of sports. Coming from that perspective, I ask my fellow sport editors to think about what is at stake here. We all know that there is a growing antipathy to sub-stubs on marginally notable and non-notable athletes -- driven in large part by mass creation of sub-stubs sourced only to databases. This antipathy has led to drastic proposals that would gut NSPORTS and undermine the project's core mission. My subproposal 4 represents a small compromise on our part -- it simply eliminates the presumption of notability for one- and two-game players (in baseball, American football, association football, basketball, and every other sport). If a one- or two-game athlete has SIGCOV, they can still have an article under GNG. All this does is remove the presumption for athletes who didn't play more than a couple games. (I realize that every sport is different, but come on, one and two games is minimal participation regardless of the sport, and if there are one- and two-game players who are truly notable, SIGCOV can be found.) If we can't even compromise so far as to agree to a minor tweak to our guidelines to at least eliminate the presumption of notability for one- and two-game players, then perhaps we deserve the more draconian results that will follow. Cbl62 (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Like I've said above, and elsewhere multiple times, feels free to tighten (on a sport-by-sport, WikiProject-led basis) the relevant SNGs so that the number of people presumed notable after playing is reduced. GiantSnowman 16:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your response amounts to leave it to each of us in our own walled garden to decide what's best. That approach has failed to result in meaningful reforms. If we continue to cling to the "walled gardens", the rest of the community is going to act and we aren't going to like what we get. I really don't understand why this minimal compromise is so difficult to swallow. Cbl62 (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Translation: you can do what you want to the other sports, but don't touch football. Levivich 16:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue with any "participated" criteria is that while this has a reasonable assumption that significant sourcing exists for that person, these criteria do not encourage editors to actually start articles with significant coverage and thus lead to massive stubs that have no likely chance to be expanded by volunteers (eg mass creation). --Masem (t) 16:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: It'a start and addresses what I consider to be low-hanging fruit. Why not at least grab the low-haning fruit? Rather than another endless discussion where nothing is accomplished, can't we at least agree that this is a step in the right direction? And if subproposal 5 also passes, it goes even further toward your concern with mass creation. Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOT#IINFO is the antithesis of going after low-hanging fruit. We should be working on the basis that most athletes - even professionally - are barely notable (due to being 2nd/3rd string, or minor league, or the like), and we should only create articles on these when there's clear significant coverage. --Masem (t) 16:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

My reference to low-hanging fruit was to suggest simply that some progress (eliminating the presumption for one- and two-game players) is better than none. It is offered as a compromise which, of course, you are free to reject (and to continue reaching for a bar that extends to higher-hanging fruit). In American football, the leagues covered are quite narrow (just the NFL for recent years), and coverage of the NFL is massive, such that I doubt you'd find anyone who played three games in the NFL (at least in the last 75 years) who doesn't have considerable SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

From my reading of magazines like ESPN or typical newspapers stories about professional sports (ignoring box scores and pure recaps), the bulk of players are not covered in significant coverage, particularly that's not routine. (eg a team trading a player may be appropriate news to include on that player's page but doesn't necessarily grant notability or significant coverage). --Masem (t) 17:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

My reading is different on the NFL, but that's a discussion for another day. We at a minimum should be able to agree that the presumption of notability shouldn't attach to one- and two-game players. Why isn't some progress better than none? Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously what's 'SIGCOV' isn't exactly etched in stone either. We can likely agree on what's a paragraph of coverage, but the quality of the sources can always be quibbled back and forth. I certainly don't think that, for example, players "flexed" to play in post-elimination games in gridiron games without even getting an active-roster contract are remotely of encyclopedic inherent notability, but evidently the sports websites are all over them anyway, so they'll be deemed to pass GNG. I'd certainly like to see them removed from the presumption -- and I want to stress, something that much tighter for a lot of other things, most of which are a much smaller dealer than the NFL, and which play a lot more games, to boot. I think Cbl62 is to be commended and is indeed being far-sighted in looking for an enlightened compromise here. Not necessarily because there's going to be some inevitable anti-sports deletionist backlash if one isn't arrived at, but the because the current situation doesn't serve sport well anyway. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support I agree with this in principle, but I think the bar is still too low with three matches. If, for instance, a tennis player plays just three professional doubles matches in their entire career after getting wild cards intended to boost the number of host country players and the player loses all of them 6-0 6,0, that doesn't make them notable by just having played these matches. Our articles should be based on signficant coverage of the subject, not on just participation. I share the opinion of Masem on this subject.Tvx1 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Tennis does not have a one-match rule, so this proposal doesn't change anything about tennis. It only applies to the sports that already have a one-game proviso and bumps those from one to three. Cbl62 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It quite patently does. One match in a professional level tournament and you're notable according to WP:TENNIS.Tvx1 21:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. In that case, it would be impacted. For any sport with a one-game/match rule, this would triple it to three. Cbl62 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Tennis would be one of the easier ones to put on a global scale, given that it has meaningful rankings, and organises tournaments on that basis, so it doesn't especially suffer from the 'dubious local "pro" league' difficulty. One could add a ranking side-condition to participation, or maybe most straightforwardly just exclude the wildcards. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Or make it considerably more than playing just one match. Or better, since tennis uses elimination-style tournaments, require them to have won one instead of just playing one match.Tvx1 03:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose You can have players who have significant coverage after playing one game, yet others that don't after playing three. Or ten. Arbitrary limits are unhelpful. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It is true that there are players who have SIGCOV after one game, but it ain't anywhere near 95% of one-game players who get that type of coverage. It is also true that there are some 10-game players in lower-level leagues who don't have SIGCOV (and can therefore still be AfD'd under this proposal), but the percentage of 10-game players without SIGCOV is a heckuva lot lower than it is for one-game players. An increase in the number is not arbitrary -- it's a recognition of simple logic and reality that the more games an athlete has played, the more likely he/she is to have received SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

But they would pass GNG, so what's your point? Dege31 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support but only as being better than nothing. Three is just as arbitrary as one, and I'm not sure that any specific number is a good predictor or significant coverage. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You raise a valid point, and it depends on the league. Further work is needed to weed out the leagues where three games is not a good predictor of SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 game is an objective bright line. Going for zero to one is a big event. Any other number such as 3 is subjective. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Cbl62 above. This has been a point of repeated discussion throughout my time here. Many editors clearly take issue with the NSPORTS thresholds and feel our biography coverage is too inclusive of sportspeople. Tightening the threshold very slightly is still arbitrary, but it is something, and would eliminate the most egregious examples that most-offend the sports-skeptic editors. This is the most easily actionable of all the proposals, and is in my opinion clearly worth a try. Ajpolino (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Cbl62 -- this is a reasonable compromise. --JBL (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Single appearances essentially violate WP:1E, and there's no basis whatsoever to presume that such a minimal "career" has garnered substantive independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 05:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as third choice, after #5 and #2. Ideally a tighter wording would combine aspects of #2 an #4 for a clearer standard that nonetheless is somewhat comparable between different sports. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as reasonable compromise and step in the right direction. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Totally subjective and arbitrary number that will open a slippery slope for further reductions. Also sports have different number of matches/races per season and three matches in one sport is not comparable to three in the other. The difference between 0 and 1 works on a level, that is essentially completely different, as it is not about counting but about presence/nonpresence, existence/nonexistence, being/nonbeing etc. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ludost Mlačani: @Black Kite: @Iffy: @Spanneraol: @BeanieFan11: @Jovanmilic97: At a loss to understand why you and others would oppose this modest increase from one to three games required and remain neutral about the more absolute subproposal 3 above that strikes all one game qualifying rule altogether. Can you explain the logic to me? Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't particularly like any of these proposals.. this whole RFC seems to be driven by the same people who have been attacking sports articles on wikipedia for years. I continue to believe that all athletes in top level sports should be considered notable and don't relish the idea of having to argue massive amounts of people at AFD.. And this whole discussion has gotten so large it is impossible to follow at this point and I don't even know which options i have commented on cause i can't even find my own comments. Spanneraol (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I also do not particularly like any of the proposals. I commented only here beacuse this one gathered a lot of responses and I wanted to include my view. It does not mean I am neutral on 3 or others. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As a blanket change, could potentially support in individual cases. Three NFL games is a significant percentage of the season. Three MLB games is still a very small part of one season. One game for England will generate far more coverage than one game for Maldives. One game in the Premier League will generate far more coverage than one game in League Two. There's a difference between playing in one game in a sport with free, unlimited substitutions like ice hockey or gridiron, where someone could conceivably play for 20 seconds, and a sport like soccer where there are far tighter rules on subs making that highly unlikely. I'm open to reform, but a one-size fits all approach is not the way to go. Smartyllama (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that a proposal that sets a three-game limit for NFL, a 10-game limit for MLB, an X-game limit for Premier League, and X-plus-five game limit for tier to soccer is that it sets one group of sports fan against others. I figured that three games was modest regardless of the sport but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Cbl62 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If people consider their fandoms or lack thereof more important than building an encyclopedia, then that's the real problem, and no guideline is ever going to fix that. Smartyllama (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There seem to be a whole lot of compatibalists in that respect. "Let's build an encyclopedia, where it's axiomatic my fandom is regarded as encyclopedic." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)'

• Oppose as too sweeping. 3 games is a very low bar to meet so far as MLB goes. A one-time September call up can meet the criteria very easily. I don't know other sports but for baseball this is too low so oppose across the board....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support if all else fails. Is 3 games an arbitrary number that is way too low for some sports? Yes. Is it better than 1? Yes. Should we rely on what individual wikiprojects consider a strong predictor of what they define as SIGCOV? Absolutely not. This seems like a small step in the right direction if other proposals fail. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support For many sports, this is still likely too low to justify the assumption of SIGCOV to be out there, but it's a start. Femke (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, removing the presumption altogether would be better, but this would be a step in the right direction to prevent the mass creation of insubstantial stubs that create pöointless maintenance overhead. Sandstein 20:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is as fundamentally misconceived as the existing one-game threshold. Writing an encyclopedic article requires WP:SIGCOV, not participation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A three-game-wonder is no that much more likely to have WP:SIGCOV than an one-game-wonder. Alvaldi (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as better than no change. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose with same rationale I gave for SP#3 above. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: In SP#3 you say some tightening of SNG criteria is needed, but if you can't support this very limited tightening, then what tightening can you support? BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said at SP#3, we need to prevent exceptions like the guest player creeping in. I cannot support a participation limit of >1 because that stops everyone with one appearance, not just the exceptions. The fundamental issue is GNG, not SNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support so long as it doesn't replace criteria - I back this, but not if it's going to be in the sense of no longer needing to meet GNG. Obviously the odds of a sports article meeting GNG go way up with recurring games. --Nosebagbear (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for actors we require that they have "multiple" significant roles in notable productions. This is still not making the actual role in the match significant, but it is a close move. We have lots of actor articles that are only sourced to IMDb and no indication of any move to fix that problem, so I do not think those criteria are the gold standard, especially since "notable" seems to be used in an overly broad way, but it is still a better standard than one match. The equivalent for professors would be "was the teacher of record at research university for 1 catalog listed class", although even there that might be stricter than 1 game. I also think we need to pare back from "fully pro" leagues to something that is more in line with the top of the sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a reasonable, straightforward adjustment to the rules that I think takes steps in the correct direction. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose with same rationale I gave for SP #3 above. I do believe there are probably some leagues in some eras where one-game participants actually would meet GNG. Any other over-arching standard does not take into account the numerous differences that exist across sports and across leagues. --Enos733 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  SNGs are ignored if a topic meets GNG. Dege31 (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Significant coverage, not participation, is what determines notability. Has anyone done a source survey to see if there's an actual threshold where secondary sources start to take notice of a player? It's often argued that if someone played X number of games in the 1920s then offline coverage is likely to exist, but has this ever been validated? –dlthewave ☎ 17:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Their argument is compelling. StickyWicket (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Just another arbitrary cut-off point. If it was changed to three, we'll be back in a year or two to change it to five. And again to round it up to ten, and so on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - If participation in one game in a particular sport at a particular level is not likely to result in significant reliable sources, then the guideline should be changed accordingly. If participation in one game in a particular sport at a particular level is likely to result in significant reliable sources, then the guideline is fine as is. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, weakly, as a miserable least worst. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support: This would barely address the problem and I only support it if all other proposals fail. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The “one game participation” is essentially, did the person play in league X. There are absolutely top flight leagues at such a level where anyone who makes it there is likely notable. For example, I have zero doubt that anyone who has played in the National Basketball Association proper (formed 1948) or the Premier League is notable. In fact, I’d say easily over 90% of NBA players meet GNG before they ever suit up through their college, Olympic or other professional league careers. Noting that players in these leagues are likely notable helps avoid AfD from editors who aren’t educated on the subject, fail to do a BEFORE search and/or just have a fundamental issue with the number of athlete articles. The current SNGs have WAY too many leagues listed though. While an English Premier League player most certainly meets GNG, I think it’s a stretch to say that every player from the US’ USL League One does, yet they are treated the same in WP:NFOOTY. I also agree that any “higher bar” is going to be subjective by nature. So just cull the current SSGs. Rikster2 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support One of several possible ways to fix the big mess that this overly lenient SNG has created. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support as better than the status quo. MER-C 20:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support as better than doing nothing. I think the number of games/matches should increase overall, but it should vary based upon the relative frequency of games or matches played in that sport's season. For example, playing in 3 MLB games out of a 162-game regular season is far less significant than playing in 3 NFL games out of a 17-game regular season. That would be a question for each sport's WikiProject to tackle, but an increase from 1 game is necessary, and no provision for grandfathering should be made. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as arbitrary, and overall inferior to Subproposal 10 in achieving a reasoned approach to the tightening of inclusion criteria. Aspirex (talk) 08:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Why 3? Because it's greater than 1? Than how about 10? We could go on as 1 < 3 < 10 < X < Y... No, the problem is some sport-specific SNGs with their slew of leagues that do have enough coverage for their players. Delist those leagues; don't artifically add games to leagues where one game is legitimately an acceptable standard.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - It is my experience editing association football biographies (and I've had a similar experience or two with baseball biographies) that a person who makes a single appearance in a professional league (or whatever relevant standard is used) very rarely receives GNG-compliance coverage. The chances that the biography can pass the GNG goes up significantly when the person has a more established career, and while three appearances is only a slightly higher threshold, it is higher and correlates better to GNG-compliance than a one-appearance threshold. I proposed tweaking the NFOOTBALL standard to "one full match" (basically 90 minutes of competition over the course of as many matches as necessary) because the biographies least likely to satisfy GNG appeared to be those for a person who played 10 minutes or less in total during their career. This was shot down (as arbitrary - though it is no less arbitrary than the one-appearance threshold), but I think this is an easier to implement version (no need to track minutes played) that accomplishes the same goal. Jogurney (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The standard should be "show the sources". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support - a single game is an immensely low standard for one to presume notability. The idea someone that played a single game in the Peruvian second league (per WP:NFOOTY) deserves an article seems a gross violation of the notability standards elsewhere in the project. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Art Bramhall is an example of why we need this. The article lacks significant coverage. He is said to have played 2 games in his professional career, but only had an at bat in one of them. This might be vaguely like being an actor who had a part that is almost signifcant in one film, and an uncredited part in another, which would mean he would not pass our actor notability, so I am really struggling to see why we think a similar set of circumstances would lead to passing sports notability. The notion that any given game is the equivalant of a notable film is possibly also open to question, since most individual games do not actual merit their own articles. To be fair almost half of our articles on films lack any reliable sources. There are problems all around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 5

Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article. Cbl62 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Cbl62 (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support, especially for BLPs - we can't write a policy-compliant article without at least one WP:RS that provides SIGCOV. Three, if you want to actually meet WP:NPOV (so there is a tiebreaker for any conflicts), but one is a good start. Levivich 23:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  we can't write a policy-compliant article without at least one WP:RS that provides SIGCOV: Not true. WP:BLPPROD only requires one source with at least one statement, not necessarily SIGCOV, about the person.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support, but this won't change anything in the grand scale of people mass-creating WP:NSPORT biographies. There's simply too many of those for people to watch out on them, and I don't think it'd stop sport casuals from creating database stubs anyways. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - why would this be something only for sports? If this is a thing (and there's arguments both ways), why not make it suitable for all articles. All that happens if this isn't met, is an AfD and then back into the same arguments as above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ideally, it would be applied across the board. If it passes here, it could serve as a jumping off point to add it to NACADEMIC and other problematic SNGs that do not require GNG compliance. Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • (ec)By default we do. That's what the main notability criterion says, GNG/SIGCOV. Several SNGs replace this with something intended to be more specific to that subject area; the difficulty with NSPORT is that it's in addition to GNG, so it opens up a vaguely and confusing gap between "presumed" notability and actual notability. And that we have a a heckin' chonkin' amount of sportsbios, wildly out of whack with anything generally considered "encyclopedic". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Support. I was planning to propose something similar. This ultimately doesn't seem much different from the first subproposal, though, in that the increase in effort from requiring AfD subjects demonstrate one piece of IRS SIGCOV to two pieces is much smaller than that of zero to one pieces. JoelleJay (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There's something to be said for compromise, Joelle. "IRS" is a new term to me in this context (and scary to an American -- IRS) -- I assume you mean "independent reliable source" rather than the tax man. Cbl62 (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ha, yes I do mean independent RS, I just don't want to have to type all that out (and I can't say "GNG coverage" since that requires multiple). Regarding the compromise, I worry that

a) This would be interpreted as "further" evidence that GNG does not ultimately need to be met for sports biographies. An additional reassertion that GNG still must eventually be met and that it wouldn't preclude challenges for GNG at AfD would make this a lot more palatable to me.

b) The vast majority of editors who descend on AfDs with "keep meets NFOOTY"-type !votes would oppose ANYTHING requiring more than a database ref, and the minority of sports editors who regularly make thoughtful arguments at AfDs (you among them) would not be enough to sway consensus much more than the first proposal. JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This proposal doesn't change GNG which ultimately requires "Multiple" reliable sources. But it heightens the burden at the starting gate in a way that serves as a powerful deterrent/barrier to assembly-line mass creation of sub-stubs. Cbl62 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose... especially for older 19th and early 20th century figures for whom it is harder to easily get contemporary sources. This would be an easy bar for modern post -internet players but the historical players would be harder. Also requiring this for sports figures and not for other categories such as politicians and academics is another example of anti-sports bias among more smug wikipedians. Also concerned about including the team season articles in this discussion as that would be the natural place to include players who lose their articles by these new policies. Spanneraol (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Why does every time this kind of proposal happens, someone has to bring, again, this very dubious project-modern-standards-of-coverage-backwards-in-time argument? It is simply not true that sports got nearly as much coverage in the 19th century or in the early 20th century as they do nowadays (especially at a time when most sport was still amateur and far from modern professionalism...). As for "anti-sports bias", you'd maybe have a leg to stand on if sports biographies and articles did not constitute such an out-of-proportion amount of articles on Wikipedia. Fixing the largest set of problematic SNGs is already a steps forward. If you think there are problems in other areas, nothing prevents you from suggesting changes to those other SNGs either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Permanent microstubs do not benefit Wikipedia - we are an encyclopedia, not a database. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Unless subproposal 8 passes - while 5 is not contradictory with 8, it is redundant to say that in addition to multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV being required at least one example of WP:SIGCOV is required. BilledMammal (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - this really hurts pre-internet articles and women's articles so I can't be for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  But it hurts proportionally and numerically far, far more post-internet and men's articles...and per the current NSPORT guideline all of those athletes not meeting GNG would and should get deleted eventually anyway, so...? JoelleJay (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree with this; by allowing the creation of articles without reference to significant coverage, NSPORT makes it much easier to create articles than those that need to meet GNG. Because of this, combined with the fact that far more men are covered by NSPORT than women, it is much easier to create articles on men than it is to create articles on women, and as a result we are encouraging editors to create articles on men over women. By requiring reference to at least one example of significant coverage for creation, we slightly reduce the incentive to create articles on men over women and so partially address this. BilledMammal (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Your oppose argument ar getting more and more nonsensical by the minute. Wikipedia is NOT a place to right great wrongs. If in real life there is more significant coverage for internet-era male competitors than for pre-internet male or for female competitors in a particular sport, our coverage needs to be in balance with that and we should not be making a false parity. Not that you're concerns are justified anyway. As pointed out, it would really reduce the number of articles on non-notable recent male sportspeople. I'm really beginning to think you just don't understand the meaning of the word notability.Tvx1 17:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, there needs to be a mechanism for underreported items in older sports achievements. If they are notable now they were notable then. Men who achieve something in 1900 that we look at as notable, we should be allowed to have a corresponding women's article for the same achievement. Sure, today it's easy to have that requirement, but I would leave a stipulation in for grandfathered eras, and then I could agree with the concept. This isn't about fixing great wrongs, that's poisoning the well. That like reparations for slavery. This is a simple article for fairness across the sexes. I will always be for that and it's so easy to incorporate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, there shouldn't be. Notability might be permanent, but if all the significant coverage has been lost then all we can have is a database entry, not an article - and Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a database. BilledMammal (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I understand it, this editor isn't arguing for time- and gender-based "fairness" in consideration of lost sources. They seem to wish fairness on that basis even in consideration of non-existent ones. i.e. for pure "inherent notability" from a particular activity, if it's extensively covered on sports websites at present. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  (ec) I suspect that's a sounder argument for correcting for overreported items in newer sports. Much as I'd like to say "achievements", candidly as written these are largely about participation -- and decidedly slack criteria even for that. Do you read Suge Knight's article and think "... why, there's not nearly enough on his stellar NFL career here!" If not, then wonder why we'd have an article about an otherwise non-notable such person for that alone. Or someone that once warmed a pro soccer subs bench, or got wildcarded into their local bottom-tier ATP tennis tournament in a bout of shameless favouritism, and so on. Frankly, if we eliminated a whole slew of these overwhelmingly male trivial sports bios, we'd have statistically greater "fairness of the sexes" at a stroke. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would agree. It seems a lot of our articles about the less notable (or even non-notable) sports players consist of routine coverage of games or transfers, all of which is better suited for a database (perhaps Wikidata?) than an encylopedia article. For instance, see Alex Newby; it tells us that he has played for a succession of clubs, and has scored a couple of goals - there is nothing here that should justify an article. BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think we might need a few defib units install over at that Wikiproject. Charging... clear! (Round) football editors will be outraged that someone who passes the NFOOTY participation guideline 148 times over (and more actually, having actually played rather than just being a sub) could have their "inherent" right to an article here in any way questioned. Other sport editors will point out the problem is this a low-tier player -- the English "League 2" actually being the fourth-down. And he does get a paragraph-sized article on the BBC website, which is a pretty gold-plated reliable secondary source, if we choose to regard their sports coverage as being on a par with reporting the assorted invasions of Ukraine. Maybe when we adopted WP:NOTNEWS we should have added a counterpart WP:NOTTHESPORTSPAGESEITHER. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sports editors seem to have some of the worst interpretations of what constitutes SIGCOV...it's the only place I've seen genuine arguments from longtime editors that GNG is met with junk like a 3-sentence announcement in a hyper-local newspaper summarizing a press release about a student athlete attending a youth training camp. JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  I must confess to not being that familiar with sports deletion discussions that even address GNG, so I can neither confirm nor deny. I'm inclined to suspect this is basically just human nature, by way of confirmation bias. If one feels that NSPORT-level participation is a suitable benchmark, one will likely calibrate one's expectations of how much and what quality of coverage is "significant" accordingly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Athlete AfDs have recently trended towards accepting that GNG should be met in at least the barely-passes-an-SSG cases. See, e.g., the examples in my big comment on prop 1.

  If one feels that NSPORT-level participation is a suitable benchmark, one will likely calibrate one's expectations of how much and what quality of coverage is "significant" accordingly.

  That's exactly what it is, and I predict if any of these proposals go through we'll be back here again soon enough to "clarify what SIGCOV is". JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support Per BilledMammal. Would bring NSPORTS more in line with the rest of Wikipedia. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Even someone not particularly interested in the subject, like myself, is aware of the much increased accces to earlier news sources, and the immense amount of printed literature discussing the early history of sports, often with a very local orientation. I'd say that this is less of a problem than it was 15 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any heightened standard for creating sports articles that does not also apply to other areas. This is a solution looking for a problem, nobody's claiming these articles are full of BLP violations or self-promotion (or even any kind of inaccurate or unencyclopedic information). They just don't like that sports have been popular for centuries and that the best methods of sourcing can be difficult for an inexperienced editor. Iffy★Chat -- 11:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as this brings practice more in line with WP:BLP etc. We shouldn't create permastubs, especially biographies, on the basis of database sources. It also directly addresses some of the most major examples of concerns people have with NSPORT I believe. So this is a good compromise to resolve long-standing editor concerns, without radical solutions like abolishing NSPORT. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: a very significant step towards permastub nonproliferation and towards saving precious contributor time at AfD. Would certainly reduce many "meets NFOOTY but not GNG, delete" and " doesn't meet the GNG but meets NFOOTY, keep" circular debates at AfD. Pilaz (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is completely unnecessary. Articles already have to satisfy WP:V. Significant coverage allows us to create more detailed articles, but it isn't necessary for verification that a subject has sufficient significance for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, and especially given how much routine coverage of non-significant sports event there is, and given the noted problems with mass database-microstub creations, it would totally make sense to require higher standards. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Someone competing in non-significant sports events wouldn't be sufficient to satisfy the SNG (if you feel it does then suggest a change), so this argument doesn't justify the change that is proposed. --Michig (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  We seem to have quite the panoply of suggested change, and much the same objections to all of them. You here appear to be arguing against any requirement to ever demonstrate actual notability, and want a presumption of a notion of 'inherent' notability to be permanently sufficient in itself. Which is a legit position, perhaps, but not what the current guidelines say -- which is that we should have sources sufficient to establish notability -- and if we change to this, let's not have 'inherent notability' set at the level of participation currently set. Which is passed by once having been paid to sit on a football sub's bench, or by playing on down in a meaninglessly NFL game. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, I am not arguing against any requirement to ever demonstrate actual notability. That is a ridiculous assertion. We must have sources available to be able to verify encyclopedic significance. This is, however, not the same thing as citing 'significant' coverage. Whether a single appearance at a certain level is sufficient for a subject to belong in an encyclopedia is a completely different issue. --Michig (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  You say it's ridiculous, but then go on to restate the same thing in words you evidently find preferable, but seems to me not to differ at all in substance. Given that NSPORT says that "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline," and that the GNG is precisely "significant coverage", what other standard should "sources available to be able to verify encyclopedic significance" consist of? Several trivial sources that verify the bare facts in a short bio demonstrating participation to the NSPORT standard, job done? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  You claim I'm "arguing against any requirement to ever demonstrate actual notability", although I have stated "We must have sources available to be able to verify encyclopedic significance", which is clearly not arguing against a requirement to demonstrate actual notability. Note that actual real-world notability and the GNG are not the same thing. Now please stop misrepresenting my statements. --Michig (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  But Wikipedia doesn't operate based on "real-world notability", with NSPORT in particular rejecting this with its requirement to show GNG... JoelleJay (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  You've just nailed on the head exactly what is wrong with Wikipedia's notability guidelines ("But Wikipedia doesn't operate based on "real-world notability""). The whole point of notability guidelines should be to set criteria for when topics do have real-world notability and therefore merit inclusion in an encyclopedia - that's kind of why notability guidelines were created in the first place. The GNG superficially addresses this, but a hell of a lot of stuff that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia receives plenty of coverage, and the application of GNG usually comes down to what coverage has been found, not how much the subject has received, so whether we can find multiple lengthy articles about something is often not a good guide to whether it should have an encyclopedia article. At the end of the day, multiple significant coverage often isn't required to have a useful encyclopedia article (properly-sourced stubs are not a problem - see how short and stub-like many of the entries in Encyclopedia Britannica are for example), we simply require sufficient reliable sources to have enough verifiable content to have a meaningful article, even if it's a short one. --Michig (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well if you want to change the whole concept of notability on Wikipedia, you're free to draft a proposal at VPP. But as it stands we must operate under the P&Gs that are in place now rather than applying our own standards and feelings for what is "notable" and demanding others follow them. Something being verifiable and popular obviously does not mean it is encyclopedic or notable, which WP:NOT covers when it excludes junk like stats databases and when it explicitly states Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  I couldn't misrepresent Michig's statements if I tried, as I'm unable to determine what they mean, and the editor seems displeased by my attempts to do so. How precisely would "sources available to be able to verify encyclopedic significance" operate as a standard? Likewise, what does "actual real-world notability" mean? How are either of these things to be determined? Ideally somewhat objectively, rather than via case-by-case assertion. If we're including things that get copious coverage that the community feels we shouldn't, that suggests to me we're looking at the wrong sources, and should correct what sources we deem reliable for what purposes, correcting as best we can for recency bias and others. If we're composing trivial mentions sources into a minimalist article for a subject that has "inherent" or "real-world" notability, maybe we should be casting our sources net wider in that area. Or maybe it's simply not actually all that notable, after all. The trouble with WP:NOT and WP:V is that while they are policies and they state that notability is required, everything that sets out what notability is -- or may be presumed to be -- is "only" a guideline. Hence people feel free to say "this is (or isn't) notable by my standards, here's my !vote, which I insist you count as if it were an actual vote". Ultimately I don't think it's viable to say that the contents of material on an included topic must be determined by sourcing, but not whether that topic should be. But that's rather where we've landed ourselves at present. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  How would it work? Via notability guidelines such as this (imperfect as it may be). I don't think it's really that hard to understand. And Wikipedia:Notability is not a policy, it's a guideline, and needs to be treated as such. --Michig (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  But WP:NOT is a policy, and it says WP:N must be followed. And NSPORT is in line with this, with its requirement of meeting GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's tremendously hard to understand if you're not going to say what the standard ought to be, and doubly so if there's going to be no clarity whether it should actually followed or not. My best guess at doing so would be that you're arguing for ignoring GNG ("only a guideline"), and instead following NSPORT (apart the part of it that invokes GNG, obviously). But guessing is neither efficient nor agreeable, so ideally you'd actually say one way or the other in terms. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support If it wasn't already obvious from my rebuttals. In any case, this would be a good and effective way to prevent silly arguments at AfDs and to ensure readers see higher quality content. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I am frankly amazed this wasn't already said somewhere. SIGCOV should be required for all article subjects to meet notability. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sure this isn't what the OP intended, but as written this would allow the deletion of articles on subjects which clearly pass the GNG, just because the article didn't include evidence of that when it was created. Hut 8.5 16:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  No article that clearly passes GNG can be deleted. Levivich 16:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's my point: this proposal ostensibly bypasses that. It says that articles will have to include evidence that the subject passes the GNG when they are created. If the subject passes the GNG but the article didn't include evidence of that when it was created then the article could be deleted. Hut 8.5 17:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. It's asking for one source of SIGCOV, which is insignificant to meet the GNG, but it gives far better confidence more sig. coverage can be found. --Masem (t) 17:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  What happens if the subject does pass the GNG, but the article didn't include evidence of that when it was created? Substitute "SIGCOV" for "evidence of passing the GNG" if you like, it's the same point. The proposal doesn't say what will happen in this situation but it does say that you aren't allowed to create an article with that contents, so presumably the article will be deleted. What if significant coverage is readily available and is produced during the AfD? Doesn't matter, the article has to be deleted because it didn't include SIGCOV when it was created. What if SIGCOV was added to the article after it was created? Doesn't matter, the article has to be deleted because it didn't include SIGCOV when it was created. I don't think the people supporting this actually believe that, but nevertheless it's a badly worded proposal which shouldn't be enacted. Hut 8.5 17:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Then it's taken to AFD, at which point we have a week to look for GNG sources, and if no one finds any, then it gets deleted. Levivich 17:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's not what the proposal says. It says that articles have to include SIGCOV when they are created. Hut 8.5 18:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think yours is a reasonable reading of the proposal. Nobody is going to vote "Delete because, while someone has found a GNG source above and added it to the article, it wasn't created with one therefore it shouldn't exist", and if they do it won't be taken seriously. Besides, any debate as to whether a given source is SIGCOV or debate on whether GNG/SNGs are met has always taken place at AfD, and this doesn't change that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that argument is ridiculous, but it is ostensibly what the proposal is enshrining and the fact that the proposal is advocating something silly is a good reason to oppose it. If nothing else it needs to be redrafted. If what was actually meant was "all articles about sportspeople must have SIGCOV or be deleted at AfD" then this is almost exactly the same as the original proposal. (At least one person supporting this seems to think it creates a new speedy deletion criterion, which is an even worse idea.) Hut 8.5 18:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's not exactly like the original proposal, as it requires only one piece of SIGCOV rather than the two needed for any other new article (apart from some other presumption-based SNGs, GEOLAND, and NPROF). My interpretation is that something submitted through AfC that doesn't meet the requirement won't be accepted, and something published directly to mainspace will be more conspicuous as potentially non-notable than it would be in the current system (where a mere database ref assures other editors they don't need to investigate notability further). JoelleJay (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  The GNG doesn't require significant coverage in multiple sources. A single source can be enough. Since WP:V requires that article subjects have coverage in third-party reliable sources, the only situations in which an article could be kept on the basis of passing an SNG alone is if it doesn't have SIGCOV. Requiring SIGCOV is therefore the same as abolishing the SNG entirely. And the fact everybody is "interpreting" this proposal is a big flag that it needs rewording. Hut 8.5 18:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  GNG says multiple sources are generally expected. I'm not aware of any examples that didn't invoke IAR where it was decided a subject met GNG with a single source. Requiring SIGCOV for new NSPORT articles merely brings the guideline at most halfway to what it already asks (A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. It does not abolish its purpose of guiding users on which subjects are likely to have received SIGCOV. Just because NPROF and GEOLAND directly confer notability doesn't mean all SNGs do (or should). JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  You're misreading the proposal. It's not saying "Delete any article that didn't show SIGCOV in it's first revision", it's saying "Any article without SIGCOV is eligible for deletion even if was just created". --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  If that's what was intended then it says exactly the same thing as the original proposal, which also had the effect of making articles eligible for deletion if they didn't include SIGCOV even if they passed NSPORTS. Hut 8.5 18:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  That effect is already in place in NSPORT... JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - why limit this ti just sports bios? Also what constitutes SIGCOV is subjective and will lead to more debate and argument, not less. GiantSnowman 16:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oh GS, you say the same things every time. Why sports bios? Because sports bios are the ones that have one-pro-game rules. No other SNG has confers notability simply for participating once. And "more debate and argument"? The goal of our notability guidelines isn't to reduce debate and argument. But even still, do you not see the incredible amount of debate and argument? It was three years ago that I championed trying to reform NFOOTY, and you said to me that I was one of many who had tried, and that I would eventually burn out and go away. And you were right, after about a year, I burned out and went away. Three years later, here we are, with other editors raising the same issues. It's been a constant stream of attempts to reform SNGs for the entire three years I've been here, and that's without my involvement, and as you said, it didn't start with me. That's a lot of debate and argument... multiple years, unknown numbers of editors... and always... the same people saying "no." If you wanted to reduce debate and argument, you'd have supported some compromise at some point over these years. Levivich 17:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support Not sure why it's not common sense for everyone to do this in the first place. Reywas92^Talk 16:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support Another thing that really should be a no-brainer.Tvx1 17:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• And if it doesn't include a piece of "significant" coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  They should subjected to speedy deletion or draftifying.Tvx1 17:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose, I just can't support a proposal that would speedy delete articles that meet NSPORT without "significant" coverage actively in the article, for SIGCOV has many different interpretations and what's significant to me may not be to you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Tvx1: @BeanieFan11: This proposal absolutely does NOT create a new basis speedy deletion. If the article is created without any SIGCOV, the usual AfD procedures would have to be followed, and users would have the opportunity to add SIGCOV (at that point, in multiple, independent and reliable sources) showing that GNG is satisfied. Cbl62 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  There are some people who think routine game coverage should qualify as significant coverage, but as far as I can tell, this is not a consensus view. I think the bigger issue is determining what coverage is promotional in nature, as most sports journalism has promotional aspects. Generally, sports reports are created for a particular audience to garner its attention, and so must be evaluated with this in consideration. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support certainly per season articles. Those created purely from statistical databases fail WP:NOT#DIR anyway. Having said that, this is probably only going to affect a subset of articles. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as this would defeat the purpose of having NSPORTS as a lower bar to GNG. Agreed with GiantSnowman as this, if implemented while keeping NSPORTS, would create additional disagreement as editors argue over what counts as significant coverage. NemesisAT (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  NSPORTS isn't a lower bar to GNG, and that's what the 2017 RFC decided. Levivich 17:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agree that the sports notability guidelines aren't a lower bar, and this was made clear from the start when they first received consensus support (and since then, affirmed over and over again, even before 2017). isaacl (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  WP:N clearly states that a subject is presumed notable if the meet either GNG or an SNG so that suggests meeting an SNG is as much of a grounds for keeping an article as meeting GNG is. NemesisAT (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  But it doesn't suggest, as you state, that SNG is a lower bar than GNG. If you have any confusion, there was an RFC about this in 2017, that resulted in clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Do you notice all the editors in this thread that are talking about how some editors still think SNGs are a replacement for GNG, and how we need to "do something" to stop editors from misapplying notability guidelines in this way? You are one of those editors that everyone is talking about. You don't have to support any of these proposals, but the viewpoint expressed in your vote, "NSPORTS as a lower bar to GNG", is the problem we're all trying to solve here. I honestly can't believe you wrote it, it's like you didn't read anything in this thread before !voting. Levivich 17:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have in fact read the thread, and I support what is written at WP:N (the either/or bit). Hence my votes. If you disagree with what is written at WP:N, why not suggest it be changed? NemesisAT (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  That "or" in WP:N doesn't change anything whatsoever because NSPORT itself explicitly requires GNG to be met. There is no logical interpretation of WP:N that would result in GNG not having to be followed when the SNG in question is NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose as it does not indicate an enforcement mechanism, so we don't know what we are !voting on. What if a sports biography is created without meeting Subproposal 5? If the enforcement mechanism is AfD, then I fail to see how this is any different from the original proposal. If the enforcement mechanism is CSD, then I oppose this on merit; SNGs absolutely should be, at the very least, a defense against speedy deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Draftifying?Tvx1 21:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think the best way to handle this would be with a variant on WP:PROD, where the tag can only be challenged by adding an example of WP:SIGCOV BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  But on the same timescale? Arguably it should be lengthier than either the SD or AfD interval, given the nature of the challenge. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think a week is long enough to find a single example of WP:SIGCOV, but I would have no objection to making this prod variant take two weeks to expire - if this (at either one or two weeks) is deemed the best way to implement this proposal, should it be included as part of this proposal, or should we open a "Subproposal 6" proposing it for implementation dependent on "Subproposal 5" passing? BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  The enforcement mechanism is obviously the same as any other article that doesn't meet notability guidelines. Improve if you're able, drafty if you're personally not able to improve it, or AFD it if you think no one can improve it. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: There is another enforcement mechanism. If this proposal passes and we have editors who flout it by continuing to create new articles based solely on database entries, they can and should be warned that they are in violation of NSPORTS. If they willfully persist in violating the guideline even after receiving such a warning, they could be subject to our usual array of escalating sanctions, including possible T-bans limiting their ability to create such articles. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per ProcrastinatingReader (re: BLP issues) and BilledMammal (re: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database). --JBL (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - In essence, this is already the case per how WP:SPORTCRIT is written. So, I think it only makes sense that we finally make this resolutely clear in the guideline to avoid continuous confusion that the NSPORT SNG is somehow a loophole to get past the GNG. The need to keep WP:BLPs in proper shape is critical, and I fail to believe that without SIGCOV being met we can possibly be doing that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Less a confusion, and more of a determination, it seems from many of the comments on these proposals. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fyunck. Just another way to attack pre-internet and women's athlete articles. If more male athlete articles are really more affected (as is claimed), it would only be because there are more male athlete articles. It would still hurt articles on women a great deal. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, noting that I am against e.g. professional footballers who have only appeared in one game having articles, but that is just one guideline and not WP:NSPORT in general. This proposal would not only get rid of those articles, but also Olympic gold medalists, world champions, Grand Slam champions just because what they achieved happened a long time ago. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, there a lot more sportsdude articles. Far too many, for any plausibly encyclopedic purpose. Perhaps you'd support this proposal with a CSB exception for women? (No, thought not.) Quite how you arrive at the pre-internet part is unclear. Proposal doesn't exclude pre-internet sources on pre-internet topics. Or indeed, post-internet sources on pre-internet ones. And how many Olympic gold medalists, world champions, Grand Slam champions have no significant coverage (whether online or offline) in reliable secondary sources? Passing over that this is an "article creation" criterion, not a deletion one, so the number of existing such articles affected would necessarily be exactly zero. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• What does a CSB exception mean? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps you'd support this proposal with a CSB exception for women? No, because there is still the pre-internet issue. Even in the internet era, it would apply very unequally across different sports in ways that don't make sense. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• And how many Olympic gold medalists, world champions, Grand Slam champions have no significant coverage (whether online or offline) in reliable secondary sources? Actually, a lot!! Just to use Boxing at the 1932 Summer Olympics as a random example, the gold medallists that year were István Énekes, Horace Gwynne, Carmelo Robledo, Lawrence Stevens, Edward Flynn, Carmen Barth, David Carstens, and Santiago Lovell. Only one of them has significant coverage, and it's only borderline (and of course, it's one of the Americans --- as expected, supporting that this criteria is would lead to more bias). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That would suggest we should further tighten the restrictions of WP:NOLYMPICS. If there is no significant coverage of an individual, then there is nothing we can base an article on, and thus we should not have an article. BilledMammal (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

So, honest question here: if most of those people have no significant coverage, and we can't verify anything about them other than a few match results and date of birth/death, why should they have a standalone article as opposed to being a redirect to a list entry in the Boxing at the 1932 Summer Olympics article? What benefit does that have to the reader? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• In these types of articles, you can typically also have other important match results from outside the Olympics, other Olympic appearances, national or continental championships, and/or family members. It wouldn't make sense to have those things unrelated to that specific Olympics in the Boxing at the 1932 Summer Olympics article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Also, FWIW, the Boxing at the 1932 Summer Olympics article itself would also be subject to deletion under this criteria because it also doesn't have any sources with significant coverage. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Passing over that this is an "article creation" criterion, not a deletion one, so the number of existing such articles affected would necessarily be exactly zero. It's a deletion criteria. People create articles, then someone else proposes it for deletion, citing this criteria. Normally, that happens with articles that have just been created. But it can happen with old articles that already exist as well. If this criteria passed, there would be nothing to stop someone from nominating a whole bunch of existing articles for deletion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• This can't be passed as written, because an article with only one reliable source is either (a) plagiarism of its source (which potentially makes it a disguised copyvio -- see our articles on substantial similarity and derivative work for the legal risks here) or (b) if it's not plagiarised from its only reliable source, then it's not properly sourced at all. I'm appalled to see sysops advocating this because there are bloody good reasons why we have strict rules for biographical articles.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The current reality is that articles are created, and closed as keep at AfD, because they pass the NSPORTS guidelines even though they have no reliable sources (not counting database entries). Do not allow perfect to be the enemy of better - this proposal would make creating such articles harder, not easier. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The proposal says "at least one" source.—Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It needs to say "at least two" sources for the reasons I have given. But if it did say "at least two", then it would be indistinguishable from the GNG, which simplifies to deprecating NSPORTS.—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The plagiarism argument is nonsense, as it is our job to summarize sources, and even if an article is built from one source, there's plenty of ways to summarize it without any legal issue. --Masem (t) 13:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It is our job to summarize sources, plural. Summarizing a source, singular, can and does create legal and policy issues with copyright. Take for example Nelson Agho; it's an obfuscated rip of content by the Stoke Sentinel.—S Marshall T/C 14:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is full of verifiable claims whose reliability doesn't come from SIGCOV-quality sources. I agree that articles need multiple sources but they don't need multiple SIGCOV-quality sources to avoid this copyvio danger. If an article is a copyvio, that's a reason for deletion that stands apart from the notability criteria. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Charles is correct. In sports biographies, much of the sourcing will be to legitimate reliable sources such as database entries or to a team or league web-site that is not WP:INDEPENDENT. These aren't GNG-qualifying SIGCOV, but they are valid sources. This proposal simply imposes a requirement that, above and beyond those sources, there must be at least one example of SIGCOV as a prerequisite to article creation. This will help put an end to automated or semi-automated mass creation of low-quality lsub-stubs sourced only to a database. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't ever expect to convince you, or any of the many other sports-focused editors who've rushed to this RfC to oppose it having received prominent notices on the pages they watch. If you accepted what I say here, that would mean AfDs on hundreds of thousands of articles that you and others have spent so much time creating, few of which will ever pass the GNG. In the case of some of the more intensely sports-focused editors, it would mean accepting the wiping away of more than a decade's contributions. I understand why you can't possibly agree with me or ever accept what I'm saying. But I might just possibly convince a waverer who's reading this, so I will make one further reply.

WP:NSPORTS has never enjoyed strong community consensus as a guideline. It was promoted to guideline in 2010 on the basis of a 54%/46% !vote which was full of repeated promises and representations that it would not be allowed to supersede the GNG. And it would not have passed without replacing WP:ATH which was even more inclusive. But of course it did pass, narrowly, and now, a dozen years later, nearly half of Wikipedia's biographical articles are about sportspeople and most sports-focused editors are in flagrant disregard of the GNG-primacy that was inherent in its original promotion.

If your sources are databases and team websites, then your articles should be about the teams and the scores, which is what those sources are about. Only when you have biographical sources that are specifically about a particular person should you be writing a biography for them.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the "more intensely sports-focused editors" are with you in opposing this proposal. Which is why I thought I might convince you. Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support, while this isn't enough and isn't perfect, it is an improvement. This will likely make it harder to write articles about sports people from the 1920s than about recent ones, but so what? The articles that pass this will be better. —Kusma (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support - There should always be at least one reference showing that an encyclopaedic article can be written about the topic, regardless of whether it is sports or something else. Nothing should be kept solely based on a database entry. FOARP (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Best compromise we have — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalst (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support This shouldn't be controversial, it's just enforcement of the 2017 RfC that found that NSPORT doesn't supersede GNG. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Sensible compromise that is an improvement to the current state. Schazjmd (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Why should sports articles be subject to tighter restrictions than any other article. Not to mention this hurts pre-internet sports figures, which is what NSPORTS is meant to protect. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Djsasso: NSPORTS isn't supposed to "protect" anything. It's supposed to be a reliable indicator that something is likely to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If pre-internet sportspeople happen to have little coverage from which to write a proper encyclopedia article (as opposed to mere database entries), then it's a "feature, not a bug" type of solution. One could just as well ask the opposite question: why should sports articles be exempt from showing that proper sources exist (something which almost all other kinds of articles are actually required to do)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  It actually is, its main purpose is to prevent over zealous deletion of pre-internet subjects by showing a reliable indicator that something is likely to have significant coverage in reliable sources. No one is saying that sources don't need to be shown, NSPORTS specifically says they do eventually. But we understand it would create a rather horrible bias towards recentism to expect that subjects that can only be sources to news paper archives from 100 years ago will be deleted immediately because they don't have intenet sources when the author first creates the page. We also don't require this level of sourcing on a brand new article on any other subject. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Djsasso: As the proposer, I acknowledge it imposes a particular burden on athletes from the late 19th to early 20th centuries. Despite being a content creator focused on athletes from this era, I balance that burden against several factors, including (a) concerns that growing anti-sports sentiment risks more draconian measures (including some of the above) if we don't reach some reasonable compromises, (b) my experience that SIGCOV can be found at Newspapers.com (or Library of Congress) for the overwhelming majority of NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL players (at least those who played more than a cup of coffee), (c) the wisdom of curbing mass creation of low-quality, one-line, sub-stubs (at creation rates as low as one, two, or even three per minute) that has stoked the anger of many editors (and led to a T-ban in at least one case), and (d) confidence (hopefully not misplaced) that some small degree of flexibility might be expected that the quantum of SIGCOV expected for an athlete from the 1880s-1930s (when coverage was less encompassing than today) is not identical to that which we would expect for an athlete of today (when online coverage is so profound). Cbl62 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess I don't see this as a compromise, I see this as exactly what I would call the draconian measure you refer to. Placing a higher standard on athletes than we do on any other subject. -DJSasso (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Meeting GNG is a requirement for every subject who isn't covered by an SNG, and even most of them that are -- including NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that isn't what is being talked about in this specific proposal. What is being proposed is that an article has source that meets GNG immediately from creation, we do not require that on any article in any other subject. -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

...Except for all non-SNG-meeting subjects that go through AfC? JoelleJay (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

And a source for the claim that this is its main purpose (or even a minor purpose...) would be appreciated. JoelleJay (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support as something that should be required of all articles. Folks interested in creating an article should be thinking "do I have sources in hand that would support an article on this topic?" rather than "does this meet the criteria that will allow me to press the create button without getting hassled?". This is a small step in that direction. Ajpolino (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• If this is passed, what will happen to the 10s (100s?) of thousands of sport articles without "significant" sources actively in the article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  My intent in proposing this is to create a prospective restriction on the creation of new articles. Accordingly, it would not apply to existing articles. That said, existing articles remain (as before) subject to AfD under the contention that (i) GNG is not satisfied, and (ii) NSPORTS requires "eventual" compliance with GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  See also: first law of holes. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  ? Cbl62 (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  That is, to begin to solve a problem, first stop continuing to make it worse. At present we have a Red Queen-like scenario where we supposedly plan to "eventually" properly source "presumptively" notable articles, but in the meantime (and it often seems to be a very long meantime) we've created a shedload more just like it. So on the face of it, this idea plugs that breach, while we work out what to do about being neck-deep in water. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah ... now I understand. You're a real mixed-metaphor machine. See my recent "toe dip" (this type, not the second linked) in that genre. Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Cbl62: The thing is, I don't think its necessary. Are there really that many new NSPORT-passing articles being created with no SIGCOV that we need to prohibit their creation? And what if someone "violates" this proposal? What would happen to them and the article they created? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at the list of new articles at WP:FOOTBALL, yes. And what happens to the article is that it will eventually get deleted, unless significant coverage can be found, and the author will have their attention brought to the policy. BilledMammal (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  (ec) If the number of existing such articles is concerningly high -- and it certainly seems to be -- then any increase at all would be unhelpful. And presumably they'd be deleted or draftified. 109.255.211.6 (talk)

• Extremely strong support - This proposal puts the burden to establish notability where it belongs: On the editor who creates the article in mainspace. Presumably folks are checking for SIGCOV before creating an article (I would hate to accuse anyone of otherwise), so this just means that they'll add the required sources at the time of article creation instead of expecting other editors to duplicate their work at AfD. This shouldn't prevent the creation of articles on notable topics since NSPORTS already requires SIGCOV. If an editor's workflow involves creating cookie-cutter stubs from a database and complies with WP:MEATBOT, then they should do so in draft space and only move an article to mainspace after SIGCOV sourcing has been added. This is the expectation for articles outside of SNGs and should probably be applied enwiki-wide, but it's especially pertinent to sports topics since it seems to be an ongoing issue there. –dlthewave ☎ 03:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, would solve a lot of issues (not all, by far, but no single proposal will). Fram (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  I guess the sole sticking point that sank your otherwise identical proposal less than a year ago was your requirement of a non-local source...who knew that'd be the hill editors would die defending? JoelleJay (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support: This is certainly a good idea, should be imposed on EVERY biographical article (heck, just plain "every") on Wikipedia, and solves some of the problems with mass sub-stub creation. As far as the laundry list of types of article this would purportedly damage (19th century bios, women's bios, etc), my frank response is this: tough shit. EVERY biographical article is supposed to meet the standards of WP:V and WP:N, full stop. An article where the creator either can't find any sigcov or can't be assed to try should not be created in the first place. Ravenswing 19:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a step forward. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Should be a basic requirement for all articles. BLP articles should not be solely created based on databases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Semi Support I will support if the same Basic Criteria that is used in WP:Bio is included, as we should keep a standard across biographies. I also think we should include lists as recommended for those who don't have enough info for to create an article, as sports people are notable to the public, and we are trying to build an Encyclopedia that as contents we can all be proud of. With missing information, no matter how small, we won't achieve that.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as first-choice alternative. Addresses the nub of the issue, isn't overkill in either substance or process, stops the problem getting worse while the community considers what to do with the existing backlog of trivially sourced and modestly participant sportsbios. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support, as the base requirement for the rest of the wikipedia, I genuinely don't see how this is not the case here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz - Agree that this should be the case in the rest of Wikipedia, but it's not the case for WP:GEOLAND, where articles are created (and kept at AFD) based on listings in statistical databases and gazetteers (essentially geographical databases/dictionaries). Frankly, the massive proliferation of hundreds of thousands of single-sentence stub articles shows why this is an extremely bad idea though. FOARP (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

FOARP I personally don't like WP:GEOLAND's requirement as it means we have hundreds of villages in 3rd world countries that have articles that will never be improved past a single sentence, both because many of them are not notable enough to have news happen there but are still in a statistical register and because we will not be able to recruit as many editors as necessary that have the improvement of village stubs in Afghanistan (for example) as their main focus of work. If you hit random article 10 times, 4 will be footballers and 4 will be random village stubs — it's insane. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz Agree 100%. Particularly the Iranian village case where it turned out that we had tens of thousands of articles about farms, pumps, grain elevators, shops, individual houses etc. because they were listed as locations on the Iranian census shows why this was a bad idea. The GEONet Names Server and GNIS databases (both unreliable) have also been the source of a lot of clearly-wrong articles. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Makes sport bios have to follow stricter criteria than others. Very difficult to find citable sources for older biographies. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  How would this be "stricter criteria than others"? If other articles (especially biographies) get challenged as failing GNG, they get deleted without much controversy. If sports article get challenged on the same grounds, misguided editors immediately come to their defense saying "but meets NINSERTSPORTHERE"; and any article which truly doesn't meet GNG then needs a massive AfD and likely gets dragged to DRV. By actually requiring at least one non-database source upfront, this would both reduce the stress on AfDs on other processes (and resulting editor animosity) and would also prevent mass perma-stub creation. Two birds with one stone, really. It's also difficult to find citable sources for all kinds of "older biographies" in general: doesn't mean that they are exempt from having sources, and doesn't mean that those who create those articles get a free pass. If you can't find sources about it, then it doesn't go in Wikipedia, whatever or however old it may be (WP:ITSOLD is actually exactly an example of a bad argument...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support A step forward and a reasonable compromise. Alvaldi (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support I think this is a fair proposal, but am concerned that it will lead to immediate, mass AfD's if it passes. As long as the closure includes the same caution against that as the schools RfC a few years ago, I can support this. Smartyllama (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, I am fundamentally opposed to removing stubs, I think generally any page is better than no page.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support This should be applicable to new articles going forward. For existing articles, either a grace period for editors to find SIGCOV or grandfathered based on the unchanged criteria. – robertsky (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Conditional support This is a good principle to hold by, but I worry about how this would be enforced and who would get to decide what counts as significant coverage. I recently participated in this AfD, in which the nominator insisted that several feature-length newspaper articles didn't count as SIGCOV despite every other editor in the discussion disagreeing. I would support this if it focused more on the "database entries aren't enough" part, but not if it's worded in a way that will lead to dozens of arguments over whether a supporting reference is long enough or unique enough to be significant - at that point you might as well just go to AfD anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ugh, for the love of God! Stuff like this clearly isn't "feature-length newspaper articles", it's a routine match report of the kind that seems to often appear in local newspapers (plus, it brings the whole issue of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTATS which goes with such non-encyclopedic routine reporting). Hell, it's so routine I can even find this sort of stuff for Canadian college football.... But let's not get distracted with that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

And we have Wikipedia coverage there too: Montreal Carabins football, Concordia Stingers football. But it's at the equivalent of NCAA Division III in the United states, most likely not warranting season articles. But back on point, please. You're sidetracking the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• The consensus at that discussion was that article and the other sources do qualify as significant coverage. It had a solid amount of participation. You confirmed that position by withdrawing the nomination yourself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Me withdrawing the nomination does not mean that I agree in any way with its outcome (nor that routine match reports should be used in writing an encyclopedia anywhere), more that it's a waste of time arguing about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, User:RandomCanadian, that's Canadian university football. I don't think a lot of colleges do football these days outside of Quebec, at least in Central Canada - rugby is more common. University football is going to be far more notable than college football. Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic tangent

If you were done "arguing" about it, you could have just let the discussion remain. But instead, you chose to withdrawal the nomination. According to WP:AFD Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal): "...the AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion." And speedy keep criteria #1 gives "Absence of delete rationale" as the primary reason. You may not have meant to, but that's what you did--so that's why there is confusion. If you disagreed, I would recommend keeping the discussion open and let another close it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) And the text of SK#1 says "(a) the nominator withdraws the nomination [...]." So the meaning of withdrawing the nomination is... to have withdrawn the nomination. Not the confirmation of any or all of the keep rationales offered to that point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC) The only "(a)" that I can find on SK1 is "(a) obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured content or April Fools jokes)" - what are you referring to?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I literally just followed your own link to SK#1, and quoted directly from the text. At something of a loss for what else to do, I'll quote a larger chunk of it. "Absence of delete rationale. Normally the nominator will provide grounds for deletion in the delete rationale, but if (a) the nominator withdraws the nomination, perhaps because of improvements to the article that happen during the AfD [...]" If the nomination has been withdrawn, by definition so is the "delete rationale". Insisting it must necessarily mean something else seems pointless, counterproductive, and unfounded. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support nr. 5 All athlete biographies already have to demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)*
• Oppose SIGCOV can be difficult to discover online for players who played MLB 60 years ago. Gair Allie spent the entire 1954 season with the Pittsburgh Pirates, had over 400 plate appearances (Much more than 3 games that is another proposal here) but coverage about him online other than databases isn't easy to find. I'm sure there are plenty of others like Gair Allie....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: FWIW there's plenty of SIGCOV available for guys like Allie.I added some to his page to illustrate the point. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Another proposal that you opposed right before opposing this one, so any link between the two seems somewhat moot. So.... discover it offline? What encyclopedic purpose does it serve to simply be a compendium of trivia mentions in databases? If these are purely aspirational, draft-space is the better solution, or project-space "to-do lists" for ones not yet troubling the Wiki. Rather than languishing as stubs forever as anything beyond that is too hard. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Has anyone looked for sources that are NOT online? Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  For Gair Allie? He's the answer to a baseball trivia question about one year wonders in a David Nemec book....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  @WilliamJE: Anyone with 400 plate appearances in MLB (including Gair Allie) will have abundant SIGCOV. E.g., here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's one of the more amusing spins on a "trivial" mention! (Sorry. I'll get me coat.) It's definitely an "in popular culture" point, at least. I'd be surprised if this subject isn't (much more) sourceable. Harder yes, but surely that argues for going them at a pace and to an extent they are, not just skipping lightly-yet-indefinitely over that point. And also note that is an "article creation" criterion, not an "article deletion" one. SP#2 would cover this case by way of a narrower presumption. Albeit I have reservations about defining "played for a season", about which leagues are covered, and about 'presuming' at all, but if adopted this article would enjoy that presumption, which might be strengthened by not being extended to one-game wonders. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support, as a common sense basic requirement for article creation. This shouldn't be required, but it is. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as the best compromise offered. A single piece of SIGCOV still isn't GNG, but it's an achievable goal. If it's not achievable, then this is probably a better idea for a list rather than a separate article. SnowFire (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Smartyllama. Femke (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. If this is not possible, it is not possible to write an article of any substance, which means that there should not be an article. Sandstein 20:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support. GNG requires TWO such examples. Granted, even one would be an immense requirement for many current catalog-like entries, but it's still is a form of weakened GNG for sport bios. Why stop halfway? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

W{:GNG failure will still be AFD-able, this will at least allow the sanctioning of mass-creation of articles based on a database. FOARP (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Support, I guess? - Is our bar really so low that having one single source that isn't a database is considered a compromise? Seriously? As I've stated before, I'd absolutely support a prohibition on mass creating articles based on databases, but I see that as a separate issue enabled by a problematic SNG which sets that bar at WP:V rather than WP:SIGCOV. I find changing the requirement to be something that meets V and also sorta-kinda hints at SIGCOV awkward and am frankly on the fence between weak support and weak oppose. I mean, if it's a BLP, this is already required, right? And any new page patroller is going to be looking for at least one source when they see a new page. But if it doesn't meet the GNG, this doesn't get it any closer. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support Wikipedia is not a database, it is an encyclopedia. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely unnecessary as we have WP:V and WP:RS. Also, I agree with GiantSnowman that it would just cause arguments about what constitutes SIGCOV. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Moral support I have two minds about the proposal. On one hand, this proposal is helpful, as it does provide an expectation that articles need to based upon on independent, significant coverage. On the other hand, my concern with NSPORT is a) the development of sport-specific guidance that makes the assumption that all participants that did (X) also meet GNG without any test of the truth of that assumption. In an ideal world, NSPORT serves a filter setting a higher bar than GNG because (at least in the United States), there is lots of local coverage of prep and amateur athletes. I saw NSPORT as a way to filter "real-world notability," not can I piece together a couple of articles in a local or regional paper about the athlete of the month. That all said, assuming this proposal passes, the debate at AFD will be the degree to which a database is an independent and reliable source. What does it mean that ESPN has Tom Brady in a database with biographical information, team history, statistics, and articles about signings. In an ideal world, we may want to see a more detailed profile, or local coverage (even pre-professional), but I have a difficult time seeing that creating an article about Brady from the database does not benefit our collective project. --Enos733 (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Enos733: Brady has plenty of coverage outside of databases as well. He's obviously pass this standard. Just in the past 24 hours he's generated numerous pieces of SIGCOV. This will address the permastubs that are only sourced to databases. Smartyllama (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as a reasonable way of amending NSPORTS to be more in line with notability guidelines. If an athlete, team, or season does not have significant coverage in a single reliable source outside of databases, we should not have an article on it. Not persuaded by the opposes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support we should not create articles with no sigcov. That said, having seen articles languish over a decade with no sources at all, it sometimes feels the problems already exist. We really need to create a minimum pre first article creation edit rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, if everything else fails. To bring NSPORTS in line with SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC) struck Avilich (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose then you'll just end up with infinite discussions about what SIGCOV is. Also this would clearly create further systemic bias against players who are not in the anglosphere. We've occasionally seen AFDs for decades-old players in foreign countries with dozens of international caps, that result in overwhelming keeps, because there's simply not an availability of foreign language archives to search for supporting references. As long as WP:BIO is met, the article does no harm. Besides, there's a long consensus at AFD that WP:NSPORTS is ignored when there's an overwhelming lack of sources for athlete when we should be able to find them now, especially if the player is already past their prime. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is slanted toward recentism. I can find more SIGCOV on a cricketer with 10 first-class appearances in 2020 who did not very much, than I could on a cricketer from 1840 who played 20 matches, took 130+ wickets, and at the time was a very important figure in the sport, but lacks SIGCOV because he was alive 180 years ago. StickyWicket (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @AssociateAffiliate: If there is no significant coverage of the cricketer, how can we and why should we have an article on them? BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

    From primary sources, databases, shorter articles that some dismiss as not SIGCOV, and from other SIGCOV that some dismiss as routine. In some cases articles will be very brief, and it would help if someone would step up, and redirect such articles to some kind of season summary, where the content from each article is retained. Which would be a much more valuable use of time than this, and the WP:BLUDGEONING at AFD. Nfitz (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

    Your viewpoint is very much dramatically at odds with every possible standard used here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (5P1), which means that A) it is not based on primary sources (digging through primary sources is usually considered to be WP:OR; and encyclopedias are usually based on secondary sources [being themselves tertiary sources]) and b) there are some things which it is not. Wikipedia is not an all inclusive sports database nor is it a collection of routine information about every imaginable subject. It is a summary of existing knowledge about topics which are covered in other reliable sources. Now that has many implications, but one of them is that if there are no sources with which to write something, then yes, there's no article. Inclusion in an encyclopedia requires verifiable evidence (and a level-headed approach, one which doesn't assume that the kind of coverage that exists nowadays also existed 2 centuries ago before the invention of radio, television, and the internet) and not personal prejudice as to what is "notable" or not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

    I think you may have misunderstood. Here's an example - a press release from a club about a player being signed is a primary source. If it mentions his birthplace, there's no reason not to reference that. Press releases are used throughout Wikipedia to flesh out articles. They don't fulfill GNG of course - but to suggest that primary sources should never be used is very much dramatically at odds with every possible precedent and consensus here. They should definitely be used cautiously - but if weren't to ever use them, we wouldn't have things like Template:Cite press release - or do you suggest we delete that too? Nfitz (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

    Don't misrepresent my words. I said "not based on primary sources". Citing the occasional primary sources may be ok for some basic statements of facts (or when the only interpretation required is basically 1+1=2), but you can't build an actual encyclopedic article solely basing yourself on "primary sources, databases and trivial mentions". The examples of this (where the article is basically a near-identical copy of thousands of others, with the name and a few details changed) are frequent enough that I don't need to show you any, now, do I? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

    I listed four things that articles created from. Obviously they can't be created solely from primary sources - and offhand, I can't think of an NSPORTS AFD where only primary sources were available. It's not necessary to reply to every comment (BLUDGEON), especially with a non-sequitur. Nfitz (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

    Articles sourced entirely to databases would meet that criteria. BilledMammal (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

    If you don't want me to reply to you, stop asking me direct questions (that is not bludgeoning, and you saying it is looks bad). There are plenty of sports AfDs where literally the only sources to be found were databases and there's still a crowd of people voting "Keep passes NWHATEVER". (ex. 1; 2). There are even examples of article which went through AfC (so supposedly went through the eyes of at least one competent person) and are indeed based on nothing more but databases... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Some have held up the revisions of the Olympic notability guidelines as a good thing. This is not really true. The new guidelines still lead to discussions like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Albert where people are arguing for inclusion in the face of no significant coverage at all. We do not even know the person's full name. Pre-WWI Olympics especially should not be treated like they were post-1980 Olympics. The early Olympics did not get the coverage, especially of individual competitors, to justify default notability even for medalists. This is even more so because early on some competitons they awards everyone who entered a medal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  Solely regarding participation medals: there were participation medals given out at all the modern Olympics (with the possible exception of 1900; some sources say there weren't any). I don't think there is any confusion that the criterion have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games ... or ... at the Paralympic Games only includes medals won as a result of competition. (I agree that Olympic coverage was much different before, and the impact of the games were much less.) isaacl (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Well we have 2 current discussions where some are arguing to keep an article on an person who was on a team that got a "silver" medal at the Olympics, in that they came in 2nd out of 2 teams in the competition they were involved in. If that is not a participation medal, what is?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The basic info of a database entry is the starting point to verify the individual's DOB, sport, nationality, etc, which is essential for BLP articles. That then ties back to the fact of X person meeting whichever sports notability they are aligned with. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Except when it can't tell us their DOB or even their name and the event they participated in. And an article based entirely on databases cannot comply with WP:NOTDATABASE. BilledMammal (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• I still don't quite understand what this would do. If someone created an NSPORT-passing article with no SIGCOV, what would happen? Would it be an automatic AFD nom? A draftification? A speedy deletion? Something else? And what would happen if someone repeatedly "violates" it? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • If it is eligible to be draftified, and it was created in the past 90 days then that would be an option. If it older than that or otherwise ineligible to be draftified it would need to be prodded or taken to AFD; this proposal doesn't create a new CSD criteria, so that would not be an option.

And someone repeatedly violating it would eventually be taken to ANI for WP:IDHT behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted this as the "presumption" of GNG sourcing is removed if an article created after this proposal passed doesn't have a SIGCOV source, which would mean !voters would need to demonstrate GNG during an AfD if nominated. I would of course support the same for older articles, but I imagine people would object to that, so instead we could tag the article for notability and if ≥1 piece of SIGCOV isn't added to the article in 6 months then the presumption is removed as well for AfD purposes. @Cbl62 JoelleJay (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as stated, but I could see some merit in refining this. For topics that meet certain criteria this should not be necessary (e.g., 1st round draft picks in certain sports, players who played let's say a full season in certain leagues), but I could see using this to make the presumed notability criteria without including at least one significant reliable source tighter than the current SNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I am mind boggled that it is permissible to create an article without even this, miserable bare minimum, requirement. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- I think the limitation on database-sourced articles is a net positive, and the concerns presented by the oppose here don't convince me. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support This is an encyclopedia, not a database (or handwritten copy of one). ElKevbo (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. If an article cannot demonstrate significant coverage, it does not meet the GNG. As a new page patroller, I expect articles on all other topics to produce at least two reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Asking for only one for sports professionals is, frankly, generous. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As this would allow the deletion of articles even if they pass GNG just because they were created in a specific way. Also I do not see how this could be implemented. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. If approved, this should be for all bios. For example, plenty of U.S. state-level politicians are sourced only to election result or voting records databases, satisfying WP:NPOL, with otherwise no evidence of the existence of significant coverage. Every editor has their own subjective bias on who is "important" in this world and gets a "free pass".—Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  There should certainly be a discussion about obscure politicians or obscure bands. This one is about obscure athletes, gotta start somewhere to reduce clutter which reflects poorly on Wikipedia. — JFG ^talk 07:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Question. Is this intended to apply to new articles (from now on), or all articles (retroactively)? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support One of several possible ways to fix the big mess that this overly lenient SNG has created. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Of course, demonstration of SIGCOV should be in the article if it is to be created. Otherwise, a redirect to a list/team/ some other article will suffice so that what is known about the person is still easily accessible. MB 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, as useful compromise. In theory this is already the case anyway, but far too often ignored. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support as better than the status quo, although not sufficient because it won't address existing articles. MER-C 20:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support- as mentioned above, this is already the requirement. But this would make it absolutely explictly clear that one cell in an excel spreadsheet does not equal an article on Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 22:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support – This is already a requirement, so it shouldn't have to be spelled out. Unfortunately, this has become necessary. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I thought this was standard for all articles anyway. Red Fiona (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It should be, but in practice it is often rejected. Most commonly on articles covered by NSPORT, but other SNG's have also been used as an excuse for it, such as ANYBIO - though even there the article is of a sportsperson. BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support – among all proposals here, I feel this is the most practical and pragmatic approach described here. Knowing that the microstubs in my project (WP:AFL) are primarily based on two references – an online statistical database, and its pre-internet equivalent reference book called 'Encyclopedia of AFL Players' – it becomes straightforward to exclude those as being adequate basis for an article and ensure this is applied across the project. I do have some trepidation about the ROUTINE vs SIGCOV arguments it would generate, knowing that those are always incredibly frustrating discussions which seldom draw a consensus – but I think there are ways for the projects to build practical guidelines there as well. Aspirex (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• This is really needed. We see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Álvarez (sprinter) where we have people voting to keep even though they admit a total failure to find significatn coverage. The fact that someone says they have gone to the trouble to look, failed to find any signifcant coverage, and still vote to keep shows a total failure of understanding the rleationship of GNG and the sports SNG, and that we need to change something to inprove things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support The Oppose votes are just completely nonsensical. They're either WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments complaining that this isn't the case for other subjects (it should be the case there too, go make a proposal to change those as well) or they're claiming this will harm pre-Internet articles. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that you can't find a SINGLE source of significant coverage for the subject? If you can't, then we shouldn't have an article on the subject in the first place. Which is kind of the point. The closer should completely ignore these just terrible Oppose arguments. Silverseren^C 04:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Problem is that you get into debates about what consists of significant coverage. You can certainly write an article from sources that are only a couple of - but we have some saying that a dozen such articles is not enough, because none are detailed enough. Nfitz (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • This is a just plain bogus claim. The AfD discussion I listed to above no one presented any examples of significant coverage. Although sports are not as bad. with film and actors we have a policy that IMDb is not reliable. Yet people go on all sorts of wars against those who nominate articles sourced only to IMDb for deletion, even after reasonable searches. They ask for heroic searches from deletion nominators, but articles creators never get flack for flooding Wikipedia with sub-par junk. Something needs to change. It seems some people at AfD operate on the assumption that if they go on enough personal attacks on nominators they can bring nominations to a halt, and let articles with no sources or no reliable sources sit in their sub-par states for another decade at least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
      • How, User:Johnpacklambert is that bogus? Even I didn't support keeping that article, despite it easily meeting NOLYMPIC. Not one person in that discussion (at WP:Articles for deletion/A. Albert even suggest that any of the sources met GNG. So how it an example of a debate about what consists of significant coverage? Nfitz (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
        • (Link fixed in the above, pardon the presumption.) I think you're making JPL's argument for them: the 'keep' rationales didn't even try to claim there was significant coverage, just on the one hand appealed to NSPORT (without the GNG part, obvs), and on the other by way of a slight variation on the theme quoting WP:ANYBIO out of context to the same effect. i.e., we don't need no steenkin' SIGCOV, just keep regardless. So getting into debates about what is or isn't is kinda threatening us with a good time, in comparison. If the guidelines need to get more specific as to what is and what isn't 'significant' then fair enough, and that that might indeed be something best done on a subject-by-subject basis. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, every article should contain at least one source that contributes to GNG, even if they pass an SNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, demonstrating notability requires substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, not just one. Those sources should be in hand and in the article before an article is started in or moved to mainspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Dlthewave and so many others. Creating the article without the SIGCOV is putting the cart before the horse anyway. Retswerb (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support still below the bar, but at least a move in the right direction. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support One is rarely enough but no harm in stating it as an explicit minimum. MB 17:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. In agreement with Seraphimblade that this is not enough to actually ensure notability, and ideally articles creators should have better, but setting this explicitly cannot do harm. As per many above, a step in the right direction. eviolite (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment As seen at the deletion discussion for "name redactred" the current system is totally broken. I nominate for deletion an article lacking significant coverage. Someone comes along and argues to keep because we must have articles on every single person in the NFL and some other leagues as well, no matter that no one can find signficant coverage of them, and then adds on another sports database as an added source, but fails to produce any examples of significant coverage. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being a sports database, and to have sports database entries masquerading as biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Johnpacklambert, this is a non-neutral notice of an on-going discussion and thus may violate our canvassing guideline. I'd strongly recommend you replace the reference and link to the ongoing discussion with a more general assertion (e.g. "As seen at many recent deletion discussions"). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Well, I have removed the name to try and improve things. However I find the current system of very frustrating. Over and over again articles lack any significant coverage, people fail to find any. In some cases people are argueing to keep articles because there may be sources in collecitons that the people have no intention of checking for several years until they are more accessible. This failure to in any way meet the requirements of signficant coverage is getting very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• The closer of this needs to consider that some of the opposition to this comes from people who think it is too lenient, and so they want something more stringent, but in fact that is much more stringent than the de facto reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose That is completely outside consensus and violates WP:V, that every fact must verifiable. It would create a special condition just for sports people, when other biographies need to satisfy actual notability with every sentence proving coverage exists for that fact. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  WP:V -- which let's recall is policy -- in the normal course of events (i.e. not counting when we play IAR "Opposites Day") overrides any mere guideline. So any text in any version of NSPORT (or even GNG) is never going to 'violate' verifiability. Even if were to purport to do do, which I don't see this doing in any way. It doesn't say 'have just one source, then add whatever other stuff you like' -- very clearly. Nor is it changing the 'eventually should' requirement for multiple significant sources: it's just putting a better-constructed floor under the initial 'presumption' of notability, for there to be an article on the topic at all. 23:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)0

  That is nonsense. If there is a arbitary limit set on the number of reference then that limit will be used in places like Afd and Afc to justify consensus. Consensus already states one references for every sentence. That is everywhere. Proving an article is notable at Afd takes three references. The whole thing doesn't make any sense. This proposal seems to exhibit a complete lack of vision and doesn't address main problem here. scope_creep^Talk 22:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm really struggling to follow your rationale here. Again, this proposal does not purport to do anything to reduce standards of verifiability -- witness the absence of any "go ahead and include unverifiable claims" wording in it. And would fail to have that effect even if it did... which it does not. Are you somehow reading this as a restriction to having only one SIGCOV source? Because clearly it's not that, and that really would make non sense. As to supposed justifications of inclusion at AfD/C, I can only draw your attention to the status quo, where 'keep, meets NSPORT' is the regular cry where there are zero pieces of significant coverage. This isn't weakening those standards, it's strengthening them. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support – Providing a relevant source for notability is a bare minimum requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also support a quick deletion process for articles that do not meet this bare minimum requirement -- in other words, no "grandfathering" of poorly-sourced articles. — JFG ^talk 07:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not seeing any discussion here how we mitigate some of the systemic BIAS issues - particularly for foreign sportspeople, who very easily pass NSPORT, but are from somewhere where we have no source of on-line coverae - especially for historical players. Nfitz (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  The way to overcome WP:BIAS issues -- as in, things actually in the scope of that essay -- is for concerned editors to work on editing, and crucially, sourcing articles that might go neglected due to the demographics and proclivities of our own userbase. As this is a volunteer-based effort, the best that can be done there is to organise, exhort, and maybe bribe each other -- see WP:CSB. It doesn't really cover external' bias. And it's not clear how it can, unless we're going to make explicit that we're going to have lower inclusion, sourcing, or lack of OR standards for those, rather than simply working harder to meet them. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  However, I think editors here from Western countries sometimes blindly assume that a sport popular in their country must have the same amount of coverage in another country. I've spent extended time in countries where there are local pro basketball and football/soccer teams which are also televised, but little in the way of print media coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  I note that that some SNGs explicitly require 'international' notability -- for example PROF. Granted that makes more sense in academia than in some other fields: you can be a pretty big cheese in domestic media without troubling the globalist scorers in many areas. TV, non-global-language film and literature, etc. I suspect that this isn't going to be be resolvable very satisfactorily as it'd require much greater use of sources that aren't just the online equivalent of middle-market newspapers. Which falls down if they too don't exist, and more especially because they're much less convenient for editors, especially when it comes to bulk creation. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  The problem with online foreign sources is that many of the editors here at en.WP who are not fluent in that language will likely take any search engine hit without being able to filter if it is reliable or not. Google Translate doesn't have that feature (yet). It's not like how an American might know that Daily Mail is unreliable, or a Brit could know to skip Breitbart, or at least there's WP:RSP for some English sources.—Bagumba (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's certainly a consideration, though nothing that's not improvable with enough collective effort. (I've been rather archly told that it's intentional that RS/P isn't comprehensive and deliberately only lists the common and easy cases and not the rarer and hence harder ones... which kinda makes the exact opposite of sense. Add to that, keep on adding, IMO.) The fix for bad sources is ultimately better sources, but partial credit to people at least making good-faith attempts to start someplace. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Articles need to follow sourcing. Having actually read through a whole slew of articles in Wikipedia, I know probelms of not having sources and being built on only sports tables apply to articles on people from everywhere. Allowing sub-standard articles or not does not really affect where our articles cover, but allowing sub-standard articles gives us lots of articles that are not at all informative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen arguments that articles don't need sources. Are there examples of keeps where no one brings forward anything but sports tables - at least for players from this century. Nfitz (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support but only because the sportfans won't let any other basic standards on sources—the foundation of the encyclopedia—apply to them. Please disregard if we actually get around to making sports topics compliant with GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever seen that we should WP:POINT be used to support a vote before. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 6

Conditional on Subproposal 5 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice? BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This provides a clear solution to the question of how we address articles that violate Subproposal 5, without adding to the existing issue that such micro stubs can be created in less than a minute, compared to the few hours we would collectively spend at AFD deleting them. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Noting that I would also support this applying site-wide, as mentioned by several other supporters. BilledMammal (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I have serious issues with people going around and placing prod notices on potentially thousands of articles... that causes way more problems as the people who would be interested in fixing these articles can not possibly be expected to address all of them at once. Spanneraol (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hence my suggestions, on foot of a number of the variations presented here, that what we maybe need is some sort of queue, process, or time horizon to work our way through the existing pool of such articles in a gradual and orderly manner. As well as a mechanism to try to ensure they're not being created at a greater rate than they're being dealt with... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Spending man-hours of time at AFD for single-sentence, single-source articles that were created en masse, in many cases against warnings at ANI, at a rate of one every minute, is obviously a ludicrous mis-match. PROD and mass deletion, with appropriate but minimal checks, are the only real way of even making a dent in this issue. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as overly bureaucratic. You can PROD the articles under the usual process. I wouldn't imagine such PRODs would be challenged unless a SIGCOV source exists (or is added). If someone is mass challenging legitimate PRODs and unnecessarily increasing AfD workload for articles that just end up deleted, that should be addressed at WP:ANI as a conduct issue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Just use the regular PROD, or AFD if it's contentious as to whether something counts as "significant coverage." We don't need a new thing. Smartyllama (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as above, bureaucratic for the sake of it. Current PROD/AFD fine. GiantSnowman 18:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this would add complexity to the deletion process causing further confusion and could pave the way for other deletion processes for different subject areas which would become messy quick given how broad Wikipedia is. PROD and AfD are sufficient. NemesisAT (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the comments above. The real goal of subproposal 5 is as a deterrent to mass creation of inadequately sourced microstubs. If particular users persist in creating such microstubs without SIGCOV, the proper remedy is to warn them and if they flout the consensus, then move on to our usual panoply of escalating measures. Cbl62 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • But inadequately sourced "start-class" articles on non-notable subjects are fine? On the theory that they're a little slower to write? That seems something of a "never mind the quality, feel the width!" sort framing of the above two subprops. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I read this earlier and didn't understand your point so I figured I'd come back to it later. Having come back, I still haven't a clue. Cbl62 (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • ALOL. Well, as you're tried reading it twice, let me try to meet you halfway and write it twice, too. Subproposal 5 doesn't say anything about microstubs. As written, it says new sportsbios must have a GNG-grade source. That'd preclude both unsourced nanostubs, and thousand-word articles fully verifiable with a dozen trivial references, none of them amounting to anything. Your opposition only addresses one of those, and I was trying to tease out why that might be the case. Shouldn't we aim, if adopting SP5, to be as transparent as possible about whether and how it might be enforced? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with the five above users. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I'm sympathetic to the argument that a little more process might be useful, but I don't think PROD is the right model. The timescale is especially short if people are going to have to crack open actual books to find said SIGCOV, as people keep protesting about the very idea of doing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose overtly bureacratic, system is fine as is.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Supportand I'd support such a prod site-wide, especially for BLPs and not just for sports, such as a "no-RS prod" (that can only be cleared with the addition of an RS, disputes resolved at RSN, which is what BLPPROD is), and a "no-sigcov prod" (that can only be cleared with the addition a GNG RS, disputes resolved at AFD). Levivich 01:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Maybe we need to redo those in that order then, by way of an entirely new RfC (no sobbing at the back, there!), given the frequency of "no fair picking on sports!" opposition to any and all change in this area. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I think that would be a good idea; there are more BLP's with this issue in the area covered by NSPORTS, but they are equally problematic everywhere. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

      Don't kid yourselves; some sports editors will oppose a general RFC as well, because they'll recognize the effect it would have on sports coverage. Levivich 15:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Regular PROD should be sufficient. Not opposing per see, but don't see the need for this either. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support and preferably site-wide. Might cut down on the endless hours of AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Red tape. Completely unnecessary. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support as site-wide, even. Rd tape it might be, but AfD is a disproportionate amount of effort to spend on an article that was created in a minute. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support. Perhaps the result could be that the article gets moved to draft-space rather than deletion to allow longer for issues to be addressed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support: and site-wide, as others have suggested. It would certainly cut down dramatically on knee-jerk/mass dePRODding. Ravenswing 05:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Whatever we do do not follow the schools example. 5 years after the RfC we are still drowning in articles on high schools that or only verified to exist. Olympians have hardly made much change either. I guess we are getting dome progress, but it is slow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support I have seen too many people remove a prod on an article sourced only to the unreliable IMDb without any improvement to have any hope of improvement if we allow normal removal of prop. We need to take action against the glut of sports articles. A new prod path with a requirement to act is clearly needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The current system is broken. I redirected Luis Mantilla, only to have the redirect reverted because an editor who has creted a huge number of permastubs found another database that mentioned the person. We still have 0 sources on the person that constitute Sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Arthur Lindegren is another redirect that was reverted. No sources providing Sigcov have been added to the article. Is this [2] that has not been added as a source, but was tagged by the reverted, really Sigcov. This is a local insterest story that involves an interview of the with a local participant in the last Olympics, mainly to give local color to a story about the Olympics. I do not think this constitutes SigCov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• In under 200 articles in Category:1911 births (I am still on the same page, which is 200 articles, and I think on the same of my two columns in the view I use, so probably this is in under 50) I have found 2 articles on baseball players sourced only to Sportsreference.com. So This is a problem that goes well beyond footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Then we have articles like Armando Massiglia which have existed for over 10 years with no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• It is not just football. Here Harry Moy is an article on a boxer sourced only to a sports database reference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep in mind the problems here go beyond our coverage of players. If anything we have worse issues with allowing sub-standard articles on umpires, referreess and coaches. There are just not nearly as many of those since A-you have less of these per player and B-in general they have on average longer careers. Although since we have an article like M. M. Naidu which lacks sigcov and mentions he umpired 1 game ever, I am not sure if longer careers is true. Also pre-1960 many college football coaching careers were insanely small. Our inclusion of that group is just plain insane, and some of the inclusion arguments basically boil down to "NSPORT says we should have articles on the top coaches in a sport in an era, and in the 1890s the often student coaches who rarely serve more than 2 seasons, some of them at places that were not even actualy tertiary institutions of education, but secondary at the time, were the top coaches in American football at the time so we should have articles on them. Sigcov is met by finding a mention of the guys restaurant in a local paper 15 years later and an obituary in a community of less than 20,000 ever in one of then 3 competing local papers, that only mentions the guy was a grad of this institution and does not even use the word football."John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment With Australian Rules Football we seem to have lots of article like this Jack Patterson (footballer) where one source is a printed work that says it covers literally every player. I do not have access to that work, but the fact that reference is to just one page may mean the information there is less than substantial. I am not convinced this coverage actually amounts to Sigcov, but it appears to be about par for the course with players in this sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I think the current policies actually lead to even articles that might be worth keeping being much worse off. Michel Pécheux seems to have won 1 individual goal at one Olympics and a team gold in another, yet our article on her lacks any Sigcov. This is in part because the way the Olympic guidelines were read until October of last year meant any Olympian article ever nominated was always kept, and they meant that some people, especially an editor whose name brings to mind construction work, created huge numbers of articles, sometimes at the speed of about one a minute. There was never any attempt to find additional sources, or write an actual biography of the person, and in many cases even telling us more than that they competed in the Olympics was not provided. Several cases in which the person did not finish the competition they were in, this was in the article on the competition but not in the permastub on the indivdual. I would also say that I think that sports criteria leading to the passing of such low quality articles, also means people feel that non-sports articles can be created with the same level of sourcing. This is a huge problem, and I think if we clearly put our foot down in one area all areas would improve. Although I still think we need to create a rule of a minimum of x edits before an article is created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• The fact that many of the utter druk Olympian articles come from 2021 tells me this is not just a problem with the old wild west pattern on Wikipedia that once existed, it is a problem that exists at present and we need to do something drastic to stop the problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not sure the goal of this proposal. One can always Prod such articles now. And Prods are easily reversed by anyone. This just complicates Prods unnecessarily. We should strive for simplification not complexity. Nfitz (talk)
• Oppose overly bureaucratic. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is nothing broken with the current PROD system, this suggestion would just add another level of bureaucracy and confusion. StickyWicket (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As others have stated, an un-needed level of bureaucracy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Needing to take all of these to AfD would be a huge waste of everyone's time. Regular PROD would be inadequate, as a PROD can be removed by anyone for any reason, and it is, unfortunately, likely that someone will try to protect these articles by removing the PROD notices, which would cause them all to end up at AfD anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support North8000 (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:CREEP. The current WP:PROD process is sufficient should the nominator actually follow WP:BEFORE. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Could you explain how WP:BEFORE relates to the prod? Even when the nominator does follow it, anyone can remove the tag without providing a evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, we definitely don't need any more special variant PRODs. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Regular PROD is good enough, since any mistakes can be contested or brought to WP:REFUND, and we also have WP:BLPPROD for the special case where a BLP has zero potential references. On average, about 150 articles have the PROD tag at any time. Just don't disruptively tag too many articles at a time, and you should be fine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Something is clearly wrong when people ignore a total lack of GNG, an administator weighs the actual sourcing and arguments, and then gets attacked for it as is happening here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 16.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support seems good. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose An unnecessarily bureaucratic move just for sport folk, singularly indicate they somehow special when they're not. Regular prod is perfectly acceptable. scope_creep^Talk 12:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 7

PROPOSAL FAILED
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing statement: Like with no. 2; this seems like it's snowing, hence same outcome. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Remove all of NSPORTS and NSPORTS/* except for a reminder to follow WP:GNG, and a requirement that articles can not use database, personal, or team pages as part of an assertion of notability. This would leave NSPORTS simply as a pointer to follow WP:GNG, with a reminder of the unsuitability of types of source which have previously been widely (mis)used to justify the existence of an article which may not be expandable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Opposed - Goes a bit too far. I agree that that GNG must be met... but we should ALSO caution editors that a thourough WP:BEFORE search is necessary prior to nomination for deletion. Deletion should be based on the availability of sources that can be used, not the state of sourcing currently in the article. We can then note that GNG complient sources will be likely if certain criteria are met (and list those criteria - not as alternatives to GNG... but as a caution that passing GNG is probable.) Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC) There is no need to restate WP:BEFORE in every SNG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Support. NSPORTS is currently used to justify the existence of articles that are entirely sourced to primary sources, in direct violation of WP:OR; removing them all and replacing them with a reminder to follow GNG will correct this issue. BilledMammal (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose for now on merit. With respect, this prop could've said "delete NSPORTS" and it would basically have the same meaning. However, I get what you're going for, and would support if the prop remains the same but the provision added being NSPORTS is reworked merely as a set of article creation guidelines with an explicit GNG rq. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC) @BrownHairedGirl: I would also support this alternative proposal by Curbon7, and reading Blueboar's comment I believe they would too. BilledMammal (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Not completely... the problem with a focus on article creation is that it is unenforcible. We can't actually stop someone from creating a non-complient article. So we need to focus on dealing with non-complient articles once they exist. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. This is an invitation to chaos rather than a solution. Cbl62 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC) @Cbl62: on the contrary, chaos is the status quo: hundreds of thousands of permastubs which we can't delete. Refocusing on GNG cuts out the silliness. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC) If you think the status quo is chaos, you ain't seen nothing yet ... repeal all the SNGs adopted through year of consensus building and you're gonna see chaos like never before. Cbl62 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC) I struggle to imagine it being more chaotic than having hundreds of thousands of permastubs sourced solely to statistical databases, in direct violation of core policy WP:OR which forbids basing entire articles on primary sources. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC) I struggle to understand how anti-sports editors get away with having proposal after proposal to eliminate NSPORTS defeated only to then dress it up in a new suit of clothes until eventually the eight or nine overlapping proposals leads to utter chaos. This process is so fundamentally flawed it's an embarrassment. Cbl62 (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Strong confusion. This seems like a minor procedural variation on P#0: whether we delete it, wikiproject-space it, essayfy it, or turn it into a restatement of GNG, surely this all amounts to the same thing, consistent with adoption of that measure. (If people have a strong preference or even requirement as to which, they're of course to make that clear.) So this sounds like we'll have precisely that discussion all over over again. Please excuse me if I'm missing something fundamental. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Support - GNG is the standard, and SIGCOV is the best way to predict that a topic will meet that standard. –dlthewave ☎ 04:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Strongest Possible Apathy (but also support) - This is basically what the original proposal as I read it did, though a lot of people chose to assume it meant replacing NSPORTs with literally nothing. Proposal 5 looks like it's going to pass anyway so I don't see the point in trying a new proposal right now. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC) I'd be fine with big, bolded, flashing, and ringing reminder that they are simply suggestions for what kind of sportspeople are more likely to be notable, but any bio needs to meet GNG (show SIGCOV). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose, per Cbl62. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose - isn't this is just the original (ill thought out) proposal? Removing the SNG will not help, it will simply lead to more argument, tension, AFDs etc. Amend to tighten the 'automatic' notability presumption? Yes. I have suggested this many times. Abolish? No. GiantSnowman 11:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose appears to realistically have the same effect as the original proposal. NemesisAT (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Support - for the same reasons I support the original proposal, and all the others: I support any step to tighten the SNGs or clarify that all articles must meet GNG. Levivich 15:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose, per Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Support as per rationale in supporting the original proposal (i.e. stronger support if 3 and 5 do not pass). wjematherplease leave a message... 16:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. The SNG needs to stay and be fixed. The dependence on GNG also needs to go. --Michig (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Support if proposal nr. 1 does not go through. Alvaldi (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. Abolish GNG, not SNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Oppose How is this different than the original proposal? Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 8

• Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG.
• Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist". –dlthewave ☎ 13:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No way to enforce “no articles may be created”… but otherwise Support. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I mean, content guidelines don't usually include specific enforcement mechanisms, but ANI and AfD have been sufficient for handling problematic article creators in the past. This would also give clear guidance for identifying noncompliant articles at AfC and NPP. –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - the proposed text revisions are clearer than what we have now. Levivich 15:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - All improvements over what we presently have. FOARP (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed (although support in principle) - nominator needs to be far more specific with what they propose the new wording to exactly say, otherwise nobody knows what they are actually !voting for... GiantSnowman 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The subservience to GNG needs to be removed, not reinforced. --Michig (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That can only happen by applying TNT to what we currently have, and writing a new guideline that is not an invitation to create tens of thousands of extremely low quality articles that can only ever be referenced to all-inclusive databases and maybe the occasional passing mention in routine sports coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    • It really doesn't need this. I'm no great fan of articles being created based on someone making one appearance in a specified competition, but this is really only applicable to a small number of very popular sports. For many sports the guideline sets a ridiculously high bar (or doesn't mention those sports at all). I would much rather we set a higher limit on participation to merit an article and have anyone below this ordinarily limited to an entry in a list article, but we need to set an arbitrary limit to avoid wasting huge amounts of time on AfD discussions, which would be a massive problem if all we have is GNG, because we know there are editors who will target anything that's undersourced without doing a WP:BEFORE before taking it to AfD (and will no doubt then wikilawyer about whether or not coverage found is 'significant' or not). Our aim should be to have a SNG that operates in parallel with GNG, not subservient to it, with hopefully a little common sense being applied. --Michig (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support would greatly help with AfD discussions to have this clearer so editors can't cherry pick from NSPORT to support their statements. Alvaldi (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support for clarity's sake. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The use of NSPORTS fails to comply with core policies like WP:OR. To correct this, it needs to be made clear GNG or something very similar needs to be met. BilledMammal (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal, have you even read NSPORTS? It begins by saying in bold: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. That immediately states compliance with 5P and RS. However, your second sentence is a step in the right direction. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: I have, and the section that states NSPORT does not replace GNG, but that is not how editors use NSPORTS. It's far too common for editors to !vote keep in a deletion discussion because a NSPORTS SNG is met, even in the absence of any significant coverage, or even any non-primary coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

How some editors might use the guideline is a problem with those editors, not with the guideline. By significant coverage, I presume you mean compliance with WP:RS because that is sufficient? No Great Shaker (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to simultaneously argue "it's fine as it is", while -- rather than providing any actual oppose rationale -- complaining repeatedly about GNG. Which is both our baseline notability standard, and explicitly part of of NSPORT. That's exactly the problem with how some editors use this guideline. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

NSPORT in fact begins 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. Which makes your comment above actively deceitful. It is a continuing problem that many sports project editors apparently ignore/cannot comprehend(?!?) non-bolded text in the guideline and refuse to ever acknowledge the context of the bolded sentence (like the fact that both sentences flanking it explicitly state meeting GNG is a requisite for meriting inclusion, with the third sentence reading If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article; and the fact the first section says In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.; and the fact that the second section says A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have participated in or achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level.) Since these passages have been repeatedly explained to sports editors, their continued insistence that athlete bios don't require SIGCOV can only be attributed to WP:CIR issues or WP:IDHT. It's obvious from the participation in this thread, despite the canvasing of partisan !voters, that it's necessary to re(re-re-re-re)affirm the position of NSPORT and clarify its wording so that other editors don't have to paste this text every time the "bUt ThE bOlDeD sEnTeNcE" argument is made. JoelleJay (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• • Note that this is very similar to the current consensus, which states eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met - it just increases the prominence of this requirement. BilledMammal (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Once we gain a consensus for this we can flesh out the actual wording. JoelleJay (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed; I believe the wording of the proposal to be sufficiently clear that it should not be hard to determine the actual wording. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. We need to abolish GNG and rewrite the lead at WP:Notability so the onus on article creators is compliance with 5P, provision of RS and meeting SNG standards. That will solve AFD problems at a stroke. I'm pleased to see that Michig has also recognised the real issue. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that we need to flesh out what the rewrite will be -- essentially of the whole guideline, as the intro needs to make clear what the status of the remainder of it is now to be, and how it'll operate procedurally. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Multiple RFCs (on top of the hundreds of other discussions, including AFDs) have confirmed NSPORT is not a replacement for GNG, and that articles must meet GNG when the presumption of notability is challenged. That needs to be made absolutely clear in the guideline; it also needs incorporating in WP:N for clarity. I'd suggest changing "may" to to "should". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, makes sense to me. Per others above the wording can be tweaked. Cavalryman (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Episode 6 of trying to gut NSPORTS after the first five proposals have been defeated -- just dressing it up in a new suit of clothes with no new notice to the impacted sports projects. This process is so fundamentally flawed it's an embarrassment. The presumption of notability is the essence of NSPORTS and without it, there is nothing left. Cbl62 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  after the first five proposals have been defeated What? At the very least #3 (15 support v 9 oppose, with 1 oppose being basically in favor of the principle, and an additional 3 comments that strongly lean support to give ~19s v 8o), #4 (last time I checked it was 16s v 16o, but 3 opposes were arguing the proposal should be even stricter so with regards to the intent of refactoring NSPORT to be less inclusive it's closer to 19s v 13o), and #5 (41s v 16o) are majority support. #1 was at last count 24s 28o, with 1 oppose literally supporting the actual proposal but not the amendments that were suggested as compromises, and 3 comments clearly leaning support; ~28s v 27o is not a failure yet. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, subproposal #5 is receiving overwhelming support. It doesn't gut NSPORTS. It's my proposal and makes reasonable sense as a compromise if the presumption remains in place. The ones that really gut NSPORTS are headed to defeat (or have already been closed as rejected). And my quarrel is with stacking one proposal on top of another and another without any further notice to the impacted projects. It stinks to high heaven. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Without urgent clarification of what "the presumption of notability" even means, the essence of NSPORT is that it's entirely dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. Hence the need for some surgical oncology. Your own proposal also heavily qualifies the "presumption", by way of an added "requirement". Unless there's a nod-and-a-wink that the requirement won't actually be "required" at all. Oh dear, shouldn't have have been created, but now it has been, what can you do, clearly we have to keep it. The sidebar on notification we appear to already have a sizeable subsection on, so I won't get into the weeds of that here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  dressing it up in a new suit of clothes - setting aside the fact that they haven't been defeated, I would consider each of these to be substantially different. For instance, this doesn't change the status of NSPORTS but instead makes the current status clear, with the largest change it makes being altering the wording within each SNG to make it less confusing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  with no new notice to the impacted sports projects. You're welcome [3]. The presumption of notability is the essence of NSPORTS and without it, there is nothing left. Presumptions of notability are inherently arbitrary unless they serve as an accurate heuristic for predicting enough coverage in reliable sources with which one can write at least a modest article with. Can you explain why you think NSPORTS's presumption of notability as it stands is a good thing? -Indy beetle (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support after the cricket wars, thus is clearly needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment What about sportspeople whose obituaries say nothing of them doing sports? I am tempted to wonder if non-local would be a key. However I am hesitant about any obituary rule. I think there is a problem especially with local papers. It is also at times hard to tell which type on is dealing with. Having spent the last 6 months mainly going back from 1922 births through 1911 births I can say we have way too many articles that read like obituaries. Way too many built on an obituary and nothing else. We also have way too many articles that are still here and we're unsourced as of Jan. 1, 2010. Sports is not the only source of these problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

UTC)

• I don't get this one. When families put obituaries in the newspaper, it's pay by the word, and to do stuff that tells everyone where the funeral is. Sometimes gets into achievements, but infrequently. Even articles in a newspaper about someone's death don't necessarily report things that the person hasn't communicated widely. This is unnecessarily bureaucratic, and is covered by existing guidance.
• Sounds overly bureaucratic and ignores the pillar that Wikipedia has no firm rules Nfitz (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support The sports guidelines as they stand are not good enough at predicting significant coverage in reliable sources; this simplifies things considerably and puts sports topics on equal footing with much of the rest of the content here in terms of bar to pass. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support – NSPORT exists as a way to quickly gauge WP:N compliance, specifically as an alternate method of ensuring that sports articles are created "based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing" per WP:SNG. SNGs are given some leeway in the way they define "independence", but they are at the very least a rough outline of the criteria listed at GNG. The proposal here does not prevent NSPORT from defining "independence" in a different manner if it wishes to do so. Until then, emphasize GNG front and center as this proposal suggests. The phrase "presumed to be notable" isn't really necessary either, because there are other aspects of WP:N not addressed in NSPORT, such as WP:WHYN, that should be taken into consideration. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is already what NSPORTS de-facto says if read correctly and with the rest of WP policy in mind (the first sentence, the FAQ no. 4, and the "meeting these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept" clause, are all rather helpful in clarifying any confusion), but apparently this is done in a manner which makes it that a fair amount of people do not quite get the intention of it. If it must be said explicitly, then yes, this is a decent way to do that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support A cosmetic change, but the clearer wording helps prevent wikilawyering. Avilich (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this seems to be a stealth attempt to change the current guidelines to depreciate SNG. Also this would clearly create further systemic bias against players who are not in the anglosphere. We've occasionally seen AFDs for decades-old players in foreign countries with dozens of international caps, that result in overwhelming keeps, because there's simply not an availability of foreign language archives to search for supporting references. As long as WP:BLP is met, the article does no harm. Besides, there's a long consensus at AFD that WP:NSPORTS is ignored when there's an overwhelming lack of sources for athlete when we should be able to find them now, especially if the player is already past their prime. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  The guideline already says what is in the proposal, just in a less straightforward way. People ignoring it is the reason why this is necessary. And if there is a long consensus that a lack of sources for a subject which ticks all the boxes of a criteria, then this proposal does clarify that existing consensus, and I don't see why it is being opposed on those grounds. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  Even if this did restrict NSPORT, rather than clarifying its existing status, it would not create further systematic bias, as the broadness of NSPORT contributes to systematic bias, rather than restricting it.. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I believe User:RandomCanadian, you are applying a much more black and white interpretation of NSPORT, ignoring discretion and precedent. User:BilledMammal the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#A_note_on_NSPORT_systematic_bias is entirely about gender, which has no relation to my comments about language (ethnicity).

User:BilledMammal, you (and RandomCanadian are WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, and not in your benefit either, as we know it only makes your words less effective. But if you are going to bludgeon it, can you not intentionally misrepresent the evidence you use in refuting a point? There's no way that section on bias and didn't realized that it was only about gender. Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I wrote that section; I know what it was about. It was primarily focused on gender, but also includes a brief discussion of how the guideline prefers the global north over the global south. BilledMammal (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Nfitz, you are entirely free to believe whatever you so please to believe. That doesn't mean it's right. "Precedent and discretion" include that notability requires verifiable evidence (a requirement from which nobody is exempt); and that articles which do not meet GNG routinely get deleted, because NSPORTS itself already says that (see FAQ no. 2). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Which only demonstrates that WP:N is confusing, contradictory, and badly written, as in other places it clearly states other things. It remains a guidance rather than policy, and firstly notes that exceptions may apply. Which is why we go with what the consensus is on a particular issue. We write guidance to reflect consensus, rather than change consensus to meet guidance. Consensus isn't simply what I freely believe! That being said, we are here (unnecessarily it would appear) to once again confirm/check what consensus is - not to change consensus. Nfitz (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Nfitz, could you clarify what you mean by "as long as WP:BIO is met"? That guideline says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in

multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This is basically GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Dlthewave, oops, I meant WP:BLP. Thanks, I fixed that! Nfitz (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cbl62. Enough already. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cbl62. I don't agree with the premise that GNG should count over NSPORT or individual SNGs anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose No basis given for proposal. Not clear if the motivation is a rebuke on all SNGs. Per Wikipedia:Notability (emphasis added): A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...—Bagumba (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm still curious how you think NSPORT is supposed to operate with respect to WP:N and GNG? Like specifically what difference would it make if we considered all SNGs as alternatives to GNG, when NSPORT itself requires GNG for a subject to merit an article? It's not like SNGs being equal in status to GNG would magically change the wording and intent of NSPORT (that it ultimately demands multiple pieces of SIGCOV in independent secondary RS)... JoelleJay (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: NSPORT is not as simplistic as you suggest in "demanding" immediate GNG compliance with multiple SIGCOV. To the contrary, it strikes a balance with the following provisions:

• The first paragraph states: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
• FAQ 2 states: "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. .... For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should [not must] be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

Proposal 5 (which has overwhelming support) would tighten these standards by mandating one piece of SIGCOV for new articles created hereafter. That is a reasonable, incremental tightening of NSPORT that prevents the mass creation of sub-stubs that has drawn considerable ire. There is no good reason or justification for going beyond that by also gutting NSPORT in its entirety by eliminating the presumption of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: WP:NSPORTS#Q4 adds further to the FAQ2 that Cbl62 referred to. I'd be more open to considering deletion for a subject that meets an SNG in its first AfD if WP:FAILN was followed. Otherwise, I have no issue to argue deletion for failure to meet GNG in a reasonably-timed, follow-up AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that frequently asked question #4 was just descriptive of what tended to happen at the time the answer was written; it doesn't reflect a consensus guidance of what best practice should be. If general practice changes or has changed, then the answer will have to be updated accordingly. isaacl (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, and I think we need to give time to see if there is a new trend or not. For example, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_January_19#James_Cook_(footballer,_born_1885) recently endorsed a close to keep, upholding the view to keep based on NSPORT, even though a few argued that GNG was not met.—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

And here and example of the exact opposite, a deletion endorsed based on the failure to meet GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62 Oh sure, I realize there's nuance and considerations built in to NSPORT. What I was contesting was the claim that the "or" statement in WP:N would change anything about how NSPORT relates to GNG (that notability can only be achieved through demonstrating GNG, and NSPORT criteria strictly presume that GNG coverage exists). People seem(ed) to be under the impression that putting all SNGs parallel to GNG would somehow elevate the NSPORT subguidelines to SNG status in isolation of what NSPORT says, and therefore confer notability directly instead of presuming GNG (since very few SSGs actually say the latter explicitly). This is what a majority of the sports project !voters who oppose any changes here seem to assume or at least desire. This incorrect "interpretation" is also reflected in contemporary athlete AfDs where thorough, transparent, language-specific BEFORE searches conclusively demonstrate a lack of SIGCOV, and yet sports project !voters still insist the subject is still notable due to meeting their SSG criteria. I think it's a serious problem that the presumption of notability for subjects who "strongly" pass an SSG criterion is treated as unrebuttable at AfD even for contemporary athletes. There needs to be some mechanism that enforces the "eventually GNG must be demonstrated" part of NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there are those who believe that the presumption is not rebuttable. There are extremists on both sides. The solution is not to eliminate the presumption. The solution is not to cater to the extremists at either end of the spectrum. The solution is in the middle on Wikipedia, as it often is in real life. Cbl62 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62 How do you propose we "not cater to extremists" when sports project editors can just flood an AfD with "keep meets NWHATEVER" regardless of whether there is a demonstrable lack of SIGCOV? If an admin closes it as delete against a strong numerical consensus they get brought to DRV and chastised, whereas if it's closed as keep despite presumption of GNG being rebutted there is little anyone can do. Obviously we're not going to restrict wikiprojects from being alerted to AfDs in their subject, so in effect AfD outcomes will always be strongly influenced by the local notability consensus formed within a project even if it is directly and dramatically at odds with that of the wider community. This is most evident in AfDs where the subject "passes an SSG by a wide margin"; members will !vote keep irrespective of source search thoroughness because they disagree with NSPORT's intent and think notability should be inherent for such subjects. How can the ultimate requirement for GNG ever be enforced if its "presumption" remains unassailable for all but the most borderline SSG passes? JoelleJay (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"How do you propose we 'not cater to extremists'?" Seek a middle ground and reject the onslaught of extreme proposals seeking to dismantle NSPORTS and having the effect of making good sports contributors feel under attack. Cbl62 (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62, the editors who want NSPORT to confer automatic notability object to any proposal that doesn't loosen inclusion criteria. The same bloc who oppose your proposal show up at every AfD that is remotely contentious and !vote keep, and because of the blanket presumption of notability there is no DRV-proof mechanism to automatically discount these contentless !votes even when the subject is modern and anglophone and demonstrably lacks SIGCOV. The way NSPORT should operate is: we require GNG sourcing be produced for all contemporary anglophone athletes within the course of the AfD (with draftification an option for subjects expected to acquire GNG in the near future); and for pre-internet or non-anglophone athletes either strong evidence that at least one specific unavailable source is extremely likely to have SIGCOV based on examples of comparable athletes, OR empirical verification that a presumption-lending criterion actually is predictive of GNG 90+% of the time and a deadline is imposed for how long the article, if kept, can exist in mainspace without SIGCOV sources being added. And if at any point an unavailable source alleged to have SIGCOV is accessed and shown NOT to have it (and no other specific potential sources have been identified), or a thorough search of language-appropriate media fails to produce GNG-meeting coverage, the presumption is revoked. JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, I was intentional in my wording of NSPORT itself requires GNG for a subject to merit an article: this is explicitly stated in the first and third sentences of the first paragraph, and repeated elsewhere in the guideline multiple times. This part is black and white, as it references the fact that all NSPORT presumptions of notability are relative to GNG rather than inherent to an SSG criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There's only two sentences in the first paragraph of NSPORTS, not three. You are misinterptetting "requires GNG". The first sentence reads: 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. It says that NSPORTS is an indicator that GNG is likely met; it doesn't explicitly state that GNG is required. The second sentence reads (emphasis added): The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Either GNG or SNG should be met. Again, no requirement there for GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The sentence as written doesn't say "no requirement for GNG", and that would be a rather disingenuous way to interpret it. What the sentence does say, once interpreted into practical terms, is the the criteria below are indicators or whether something is likely to meet GNG: if a subject meets them, it is more likely that there will be actual sources (of course, depending on ho well crafted the criteria is); and conversely, if it doesn't meet them, it is less likely that acceptable sources can be found. Meeting NSPORTS is not a criteria for keeping something (as said in the lead, lower, Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept., and in the answer to FAQ no. 2 - meeting NSPORTS does not obviate the need to meet GNG); in the same way that failing it is not a criteria for deleting something (although something that fails GNG will be deleted, if things go according to policy, whether it meets or doesn't meet NSPORTS). And yet there are way too many people, intentionally or through lack of understanding, who treat any subject passing NSPORT as "must be kept", in spite of the guideline saying the exact opposite. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The second sentence says nothing about a subject meriting an article. I am not going to link/quote FAQ#5 for the billionth time to you. You are well aware what it says about that second sentence and when it is applicable. Regarding the first and third sentences of the paragraphlead, let's call NSPORT subcriteria $P$, GNG $Q$, and "merits an article" $R$. 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. GNG is sufficient to merit an article, $\therefore Q\implies R$. Meeting NSPORT subcriteria means a subject is likely to meet GNG; it does not say meeting the subcriteria is sufficient to merit an article, so we cannot say $P\implies R$. While we also can't say $P\;\ \;\not \!\!\!\!\implies R$ from just the first sentence, that relationship is obviously implied here by the fact that GNG is called as an intermediate in the first place. This reading is also strongly reinforced by the third sentence, If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article, which goes even further by saying GNG is necessary for inclusion (a simplification from the fact that NSPORT criteria don't predict meeting NPROF or GEOLAND or any other non-GNG notability guideline): $R\implies Q$. Again, this is applicable to whether a subject merits inclusion on wikipedia, a question that NSPORT puts downstream of the capacity to create an article and have it stay in mainspace for however long the presumption of GNG remains unchallenged. JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bagumba and the extended discussion below their comment. This proposal seems to blow up the entire framing of SNGs in an unhelpful way when there are better steps (some of which are above) that would better close the gap between NSPORT as written and GNG as applied. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cbl62 and Bagumba. With such proposals the SNGs would lose their meaning. If only GNG was the applicable guideline, what would be the point of having SNGs. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Except that this SNG already mandates GNG. It even says that meeting the criteria is not a reason why articles "must be kept" (and conversely that failing them is not a reason to delete), and that it only indicates whether subjects are likely to meet "the inclusion criteria" (and that is linked to WP:GNG); and that meeting any of the sports-related SNGs does not exempt one from passing GNG (FAQ no. 2). So this isn't a change in policy, just a clarification of the existing one, hopefully to be accompanied with a lower amount of practical misuse. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cbl62. Just a re-wording/re-working of the half a dozen existing proposals, above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this is merely a backdoor deletion of the SNG. If the SNG criteria need tweaking then that should be proposed. If no changes to the criteria are proposed or have a consensus to adopt, then the SNG should remain as is. Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again, this feels like a backdoor attempt at doing away with SNG. SNG is hugely important because it ensures the subject is relevant to the scope of the project and ensures higher-quality, more encyclopedic entries. StickyWicket (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. You mean, this isn't the case currently? Really? The mind boggles. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose This is not an adjustment to this one SNG but a broader proposal to change larger policy and practice. I would support this proposal if it were made in a different context and for all SNGs but this is not the way to go about this. ElKevbo (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

ElKevbo, what would be the appropriate way to go about this in your view? –dlthewave ☎ 23:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A new, standalone RfC that is broadly advertised throughout the project. ElKevbo (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support This is key. SNG's should supplement and elaborate on the GNG, and we need to be clear that sources do actually need to exist in order to write an article that complies with Wikipedia other policies and guidelines. --Jayron32 13:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is just instructing people to follow our basic content guidelines. It should be done, but also in conjunction with more concrete steps to ensure that is consistently done. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support the rewriting of "presumed to be..." as proposed; Neutral on the first bit - I'd need to see some specific wording. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose same as the original proposal except less specific. Hut 8.5 18:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support- something needs to be done to stop people seeing the word "presumption" and reading "permanently exempt from sourcing requirements". Reyk _YO! 20:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support One of several possible ways to help fix the big mess that this overly lenient SNG has created. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support would help reduce the likelihood of creation of stubs about topics that do not support an article. (t · c) buidhe 14:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Although I am sympathetic that this should happen with other SNGs, no harm in making he clear here. MB 16:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, just clarifying what is already supposed to be the case. Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, better than the status quo. MER-C 21:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the first point – Why have an SNG if GNG is required to be met to even write the article? The point of the SNG is to work in parallel with GNG, both of which are guidelines which fall under the notability guideline. I interpret this wording as a thinly veiled attempt to simply WP:JUNK NSPORTS. If I am incorrect, please let me know what the intent truly is. Support the second point – "Presumed to be notable" has been used too often as justification to use any SNG, not just NSPORTS, to keep an article at AfD. "Significant coverage is likely to exist" removes that justification as "likely to exist" does not mean "does exist." This would actually place the responsibility for finding SIGCOV on the editors of an article (i.e. find the coverage to properly source the article) as well as anyone nominating for deletion (i.e. perform WP:BEFORE to see if the article can be improved rather than deleted). — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"The point of the SNG is to work in parallel with GNG" – Highly debatable. While elements of an SNG can work in parallel, the ultimate goal of both is to reach the same conclusion: that the topic of a standalone article has significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. The criteria that defines independent can vary in an SNG, which is why some exist. Others exist as a way of quickly gauging GNG compliance. Imagine you're a new editor (or new to a specific subject area) attempting to create a sports article, but you're having trouble finding the sources required by GNG. NSPORT provides a series of questions/criteria, that depending on the answer, will likely tell you if those sources exist without actually having to uncover them. To me, an SNG would still be valuable if applied in that manner (and the criteria is accurate), even if it ultimately defers to GNG in AfDs. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That hypothetical doesn't make sense; it assumes that we would want the article, but if they are not able to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject then it will not provide any encyclopedic value, and we would be better off with a redirect and a list entry. BilledMammal (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The hope is that subject matter experts with experience in this realm have provided a list of criteria (NSPORT) that are helpful in determining if said sources exist. Someone new may have trouble locating them (or knowing where to look), but an SME wouldn't for topics that have met NSPORT's criteria. I happen to think there are a lot of problems with NSPORT's criteria, but generally speaking, that's the premise of the guideline as I understand it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My point was about the worth of any article that is created without those sources; even if it is possible for a subject matter expert to create an article, that doesn't mean any article is better than a list entry. BilledMammal (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Well if an SME was creating the article, they'd likely do so with the inclusion of those sources. The SNG is to help guide those that aren't SMEs, in my opinion. As to whether or not a particular topic is better suited as a list entry (or in prose within an article covering a broader subject), again the hope is that the criteria agreed upon at NSPORT would help avoid missteps as much as possible. Obviously, you're not going to get that right every time, no matter how thorough and accurate the criteria. If it were up to me, I'd always require at least one reliable, secondary source upon article creation, whether you were an SME or not. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is more of a wording tweak than anything and I wouldn't expect this to actually drive any change in behaviour. Aspirex (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. SNGs are otiose if GNG must be met anyway. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The GNG is a hack, a rule-of-thumb that tries to boil the question of what belongs in an encyclopedia, a reference work for all areas of human activity, to a handful of bullet points. It doesn't define "notability", it's not "objective" (seriously, more than a trivial mention is not a quantitative or exact criterion), and meeting it doesn't guarantee article-worthiness. I don't know why we should lean on it more. XOR'easter (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I hate the vagueness of the GNG too and agree more quantitative criteria would be better, but if NSPORT subguidelines weren't required to predict GNG we would have a microstub on every arguably-professional sportsperson who ever existed, every college athlete, and probably every game official. GNG has been the only reason sports projects have tightened their criteria whatsoever; based on the inclusion criteria many of them had initially it seems a large number of their members want Wikipedia to serve as an athlete database, which completely goes against WP:NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Let's see how subproposal 5 fares in changing the culture around sports AfDs. The difference between subproposal 5 and this one, subproposal 8, lies in the penumbra where either we have Type I error: sources sufficient for encyclopediac coverage do exist, some participants in the AfD have reasonable cause to believe this and argue this, but the sources are not found before the AfD is closed and the closer says non-notable; or Type II error: sources do not reach GNG, but SNGs suggest they might and this is argued in an AfD, and so the closer figures non-notability has not been demonstrated and closes keep or no consensus. With subproposal 5, we should reduce Type II error without much increase in Type I error. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support - much clearer wording. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, this was already made clear in the 2017 RfC, so the wording should be clarified to reflect that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support, just in case it wasn't already abundantly obvious that I support this.—S Marshall T/C 23:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Support The core problem is that SNG's haven't been shown to work with sports folk. It has led to massive creation of non-notable biographies, so something else needs to be tried.
• Support – The concept of "presumed" notability makes no sense to me. Either we can demonstrate notability via sourcing (taking into account the relative paucity of sources for some sports or in past centuries) or the individual should be "presumed" non-notable. — JFG ^talk 07:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS issue

A large number of notifications have been issued; one to WP:NSPORTS and the rest to a large number of wikiprojects focused on sports covered by NSPORTS.

The message originally had issues in that it was biased towards a certain viewpoint, and there was also an issue with the targeted audience being partisan. The message has now been fixed, but the partisan audience remains - the average view amongst members of the selected wikiprojects appears to differ significantly from the average view among the broader editing community.

At this point, I am not certain what can be done, as it appears a large number of editors have already been directed to this discussion by those messages, but I feel the issue needs to be noted. BilledMammal (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In one sense, I see your point that it’s likely to attract editors biased towards one point of view… but the alternative was to just not notify WP:NSPORTS that it’s up for deletion, which is obviously not fair. Theknightwho (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:APPNOTE covers acceptable notifications, including those to "the talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion", which is clearly the case here. GiantSnowman 16:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

APPNOTE also allows editors to place notifications on user talk pages. It's a list of locations that may be appropriate to notify, not a list of locations that are always appropriate to notify. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no objection to notifying WP:NSPORTS. My issue is with the notification of the various wikiprojects. :BilledMammal (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? Many editors will watchlist only their specific WikiProjects, not NSPORTS. GiantSnowman 16:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say your desire to keep sports editors in the dark regarding this conversation is a much bigger problem. You want to change the rules to make it easier to delete sports articles, but you don't want the people who work on those articles to know about it. Sure, it would be much easier to get this proposal passed if the people most heavily-impacted by it didn't know about it, but that hardly seems ethical. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• I provided the notices and believe they were neutral to begin with. Even so, after a good discussion with Billed Mammal at my Talk page, I substantially modified the notice to the point where Billed Mammal agreed it was entirely neutral. As for the audience issue, RfC rules expressly authorize (even encourage) notice to relevant Wikiprojects. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC: "To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations: ... Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects." The wikiprojects where I posted are precisely that, "relevant WikiProjects." The proviso for notice to relevant Wikiprojects is intended to ensure that there is fundamental fairness in making significant changes to policy/guidelines. A key element of such fundamental fairness is that constituencies directly impacted by a rule change receive notice (and an opportunity to comment) before the change is adopted and implemented. Such procedural fairness is of paramount importance in any democratic/consensus-based system. Cbl62 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not "entirely neutral", but close enough that I didn't think it was worth discussing further. And I'll repeat what I said on your talk page; WP:RFC is an information page, and cannot overrule a behavioural guideline like WP:CANVAS. Further, WP:RFC warns against canvassing, stating Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased - it would appear to be directly speaking about this sort of situation. BilledMammal (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree with your view that it is improper to leave a neutrally-worded notice to relevant WikiProjects about an RfC that directly impacts the scope of their work. Indeed, such notice is essential to ensure that true consensus and procedural due process are satisfied. We shouldn't be adopting significant rule changes targeted at specific WikiProjects without giving those WikiProjects notice and an opportunity to be heard. This is pretty fundamental. Cbl62 (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's not contentiously "notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased", it's quite simply notifying the subject of the proposal and its specific WikiProjects, which I believe should be a fundamental step in all RfC's. MSport1005 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• WP:INAPPNOTE: Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking. That's how every SNG reform effort is stopped: just notify the WikiProject related to the SNG and you know you'll get a flood of "oppose" !votes. It happens in every single notability reform RfC. Levivich 17:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Alternatively, it's a lot easier to get rid of the SNG if the editors who edit in that topic area don't know about what are trying to do. But if you're in favor of getting rid of it, then I suppose that bit of unfairness won't bother you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  A "consensus" reached in the dark without notice to the impacted parties is not a real "consensus". Sunshine is essential for a fair process. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  And where are you notices to other WikiProjects outside of sports? That’s why you’re actions were canvassing. You only notified those you knew would be opposed. There are many neutral noticeboards available to notify the community (including the sports segment) of RFC’s.Tvx1 18:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  The guidance at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC suggests giving notice to "relevant WikiProjects". Since this RfC is directed at changing NSPORTS and no other SNGs, sports projects appear to me to be the "relevant WikiProjects." I am not sure what other projects you think should be notified. If there are other "relevant WikiProjects", I don't object to your leaving a neutrally-worded notice. Alternatively, if you leave a list of such relevant WikiProjects, I would be willing to give the notice. Cbl62 (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Every SNG reform RFC ends up being posted to WikiProjects and then members of those WikiProjects come and !vote oppose, and the RFC ends up not gaining consensus. Does anyone dispute that this, in fact, is how it always goes? (Does anyone have a counterexample?) In which case, we might as well let WikiProjects determine SNGs, since they already do. Levivich 18:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think that WP:PORNBIO is a counterexample. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Touché! Levivich 18:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  WP:NOLYMPICS is another example where major reform was adopted by consensus in the past year. The narrowing of WP:NGRIDIRON to eliminate Arena Football League (something I proposed) is another. Cbl62 (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm.. NPORN and NOLY have really small constituencies compared to other sports wikiprojects, and NOLY took a pretty "brave" close IMO. Arena football is disfavored by WP:FOOTY, I don't really see that one as a counterexample. I'm awarding 2.5 counterexamples in total for these three. Levivich 19:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  So what? None of this changes the fact that the relevant WikiProjects should be notified when someone puts an SNG in the crosshairs. The bottom line is that these notifications were not canvassing. This subthread has been a complete waste of time. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll tell you so what, Lep: Chris Lucas, no GNG coverage at all, played for like 9 minutes in one pro game, and his bio survives AFD. But Gary Chambers, who's got GNG coverage out the wazoo, gets a notability tag within five hours of article creation. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Levivich 19:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm well aware that some editors are resentful of the prevalence of sports coverage on the 'pedia. But no matter what you or the OP or anyone else tries to say, it simply is not canvassing to notify sports WikiProjects of proposed changes to NSPORTS. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Why choose the word "resentful" as opposed to something like, "concerned"? Levivich 20:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Because of the lengths to which certain editors have gone to try and keep sports editors out of the discussion. Not to mention the condescending dismissal of our comments. Also, because it's true. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think some editors are resentful, not of the prevalence of sports coverage, but of the reaction to any suggestion that the prevalence of sports coverage be reduced. For example, in this discussion, we have comments like Oppose - Jesus H. Christ, OP really has got a bee in their bonnet about this AfD decision not going their way haven't they?! I'd be resentful of that sort of a response, but not of the prevalence of sports coverage. When someone writes that, and then proceeds to notify a WikiProject, and then members of that WikiProject arrive and all !vote the same way, it does seem like the notification is intended to bring people of a certain viewpoint to the discussion. Of course notifying WikiProjects in and of itself isn't canvassing, but there is something real to the canvassing concerns raised here. Levivich 20:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I see it, those editors who want to change/eliminate the SNG are operating under the belief that those of us who disagree with them are wrong. As such, it would be ideal to prevent us from ever finding out about this discussion. And once we do show up, the next step is to poison the well by throwing around accusations of canvassing and dismissing our comments as undignified. You'll have to excuse me for having run out of patience. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  You really have stop playing this dramatic and false victim game here. No one is attacking you. No one was left in the dark and there was no intention to exclude certain groups of people. This is an open community noticeboard.Tvx1 16:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  In one sentence you call me a fraud, and in the next you claim no one is attacking me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  The ice hockey WikiProject has, on multiple occasions, proposed and gotten consensus approval of changes to the notability guidelines to narrow the criteria for ice hockey players. Regarding the most interested editors in an area creating subject-specific notability guidelines, that's to be expected, since they have the domain-specific knowledge to understand how to best apply the general notability guideline, or to come up with a different standard if desired. Editors with broader knowledge of other areas can weigh in to provide greater context in order to avoid criteria that are too inclusive or too exclusive. We need participation from both perspectives to build a strong consensus. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  The baseball criteria have changed, and in fact narrowed, as well. A few years back minor leaguers with at least 100 games at the highest minor league level (AAA today, AA earlier) were presumed notable. That was removed, with the participation of editors from the baseball WikiProject. The notion that "Every SNG reform RFC ends up being posted to WikiProjects and then members of those WikiProjects come and !vote oppose, and the RFC ends up not gaining consensus" is utter nonsense. Rlendog (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Every WikiProject should be notified. This a discussion that applies to the whole community. Otherwise you’re canvassing.Tvx1 18:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's ridiculous. This proposal seeks to change NSPORTS. It is necessary to notify WikiProjects that would be directly effected by this proposal. Most WikiProjects would not be effected, so there is no reason to notify them. This is not complicated. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Tvx1: The guidance refers to notifying "relevant WikiProjects". It does not say "every WikiProject". That said, I have no objection to leaving neutral notices to additional relevant WikiProjects. Can you tell me which ones you had in mind? Cbl62 (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I said before, ALL of them. This is a discussion for the entire community, so in this case all WikiProjects are relevant.Tvx1 19:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  So do you think that every WikiProject should be notified about every proposal that might be of interest to the entire community? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes.Tvx1 15:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Including WP:ARS? Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment We have entire Projects that work on the basis of canvassing, so I'm not entirely convinced that notifying Projects that actually affect them is canvassing. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  And under Tvx1's suggestion, we'd have to notify WP:ARS as well! Cbl62 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Noting this discussion is taking place on one of the central noticeboards for wide-reaching RFCs, a page we generally expect all editors to monitor, there is little reason to notify anyone else beyond the page of discussion, NSPORT. --Masem (t) 19:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  As GiantSnowman noted above, "Many editors will watchlist only their specific WikiProjects, not NSPORTS." A neutral notification to each of the "relevant WikiProjcts" is a more effective way to ensure that the impacted projects are aware of the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  But this is still a problem per WP:RFC. It only needs to be advertised on minimally one of those pages of which VPP is one, and while talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects can be used, WP:RFC also says "Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased." Except for NSPORTS which is clearly a page that should be alerted, it is very clear posting the notice to any Wikiproject is going to draw editors that will not want NSPORT deleted.--Masem (t) 20:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Look, I'm in favor of further reforms to NSPORTS, including tightening one-game provisos, requiring at least one example of SIGCOV at the time of creation, and tightening overbroad subparts like NFOOTY and NCRICKET. But this is an all-encompassing proposal that impacts each of the sports WikiProjects. If such an all-encompassing proposal is to be considered, it is only fair (and procedurally just) that the "relevant WikiProjects" (the language used in the RfC guidelines) should be notified so that they can weigh in before this is imposed from above. Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  And you're giving good reason to expect that any editor coming from those Wikiprojects are going to be biased. Yes, so will those from NSPORTS but that page is 100% critical to this discussion. Editors in sports Wikiprojects that aren't watching NSPORTS likely care little on notability aspects. --Masem (t) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• It would of course be easier to make decisions with fewer editors than more, but that's an issue with English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions. Until there is a change in those, though, at present it's conventional to let editors most affected by a proposal to know about them. To build a true consensus with everyone as happy (or with the least amount of dissatisfaction) as possible, we need to hear the perspective of the active editors in the area. isaacl (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• I've just skimmed all this, and not even sure where to post, but it seems like a lot of gnashing of teeth for nothing. NSPORT probably shouldn't even be a formal guideline. GNG covers everything that isn't a BLP fairly well, and these supplements should be informational guides to help editors determine if a particular person meets GNG or not, but GNG is the mother of all notability. I worry about changing causing more problems, as it seems an effort to give it more authority, which isn't a good idea. I would be more for relying more on GNG and downgrading many of the "guidelines" because it seems to cause a lot of confusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I empathise with your confusion, but you've left this under the "canvassing" subdiscussion, which probably not the best place! On the face of it you sound like you're supporting the original proposal, which would have the effect of turn NSPORT into an essay, or a series of Wikiproject rules-of-thumb, and base sportsbio notability solely on GNG. I don't follow what the giving it more authority refers to, though certainly interpretations of how much it should get a present seem to vary widely. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• I was chastised by some for leaving neutral notices to the "relevant WikiProjects" as expressly permitted by the RfC rules. But now we've got individualized notices being sent in a targeted manner to dozens of individual users based on their prior expressed views on NSPORTS and its relationship with GNG. Wow! See, e.g., Onel5969, Swarm, Scottywong, Star Mississippi, Nosebagbear, Sandstein, Ymblanter, Fenix down, Daniel, Randykitty, and many, many more. Is this now just a no-holds-barred free-for-all? Cbl62 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Are you OK with this? Cbl62 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to look into it as I've already spent enough effort dealing with canvassing on this RFC, but if it is as you say it problematic. Of course, it is less problematic than your notifications, as these messages are unbiased, while yours were (and even after the modifications, are) biased. Further, it is less problematic because a few dozen active editors have been notified, compared to the few hundred that you notified.

Although, I am a little surprised you have an issue with this; the same arguments you used to justify your notifications apply to these. BilledMammal (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow! I thought you were legitimately concerned with the issue of canvassing, but you've now show that this is just partisan gamesmanship on your part. Quite disappointing. Cbl62 (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

And, no, the same arguments don't justify both. I notified the "relevant WikiProjects" as expressly authorized by RfC guidelines. Joelle notified a targeted group of individual users/admins, the overwhelming majority of whom have already made their views clear that GNG should trump NSPORTS. Not even remotely comparable. I had hoped that some sense of legitimate principle would lead you to a different conclusion. Cbl62 (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that I am not "legitimately concerned", as I would dispute that?

And Joelle notified "concerned editors", stating that they were selected on that basis that they will be closing AFD's based on any change here, as expressly authorized (under your interpretation - I would dispute it) by WP:CANVAS guidelines (again, RFC is an information page, not a guideline page.) The same arguments (again, I disagree with these arguments) that you used to justify notifying the wikiprojects justify Joelle notifying the "concerned editors", even if the group is partisan. BilledMammal (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

10 or 12 out of 28 is not an "overwhelming majority"! JoelleJay (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, every argument for why the WikiProject notifications were OK also apply to these individual notifications. First argument: explicitly authorized by WP:APPNOTE. Conversley, my counterargument about WP:INAPPNOTE also applies equally to both situations. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ This is apparently allowed by WP:CANVASS but I also see why everyone is concerned on both sides. Levivich 01:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same, since discussion closers are not participants in the discussion, and shouldn't be assumed to be interested editors for the topic in question. That being said, there's no indication that the editors were selected for their views on the topic. isaacl (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh come on JoelleJay! This is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASSING. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11 @Levivich @Cbl62 These editors were all selected from athlete AfD closes that had >10kb discussion and had a non-trivial closing statement describing consensus, and/or were from closes that I disagreed with (see, for example, the heated discussions I've had with Swarm and Ymblanter about two of their closes). The third criterion I added after finding the vast majority of closes meeting the first two criteria had delete outcomes; even so, the list of "closers of closes I disagreed with" overlapped non-trivially with those that aligned with my opinion (there are only so many admins closing athlete AfDs!), so I expanded it to include even non-controversial AfDs where I agreed with the close but not with the consensus (these were mostly by non-admins). I don't see why it's problematic to alert the community that would actually be implementing any changes in AfD procedure. JoelleJay (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It's problematic because the vast majority of the closes you referenced were "delete" determinations on the grounds that GNG trumps NSPORTS. This is a classic case of canvassing by targeting specific users who you know agree with your preferred outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I notified the 8 closers whose closes I referenced in my comment, and 20 who were not. Of those, I included 8/10 closers of closes I had bookmarked in my "frowny face sports closes" folder (2/10 were already represented in the first 8 closers). I then searched the archives for noncontroversial closes of AfDs where the consensus was to keep but which had a minority of "GNG still needs to be met" delete !votes that were not acknowledged by the closer; from those I added 4 further editors. I also added the 2 closers of the first RfC. Still not seeing how this is any worse, or even equivalent, to notifying wikiprojects that broadcast to orders of magnitude more editors that you "know agree with your preferred outcome". JoelleJay (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There may be more editors notified through those projects that have already !voted here than there were total editors I notified, and we all know the vast majority of the wikiproject editors would !vote pro-SNG anti-GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62, not yet sure I'm going to weigh on on this as I've not finished reading. Just noting that my ping was in relation to User_talk:JoelleJay#Amanda_Dennis, which may not have been apparent as it wasn't on my talk. Star Mississippi 21:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that WikiProjects and noticeboards are widely accepted as being neutral, non-canvass locations to leave notices of RFCs. If leaving a notice at a sports WikiProject runs too much danger of swinging the RFC one way or another, perhaps that is an indication that a large section of the community supports that particular RFC view. I view user talk notifications as problematic and probably not a neutral place to leave notifications for this RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say a large section of the sports editing community supports a particular RfC view and is incentivized to participate in it, but that this does not reflect the view of the community as a whole as evidenced by the consensus cited in AfD closes and DRVs and the prior RfC and the language of NSPORT itself. User talk pages are accepted for notifications of relevant discussions. I specifically chose editors who had assessed consensus at AfDs rather than !voting in them, and made sure there were essentially equal numbers where the outcome was keep or NC as there were delete (which wouldn't even necessarily reflect their own opinion!). JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide links to the closes that led you to choose the roughly 30 specific users whose talk pages you targeted? Cbl62 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Closes that were in my ":( sports closes" bookmarks folder (where I did not feel the closing statement was consistent with wider consensus) OR were found by looking through >10kb discussions resulting in keep or NC in the archives:

Swarm, Ymblanter, SpinningSpark, Eddie891, Onel5969, Bungle, SilkTork, Star Mississippi, Vanamonde, Barkeep49, Ritchie333

"Generally neutral" sports closes found in archives (assessed as mostly neutral despite favorable outcome due to clear numerical consensus rather than the closer's evaluation of the arguments): PMC, Seraphimblade, Aseleste, Doczilla

From ":) sports closes" folder: RL00919, Scottywong, David Gerard

And the two closers of the 2017 RfC. JoelleJay (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh and the close by Cabayi was in ":)" but should also be considered neutral. JoelleJay (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: Based on your reply, which I accept in good faith, I refactored my comment above. As noted elsewhere, I apologize for not assuming good faith on your part. That said, I do still question the rationale for notifying these 30 or so hand-selected editors. Cbl62 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Best we put aside the canvass discussion. I've had my edits reverted at NHL, WHA & AFL season & related articles, these last few days & had complaints about deleting 'white-space' on election & referendum articles. Energy level is low, frustration level is high. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This canvassing "issue" is a waste of space. Of course the impacted projects need to be notified. How many people keep NSPORTS on their watchlists? I have the FOOTY project on my watchlist and even then I don't always go there when something comes up. Can someone please close this? No Great Shaker (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

If the wikiprojects that consider themselves to be impacted can be considered nonpartisan on the proposal, then they can be notified - but if they are partisan, then to notify them would be a violation of WP:CANVASS, and generally problematic because we want the decision to reflect the consensus of the community, rather than the consensus of those wikiprojects. BilledMammal (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That is like saying you didn't know you were at a party. Please read WP:APPNOTE where you will see that it is perfectly in order (and doing the decent thing) to inform WikiProjects of an RfC which might impact them. When you go on about partisan/nonpartisan, you are behaving in an extremely partisan manner yourself: don't tell them about the RfC – they're partisan and they'll object. How do you know if they are partisan or not? In reality, some members of a project may oppose the proposal but others will support it. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Further WP:CANVASS issues

These discussions were posted to nine sports WikiProjects, seven of which have already been notified of the discussion; Cricket, Athletics, Olympics, Basketball Association, Basketball, American football, Ice Hockey, Baseball,Football, College football, and National Football League. The primary issue continues to be notifying a partisan audience, made indefensible by being the second time all but two of these audiences have been notified, but the replies to some of these notifications should also be read. BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to make "WikiProject:Encyclopedic biographical content only" or "WikiProject:Where's the SIGCOV?" and notify members every time a discussion like this comes up or whenever we need delete !votes at a contentious AfD (obviously all active biography AfDs would already be transcluded in a subpage of the wikiproject; the additional notification would be to rally the troops to a particular nomination a member is involved in). JoelleJay (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Enough is enough. It is not canvassing to notify relevant wikiprojects of proposed policy changes that would directly impact articles that fall under the purview of those projects. I realize that AGF went out the window a long time ago, but that is the fault of those editors who assumed that it would be problematic if sports editors participated in this thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of these wikiprojects are partisan audiences, making it a WP:CANVASS issue. However, that is discussed elsewhere; the issue here is that these partisan audiences have been notified for the second time, and even if it is appropriate to notify partisan audiences once, it is not appropriate to notify them multiple times and doing so makes it clear that there are efforts to WP:VOTESTACK. BilledMammal (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Who determined that they were partisan? Or do we just have to take your word for that? As for the second wave of notifications, it should be pointed out that these notifications are in reference to proposals that were added since the first wave of notifications were sent. They were not, in fact, secondary notifications for the same proposal. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My word, and the word of most other editors. I can also prove it, by showing that !voters at the recent WP:NOLYMPICS RFC were considerably more likely to oppose if they were participants in sports wikiprojects, particularly WP:Olympics, than if they were not - which is the definition of a partisan audience. And those notifications are general notifications, as can be seen both in the text used, and in the fact that rather than being made in reply to the existing section they were placed in a new section. BilledMammal (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that only editors with a specific view on the predictive value of the Olympic-related notability criteria can be judged as non-partisan. Absent an actual survey of sources (which unfortunately isn't done enough due to the amount of time required), good-faith editors can reasonably disagree. Editors who are active in creating appropriate articles that pass the general notability guideline are the ones who are best positioned to evaluate subject-specific notability guidelines. isaacl (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Whether an editor is partisan isn't due to the position they eventually take, but due to any predetermined points of view they hold. An editor with a predetermined point of view is partisan; an editor without is not. The same applies to groups; if the group has a predetermined point of view, determined either through the nature of the group or through a clear pattern in behaviour then they are partisan, and this is the case with most sports Wikiprojects. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

All editors in a WikiProject don't think the same way, and you can't tell if one given editor is partisan just by the opinion they held. Two editors can genuinely be non-partisan and reasonably hold different views. isaacl (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying they can't; all I am saying is that individuals and groups can be partisan, and that sports Wikiprojects are typically partisan on the question of WP:NSPORTS. For you to consider a Wikiproject partisan, what evidence would you need to see? BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagreed with your assertion that you could show that a WikiProject is partisan by how its participants chose to evaluate a proposal to modify the notability guidelines. There are WikiProject participants who have concerns about the applicable guidelines, but disagree with specific proposals, and often for different reasons. English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions make it quite difficult to reach an agreement on specific proposals, even when there is broad agreement on a problem.

For the most part, I don't think it's helpful to try to categorize WikiProject editors as partisan with respect to notability guidelines, as it's often not possible to know what internal motivations they have. I think there are editors who prefer achievement-based standards for determining if a subject should have an article, and even though, as far as I can tell, the overall Wikipedia consensus isn't in agreement, it's not in principle an unreasonable position to have, just a different one. (I fully understand the practical issue of wanting to identify subjects for which a reasonable biography can be written; I once suggested using a standard where there was enough detail in suitable sources to cover key aspects of a person's life.) isaacl (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

For the most part, it is not, but since the decision was made to notify them it has become very relevant due to WP:CANVASS and how it may distort the apparent consensus. However, if there is no evidence that could convince you that a Wikiproject is partisan, then I believe we will need to agree to disagree on this. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no evidence; I just said it's difficult to determine, and I don't believe it is helpful to go down that route. Concerns about canvassing doesn't require showing that all or even most of a WikiProject participants are partisan. It's sufficient to show concerns about individual participants. But I don't think that's helpful in the big picture, either. For guidelines in a particular area to work, co-operation from the editors active in that area is needed. Framing the discussion in a confrontational manner between sides isn't conducive to reaching agreement. isaacl (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The sports project members who regularly participate in notability/AfD discussions have overall demonstrated a definite bias against tightening criteria, even if not all of them do. I would guess for just about any wider discussion on restricting biographical notability, both a significant percentage of oppose !voters will belong to a sports wikiproject, and a majority of sports wikiproject members who participate will !vote oppose. Sports project members know this, that's why we don't see people on the "delete" side of SSG-meeting athlete AfDs notify these projects nearly as much as those on the "keep" side. JoelleJay (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it, articles that are tagged with WikiProject banners will show up in the WikiProject article alerts when proposed for deletion. So everyone interested can find out about the deletion discussions, no matter who initiated them for whatever reason. isaacl (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is true, but some editors will additionally post a link to AfDs they're involved in on the wikiproject talk pages. When this happens there's almost always a flood of keep !votes, e.g. here, which garnered 6 more keep !votes, most from project members/discussion watchers, within 2 hours of being posted to OLY by the first !voter, resulting in a snow close. JoelleJay (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Actual, real-life canvasing

• WP:RFC directs us to give notice to "Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects." So, it makes sense to give notice to the sports projects that are directly impacted by these proposals. But now we have JoelleJay going out there and canvassing with completely and totally non-neutral posts at several unrelated projects, including Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#Village Pump proposals regarding required sourcing and presumption of notability of athletes and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History#Village Pump proposals regarding sourcing requirements and presumption of notability of athletes. Really guys? And then the pot calls the kettle black? Cbl62 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  ?? Are you seriously suggesting history wikiprojects would not be interested in historical athletes? I notified these groups BECAUSE numerous people in this discussion have lamented how these proposals would affect articles on historical subjects! And what is non-neutral about providing the context (historical athletes are given certain leeway (even more so than modern athletes) in the amount of sourcing required to be in mainspace)? I thought it would be less fair if I didn't give background on how NSPORT currently operates, since otherwise it would not be apparent how the subproposals would actually affect subjects. JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"what is non-neutral about providing the context"? Your purported "bolded context" is plainly partisan and provides an inaccurate and skewed picture of sports biographies allegedly run amok with no fealty to notability standards. It is language specifically tailored to appeal to a particular point of view that NSPORTS is out of control. This is not a neutral notification! Cbl62 (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• And these notifications were specifically templated off your NFOOTY notification (explaining how it would affect the relevant topics and describing each subproposal) because I thought this format would be uncontroversial! JoelleJay (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. My NFOOTY post did not have plainly partisan and non-neutral introductory text of the type you led your notifications with. Cbl62 (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe those Wikiprojects are partisan, and while the first paragraph should be improved, it was considerably more neutral than your recent posts, and the initial notification you sent. I believe that JoelleJay has addressed your spamming concerns. BilledMammal (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

More nonsense. My initial notification, as you well know, was promptly revised when you raised a concern -- following precisely with your suggested modifications. Joelle's notifications are written in a plainly partisan and non-neutral fashion and need to be refactored. Cbl62 (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

For JoelleJay, I would recommend removing the bolded text. For your most recent comment, I would recommend replacing your summary of the individual proposals with the one used by Joelle. However, overall Joelle's are more neutral, are targeted at a non-partisan audience, and have been up for only a few hours, while yours are targeted at a partisan audience who are being notified for the second time, and have been up for almost a week. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The bolded text plainly needs to be removed. As for your other comments, they are addressed in the section above. Cbl62 (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe they are addressed above; they relate to the summary of each of the proposals you provided, which needs to be replaced with the direct quote that Joelle uses to be neutral. BilledMammal (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Cbl62 (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have taken some time to prepare a notice that I think is completely neutral. It also includes the "main proposal" and subproposals 9 and 10 previously omitted. I have posted it for now only at the tennis project page. See here. I suggest this more complete and neutrally-worded language be used to replace the existing notices at the sports projects and at the projects where JoelleJay posted her notices. Cbl62 (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• That would be appropriate, though I would reword the first line to "Your input on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS/NTENNIS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:"

However, a new section should not be created for Wikiprojects that have already been notified. Notifying partisan Wikiprojects is canvassing, but notifying them a second time, as you just did at WP:TENNIS, is indefensible. BilledMammal (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with your tweaking of the intro. I am talking about replacing/updating the notices. And the bit about a second notice is nonsense. The initial notice was limited to the main proposal. The second notice covered the myriad subproposals that surfaced after the main proposal met with overwhelming opposition. Cbl62 (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I added your intro to the notice. I also struck reference to the "main proposal" to address your concern about duplicate notifications. The "main proposal" was the only one previously posted at the Tennis project. Cbl62 (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

To be less inappropriate, it should have been made as a reply to the initial notification. It still has issues with notifying a partisan wikiproject, and issues with bringing that notice back to the attention of a partisan wikiproject, but it is less inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If you see it as "less inappropriate", we've made progress. Cbl62 (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, it is still a violation of WP:CANVASS and unacceptable; it is the difference between notifying 10 partisan editors, and notifying 9 partisan editors. BilledMammal (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

We're going in circles on that point. The rules on RfCs expressly authorize publicizing to the impacted projects. Failing to do so would be fundamentally contrary to any reasonable notion of consensus -- a purported "consensus" formed without notice to the impacted projects is no consensus at all. Cbl62 (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A consensus formed by the broader community is a consensus, and to consider it otherwise is a clear violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - which is a policy, compared to WP:RFC, which is an information page.

There is also no benefit of notifying them. Enough were already aware, and would become aware through channels notifying the broader community, that the partisan perspective of those Wikiprojects was available for the broader community to consider and factor into their !votes. All that notifying them does is bring in more !votes, and given that these votes are partisan, that negatively impacts our ability to determine the consensus of the broader community. BilledMammal (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Except... those who take part in relevant Wikiprojects are part of the broader community. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

As are every partisan group, regardless of whether they are structured as a Wikiproject - the issue isn't with editors from partisan groups participating, it is with the partisan group being canvassed, as WP:VOTESTACKING prevents the discussion from reflecting the broader community. BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The problem is that NOT notifying them can be seen as WP:VOTESTACKING as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain how? BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Would anyone have any WP:CANVASS concerns if I was to notify the New Page Patrollers, with the text "There are multiple proposals regarding WP:NSPORTS at the village pump that might have an impact on your work."? BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No objections from me... I think it makes sense. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to me like a particularly relevant project. And in my experience, participants at at new page patrol have been particularly tough on sports articles. Cbl62 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62: You believe they would be partisan on this? BilledMammal (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cb162: New Page Patrollers implement the Notability rules all the time, so are likely to have informed views on any proposed changes to those rules. PamD 19:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like an effort to target a specific group of editors who are known to be tougher than most on applying notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I would note that no effort has been made, as they have not been notified - and given your concerns that they could have a predetermined point of view I will not do so. BilledMammal (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

And sports project editors are...what? Neutral when applying notability standards? JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• I hope this will not be deemed Canvassing: I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women, in each case with title "Sports notability discussion" and text "There is an interesting discussion at the Village Pump: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability (with, currently, 13 subproposals - you might want to get a cup of tea before venturing over there)." (plus, for WiR a reminder that "Sport" is one of the project's themes this month). The discussion doesn't seem to have been mentioned on those projects' pages, for all of which it is relevant. PamD 19:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with your notice ... except that a single cup of tea may be insufficient to prepare the readers. Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

General comments

For those who continue to be persuaded by the persistent myth that NSPORTS is a hotbed of rampant inclusionism, I have prepared a list of 2021 accomplishments relating to NSPORTS, which I think completely busts the myth. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#2021 in review. Rather than blowing up NSPORTS, we should continue the progress of 2021 and continue to strive to bring NSPORTS even more closely into line with GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• NSPORTS can be used either way, for inclusion or excluision, but I do not think that's the proper way to think about it. I consider we made a mistake when we gradually deprecated the SNGs. Putting everything in the GNG is an unworkable reduction of the complex importance of subjects in the different areas of human affairs. We then find ways to evade the worst absurdities by adjusting what being substantial coverage, or, for individuals, used strained interpretations of BLP1E. Using notability based only of media coverage adopts the standards of the PR industry. Notability should mean importance or significance, and be based on the standards of the field being discussed.

I think the question should first be, whether NSPORTS is an alternative to the GNG where passing either is sufficient, or a limitation on the GNG, where passing both are required, or, my preferred choice, the only standard with the GNG being irrelevant in the field. The one position I would rule out is the proposal that it is irrelevant and that the GNG is the only standard with the SNG existing merely as a guide to it--and that's where things seem to be going. (I would say just the same in every area where a rational SNG could be developed). The secondary problem for sports, as for other areas, is deciding on the place to draw the line in each specific topic. Some of the opposition to the SNGs is to avoid those detailed arguments, but then he issue just moves to the individual articles.

Much opposition seems to come from the unspoken preference for a standard so meaningless by itself that one can construct an argument on the basis of it to include or exclude whatever one might wish to. . It's the GNG that permits unlimited inclusionism, as much as it permits very narrow inclusionary standards; it all depends upon the meaning of those enigmatic key terms, significant coverage reliable sources" and independent of the subject". The GNG if applied to NSPORTS, considering the great amount of current and historic news media now available, could lead to a great overemphasis of all local , amateur, college ,and schools sports).

As it obvious that the general direction of changes in notability criteria on WP is completely the reverse of what I think rational, I try not to get involved in more detailed general discussions. I find them frustrating, as they ask the wrong questions and therefore inevitably give unhelpful answers. I try to be practical and work within the current mode, of finding whatever argument will work for individual articles I consider important to the encyclopedia (or unworthy of it). DGG ( talk ) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the question should first be, whether NSPORTS is an alternative to the GNG where passing either is sufficient...: I agree. The answer is fundamental to this debate. Wikipedia:Notability, the umbrella guideline for GNG, clearly states at the top: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right... Getting consensus on whether that remains true or not will make it clearer how to proceed.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A 2017 consensus already resolved that question, though it didn't stop editors using "passes SNG" as an argument against deletion (I believe there are later discussions that specified a few exceptions to that - I believe NCORP, NBOOK, and NPROF, but certainly not NSPORT) BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems oversimplistic. The close included: There is rough consensus that sources on older athletes are concentrated in print media. Because it is impossible to prove the negative that the sources do not exist to support an article, some intermediate standard is required for determining when an article on these athletes should be deleted due to lack of notability. Doesn't appear to be any progress on that front.—Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And I posit the RfC didn't solve the issue, when the top of WP:N still reads unconditionally that an article is presumed notable if it meets either GNG or an SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The notability guidance reads that way as a general statement. However, a consensus of editors approved the sports notability guidelines on the basis that it does not override the general notability guideline. No subject-specific guideline is required to take advantage of the flexibility offered by the general statement, if consensus prefers it that way. isaacl (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't question if it was the founders' intention. However, it's not reflected at the top of WP:N, and is one source of disagreement at AfDs.—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been affirmed over and over again, both before 2017 and after. I agree the line in the notability guidance gets raised in deletion discussions, but that doesn't change the outcome of all those discussions on the sports notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

...but that doesn't change the outcome of all those discussions on the sports notability guideline: I disagree. Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Q4 says to allow "adequate time" to find sources. However, deleting a non-contemporary subject citing GNG on the first AfD (not a renom) is not what I believe "those discussions" at NSPORTS had in mind.—Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussions regarding the relationship with the general notability guideline have always talked about being reasonably convinced that appropriate sources cannot be located. If this happens in the first deletion discussion, so much the better in terms of efficiency. It's up to the participants in each deletion discussion to make the case for the existence or lack of existence of these sources. isaacl (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's up to the participants in each deletion discussion to make the case... Unless there's a precedent now for closers to ignore SNG headcounts.—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, these are discussions, so more than just pure head counts are taken into account... But for any subject in any area, it's up to the participants to make the case for why there should or shouldn't be an article on the subject. In terms of efficiency, I think it's a good thing if we can get more of the participating heads to focus on searching for appropriate sources, versus arguing about whether the predictors of appropriate sources are good enough. isaacl (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not at all inconsistent with what WP:N says, I really don't understand how you're making this argument. There are two logical ways of interpreting that wording:

a) GNG or an SNG when the SNG in question is NPROF or GEOLAND and therefore parallel to GNG, in which case for NSPORT the "or an SNG" can be ignored

b) GNG or an SNG, and if GNG is required to meet the SNG in question (NSPORT), satisfying one will necessarily satisfy the other

And one that is logically impossible.

c) GNG or an SNG, but SNG==GNG is forbidden, so if the SNG in question (NSPORT) requires GNG...we just ignore those multiple instances of the NSPORT guideline and skip to the sport-specific subguidelines where GNG isn't explicitly invoked? JoelleJay (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither a, b nor c are how the top of WP:N currently reads. "logical ways of interpreting" are subjective. The wording should be tightened if the intent is not as it explictly reads.—Bagumba (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

...So what is this other logical way of interpreting that sentence, then? Would you be ok with it if NSPORT didn't explicitly defer to GNG but instead just laid out criteria virtually identical to GNG (like, for example, what it does in SPORTCRIT)? Or do you believe all SNGs should have only criteria that operate outside of the spirit of GNG, and any wording suggesting SIGCOV in multiple independent secondary RS should be ignored? JoelleJay (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't really settled on a reimagined NSPORT. I've only been interpretting the guidelines as written along with original intent as expained in FAQs.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok...and what is your interpretation of the guidelines as written and the intent, and how those interact with that sentence in N? JoelleJay (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Too many choices & too complexed for me. Let me know what the final decision is, when it's presented. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

^^This. As there is now half-a-dozen counter proposals, new conditions, and voting choices, shows how unworkable and vague the original proposal was. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The nature of English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions frequently leads to lots of people offering their proposals. If the community wants to have a more orderly progression, it will have to decide to change these traditions. isaacl (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Isn't the OP you wrote for this RFC supposed to be neutral and brief? I find it neither. What can you do about the RFC tag and the "RfC" in the section title? George Ho (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It obviously bears little relevance at this point (and therefore, seems a waste of time to bother changing it) as discussion has moved on to other proposals. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"Myth"? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessy Bamberg-Schitter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Oe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Balomenos all were speedy kept because "passes NSPORTS" (in this case NFOOTY), without anyone trying to show that the subjects actually pass WP:GNG. These AfDs are rom late 2020 and are being used as "precedent" to keep articles now, so this simply persists. Whatever is being said in the above proposals, the reality is that too many people still use SNG as a backdoor to keep articles which don't meet the GNG (or at the very least don't even bother to show that the subject actually meets the GNG, despite this being the reason for the deletion nomination). Fram (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have seen this many times as well, votes that are simply "Keep - has played X matches in Y league per NINSERTSPORTHERE", normally accompanied by the suggestion that WP:BEFORE couldn't have been done, as though this were conclusive of anything. No criticism at all of articles that are eventually kept with added cites, but when the entire drive of what is being done is "no, that single reference to sports-reference.com is sufficient to keep and no further work is needed from anyone" there is an obvious problem. FOARP (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if sports would be better served with a separate AfD queue with different timeframes and guidance, particularly pre-whatever the cutoff is for hard to verify.Slywriter (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think some people are expecting a remarkable amount of slack for "hard" here. Is it less convenient to check old newspaper articles, or to -- <gasp!> -- crack open a book, as compared to the contemporary bombardment of web-based sources? Sure! Was there a something to akin to the destruction of the library of Alexandria that makes finding sources impossible? Not that I'm aware of. Unless we're going to price in allowance for supposed "still looking!" for sources forever. Or out-and-out say that it's the past's fault for not having the same wall-to-wall coverage of fourth-tier bench-warmers and one-snap gridiron wonders, and we should just have such articles regardless of sources evincing their actual notability even existing. Now, if the consideration is "this is from The Olden Times of the 1970s (or whenever), let's stick it in a queue while people make a good-faith attempt to properly source it, and revisit in two or six months", or the like, that'd make perfect sense to me, and seem like we were making an attempt to tackle this issue. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Whole heartedly agree that "looking at newspapers and books is hard" should never be taken as an excuse for not doing so when creating an article. Similar "coverage doesn't exist because history" is not a reason to throw away the requirement to provide instances of it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, if you want to add an article to it you should have enough content to write an encyclopaedia article already to hand. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Cannot agree more that unless stuff is actually placed on a time table for people to look for sources, it's just kicking the can down the road. Theoretically, you could write an article on almost anything and then whine that, even though you don't know for sure (because you didn't even try to check), sources "probably" exist in the print realm so it shouldn't be deleted. Heck, you could go back and make that argument at every AfD ever! The SNGs have become crutches of laziness. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to overwork that metaphor (as apparently I'm getting a rep for), "kicking the can down the road" understates matters. That implies that we have just one can at a time, and have to periodically pay some sort of minimal attention to it. If only! The present situation is more shoving the can straight into a ditch, without ever having to give it a moment's consideration ever again, and then tipping five more cans just like it out, to do the same with then. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I've always found it bizarre that AfD doesn't require that articles actually be improved; the mere existence of sources (or even the presumption thereof) is sufficient. Compare this to the AfC process that new editors have to go through, which routinely rejects incomplete or poorly written articles even if the topic is obviously notable. Moving articles to draft space, even as an AfD outcome, would at least put a time frame on improvement. –dlthewave ☎ 13:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right. There are some very strange things about Wikipedia works, but that's perhaps the oddest. Why anyone would go through the AfC process is a mystery to me. Nigej (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand why the AfD process has that rule (to prevent misuse of the system), but it has always amused me (in sort of a tragic way) that AfC is so much more demanding than AfD, and any notable subject, even if the article is a dumpster fire or a permastub, can be kept at AfD and the ignored for the rest of time. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Omission/commission bias, perhaps? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is still substantial support for stub articles. As long as these are considered a valid initial step for an article, it's hard to mandate that articles must be improved as part of being kept after a deletion discussion. isaacl (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

If the word "step" is to have meaning, it's hard not to mandate that. The question is, how long is that particular piece of string? I think after multiple months or even years, it's not unreasonable to start wondering, "is this a 'stub' in any meaningful sense, or is it just a permamicroarticle on a topic that's not actually notable enough to have one?" 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The key issue is that since Wikipedia editors are volunteers, no one can be mandated to work on an article, and there is a significant number of editors who want Wikipedia to be very lenient on the amount of time it allows for an article to be expanded. (I've already stated my own personal views on stub articles.) isaacl (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

How about those people who object to having lots of microstubs about sportspeople whose careers satisfy these guidelines just ignore them, move on, and do something useful with their time here, like building an encyclopedia for example? --Michig (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Difficult to build an encyclopaedia whilst others are busy trying to turn it into a host for trivia/inaccurate information. Cleaning up is building an encyclopaedia. FOARP (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not allow microstubs on every subject meeting a "notability criterion" any fan wikiproject crafts, based on that wikiproject's conception of "SIGCOV" and "significance"? At what point do we lose the distinction between encyclopedic value and WP:NOT? And many of these microstubs do not meet the relevant guideline (NSPORT), anyway, since it requires GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No reasonable definition of the word "editor" excludes removing text from the work they're editing.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Oof, if it did I would be an anti-editor...I think my net contribution in mainspace is negative several megabytes. Hopefully most people would recognize the value of removing unsourced slurs against BLPs, citations to blogs and blogspot-hosted pictures that people on a forum say show the subject wearing particular insignia (as evidence some royal received some stupid honor), 25kb lists of trivia, poorly-sourced detailed info on minor private grandchildren of a subject... JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the above replies to my comment. Firstly, all articles need to satisfy WP:V, so any argument that the existing guidelines allow trivia and inaccurate information is without foundation. Secondly, I didn't suggest that editing does not include removing information - I've deleted plenty of articles. The comments regarding removing unsources slurs against BLPs, citations to blogs, etc. are specious - they have nothing to do with the discussion of these guidelines or my comment. Do better. --Michig (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is just incredible. Some of us want to apply the GNG to sportspeople and others don't, so in sections 5 and 6 we're "compromising" on a proposal that the GNG will no longer apply to sportspeople, but instead we'll implement a new rule with sourcing requirements far below the GNG, as long as there isn't any effective way to enforce it.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't believe 5 is quite that bad; it doesn't establish notability at one source, it just requires one source before the article can be created - which is a step up from the hundreds of thousands of stubs with no significant coverage that we currently have. BilledMammal (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • But... with sports articles the only hurdle is getting past NPP. Once the article's past NPP it can't be removed, because editors are allowed to notify their Wikiproject's talk page when it gets to AfD, which in practice means we're not permitted to apply the normal notability rules to anything about sport. I think 5 is frankly catastrophic.—S Marshall T/C 13:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Considering that Lugnuts got 8000 articles past NPP between his autopatrolled being removed and being topic banned from stub creations, I'm not sure NPP is a hurdle - though you are making me question my position. BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

        We'll see how it plays out at AfDs, but in practice I haven't really seen too much brigading from wikiprojects, certainly not enough to change clear deletes except rarely. It's usually just the same 2-6 editors at each NFOOTY AfD, another 2-4 for cricket, 2-4 in MMA, 2-4 in motorsports, and 2-3 for GRIDIRON. Not all of them !vote at every AfD, and not all of them !vote with boilerplate "Keep meets [sport]"; in fact, a fair number usually provide reasonable arguments and even !vote delete (e.g. @Cbl62 for GRIDIRON, Papaursa for MMA, BBDS iff the subject is a male footballer). The main problem !votes (where the !voters refuse to change behavior and/or acknowledge GNG>NSPORT) are from NFOOTY and, at least for a stretch last year where there were a bunch of noms, NCRIC. I don't think #5 will change the number of project editors flooding AfDs, but as I brought up in that thread I do worry this will give editors another reason to dispute AfDs on new articles ("subject already has one piece of SIGCOV and meets NFOOTY, asking for GNG is unnecessary") and won't change the way older articles are handled unless 1x SIGCOV is also required for them when brought to AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

        It does conjure up the mental picture of what might happen when triviamonosourced microstubs are created anyway. They go to AfD, are given a "provisional stay" by something resembling one SIGCOV source being found, and getting fleshed out very slightly. Then after six months or two years languishing like that, they get AfD'd again for still not meeting GNG. Subject-area editors are outraged by this revictimisation, deletionists are exhausted by the sheer amount of process needed relative to potentially very little editing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

      • Subproposal 5 establishes a minimum threshold for new article creation. It does not change in any way the GNG requirement of SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources applicable at AfD. Subproposal 5 should serve as a strong deterrent to mass creation of microstubs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Zumstein offers an example of the mass creation that subproposal 5 would deter on a prospective basis. I just found a like grouping for the 1928 Austrian field hockey team that finished last out of nine teams participating in the event. There are 15 articles that were part of a batch creation of identical, cookie-cutter, one-line sub-stubs, all created in rapid succession (a minute or sometimes less per article) and with two exceptions lacking even basic differentiating facts like dates of birth or death. While we disagree on a lot, we can agree this type of mass microstub creation doesn't serve the encyclopedia's interests. I've never done a mass AfD before. If anyone else cares to do so, here they are:

1. August Wildam created 2019-09-09 at 18:30
2. Arthur Winter (field hockey) created 2019-09-09 at 18:31
3. Alfred Revi created 2019-09-09 at 18:34
4. Emil Haladik created 2019-09-09 at 18:36
5. Fritz Steiner (field hockey) created 2019-09-09 at 18:36
6. Erwin Nossig created 2019-09-09 at 18:37
7. Fritz Herzl created 2019-09-09 at 18:38
8. Fritz Lichtschein created 2019-09-09 at 18:39
9. Hubert Lichtneckert created 2019-09-09 at 18:40
10. Hans Rosenfeld created 2019-09-09 at 18:41
11. Hans Wald created 2019-09-09 at 18:42
12. Kurt Lehrfeld created 2019-09-09 at 18:44
13. Karl Ördögh created 2019-09-09 at 18:55
14. Josef Berger (field hockey) created 2019-09-09 at 18:55
15. Willi Machu created 2019-09-09 at 18:57

Cbl62 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If "microstub" is your primary concern, then "merge to 1928 Austrian Olympic field hockey team" would be the obvious fix. Still trivially sourced and still basically trivial content, of course. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've just redirected each of these to Field hockey at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Austria, as that is the logical place for it to go... Now, everybody should be happy, and those who think sources exist can go looking for them without the time pressure of an AfD. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I was pinged and asked to comment. Not sure why because it looks like there's so many others commenting that I'm unsure what value I might could bring that hasn't already been covered extensively. Still, here's my few points I'd like to bring:

1. WP:NSPORTS needs cleaned up. In an attempt to be the "super criteria" for all sports, it instead has done the opposite.
2. Eliminating WP:NSPORTS without a suitable replacement model will cause even more harm that could possibly lead to a terribly uncivil environment.
3. WP:GNG is really good and people argue about that all the time. If we can't agree on WP:GNG, we won't agree on a subset of GNG on sports topics either.
4. Agreement isn't necessary--Consensus is the goal, and that's a different beast alltogether. Editors are free to disagree.
5. Editors are also free to be enthusiastic about any topic of their choice.
6. Enthusiasm for a topic does not equal notability.
7. Editors are free to speak against consensus as long as they do it in a civil nature.
8. When you set up a system that allows anyone in the world to create an article and provide guidelines that are ambiguous at best, don't get upset at editors who go out and do exactly what we want them to do.
9. Figure out what's best for Wikipedia and do it.

Good luck! Tell me what you all decide.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• For those who seem to think everything is fine and the NSPORTs guidelines don't need reworking, please remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think those are great examples where the policy ignore all rules can step in and consensus should have been to incubate or otherwise let an enthusiastic editor take over research and prepare an actual article that would be good for Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The subjects in questions no longer have standalone articles, so it would seem (as of the end of 2021), consensus in deletion discussions is aligning with the guidance (already present in the sports notability guidelines) that the general notability guideline still needs to be met. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• If these proposals are a good thing? I'd be quite surprised if any of them are adopted. In recent weeks, I've found it difficult to improve sports-related articles & TBH, it's quite frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Obituaries

Perhaps a suitable requirement for presuming notability for deceased sportspeople would be whether they have an independent obituary - note that this would be in addition to, not as an alternative to, the current requirements? I've found that those without such an obituary - who were not deemed notable by their contemporaries - tend to fail GNG, while those with them tend to have coverage beyond the obituary. Further, finding such coverage isn't particularly onerous, if you know the year of the sportspersons death. Thoughts, before I make this proposal #7? BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, this seems unduly specific. I like the idea of more specific and detailed guidance as to what is SIGCOV, and having an independent obituary in a reliable source of sufficient prominence is certainly an example, and maybe one we should weight heavily. But making it a binary pass/fail seems overkill. But I'm open to being persuaded either way. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would note that this is just for the presumption of notability; if they have one, and they meet the other aspects of WP:NSPORT, then they are presumed notable, though of course that presumption can be wrong and can be challenged at AFD. If they don't have one, then they are not presumed notable.

I'm not sure if that addresses your points? BilledMammal (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

My lack of clarity is what's to happen if there's no suitable obituary, but there is one initial item of SIGCOV. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Then there is no presumption of notability and are instead required to meet GNG, as I find that a single obituary is typically a better indicator of notability than a single example of SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• No good reason or logic for a special obit rule that applies only to athletes. SIGCOV is SIGCOV, whether it arrives post-mortem or during life. Cbl62 (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Cbl62: To clarify, this would be a requirement for the presumption of notability, not for notability. If they had SIGCOV but lacked an obituary, then they would still be considered notable and warrant an article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Presumed to be notable" is the highest standard of notability that we have; it's used throughout WP:N to describe topics that meet GNG. An independent obit would useful for "presumed to have SIGCOV", which is the intended meaning of the other NSPORTS criteria, and would be useful as a suggestion for finding notable topics but not as a standalone justification for an article. –dlthewave ☎ 13:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This, right there, is the root of the problem. Our standard should be the “demonstration of notability” (via sources)… not the “presumption of notability” (ie an assumption which is often wrong). Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not very keen. I've got obituaries of my father and grand-father but neither is notable. It might even be seen as an reason for creating an article. Nigej (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• I can find an obituary of just about anyone who died if I look hard enough. Doesn't mean they're notable. On the other hand, some people from older eras might not have obits easily findable even if they are notable, although such things would almost certainly exist somewhere. Doesn't seem like a good idea at all. It also doesn't do a thing for articles about people who are still alive, and therefore don't have obits. If anything we should be more strict with people who are still alive, not less, because of WP:BLP concerns. Smartyllama (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I suppose there might be something of a two-pronged approach, in that we apply the obit criterion on the deceased, and require multiple (hopefully non-trivial) sources for the BLPs on those grounds. As it stands in isolation, I see this getting an immense amount of pushback from editors of historical sports subjects, as they'll argue that it's doubly unfair that they have to a) crack open a book because online sources are less available, and b) have to pass this additional test that doesn't apply to recent or present-day one-game (or come to that zero-game) wonders. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• I sympathize with this attempt, but at the end of the day creating special rules and caveats for a certain class of people to meet notability is only going to make things more acrimonious; it's why we're all here anyhow. Just make GNG apply to everyone. That way you won't have articles on sportspeople built solely around one obit and you won't have people deleting athlete articles solely because an obit couldn't be found -Indy beetle (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Trouble is, GNG already applies to sportspeople, as written. And yet, results as you see. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Because of caveats and the fact that the SNG is textually different from the GNG, even though its points to GNG's importance. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• It's important to distinguish between death notices and true independent obituaries. A biography written by the family that's published in a newspaper or online is a death notice, often described as an obituary, but it's different than a biography written by a professional journalist published in The New York Times, which is a true obit. The former doesn't count as GNG but the latter certainly does. The key word is independent obit. Levivich 01:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Still not a good test. In a small town, almost everyone who dies may have their death covered in the local paper. If someone is murdered, their death is almost certainly going to receive some coverage, but that doesn't make them or their death notable. During the COVID pandemic, there has been independent coverage in reliable sources of the deaths of seemingly random and clearly non-notable individuals who died of COVID-19, in an effort to demonstrate the impact of the disease. My great-grandmother had a professionally written obituary in the New York Times because she saved a bunch of Austrian Jews during the Holocaust and was well-known among Jewish-American refugees. She's likely not notable although you could make a better case for her than most of the people I just mentioned. Smartyllama (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  If your grandma had a NYT bylined obit, then that's one GNG source for your grandma. Levivich 02:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• I also think if we keep subject specific guidelines we need to say if a person's coverage is in connection with playing the sport if they do not meet the SNG we will delete the article, period. Much of the attempted end runs involve coverage that is either promotional or hyper local or both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• SNGs are supposed to be rough guidelines as to what subjects will meet GNG. With cricket it has been shown many times that the SNG does not come even close to approximating what articles will meet GNG, but people insist on having it nonetheless. Our largest birth year category is 1989, even though there are many fields of human activity where people rarely are notable before age 35. Yes we have lots of yndersourced articles on people born before 1950, but we have also a lot on short career sportspeople since 2000 who played just enough to get above our inclusion criteria, never got substantial coverage, but we have an article on them because they just scape by the inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• What we really need to do is make it harder to create articles. We should create a minimum number of non-article creating edits before a first article can be created. I also think ultimately all articles should have to go through AfC. The last article I created through AfC took about a year from my submission until it was created, so I know we need changes at AfC for that part of the proposal to work. We have better policies on notability now than we did 10 years ago, yet we gave lots of articles that have been tagged for over 10 years for having no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No, we don't "need" to remove the third pillar: "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute." I'd add: there is no WP:SENIORITY.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• No, this is arbitrary and indefensible, and it feels a lot like grasping at straws. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  The only thing that is indefensible and arbitrary is people trying to carve out an exception for sportsmen (99% of the problematic cases are men) from having to meet the same goddamn basic criteria as almost every other article on the encyclopedia. But no, "sources are likely in newspapers from the period", "OP hasn't gone on a library expedition to [whatever place]" [seemingly, the "article" creator didn't either, and yet still thought 'this is good enough for an encyclopedia'], "OP has a grudge against sportpersons" [if I had, the usual "ignore concerns entirely" comments would certainly not be helping the situation], "but meets NWHATEVER", and so on, so forth, yadda yadda, 50 shades of special pleading. That is the real grasping at straws, and that is why this has to come to this. There's a rather large consensus for at least one sub-proposal. Hopefully that one has the intended effect, otherwise we'll have to go through the same process (and likely the same canned arguments) again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing anything in your comment that pertains to the question of whether we should require obituaries for sportspeople. I still maintain that this would be arbitrary and, given that we don't have this requirement anywhere else AFAIK, very difficult to defend. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I suppose that the application of the policy ignore all rules could be considered arbitrary, but I wouldn't put it in the "indefensible" classification. These discussions are on purpose so editors may defend and discuss positions. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's all very interesting in a general sense, but I was commenting on a specific proposal (or suggested proposal, in this case). LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Unless we start requiring an obit for everyone who meets GNG this is a terrible proposal. Many people in many fields are famous in their prime and die as a relative unknown. Try applying this to WP:NPROF, like 5% of folks who meet that standard would have articles. Rikster2 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Question: If a sportsperson meets GNG, but has no obituary (or even an unknown date/year of death), what would happen to the article of them under this? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Kept. The intent of this is to make NSPORTS better reflect GNG, not to create more stringent requirements than GNG for sportspeople. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Rikster2, Lepricavark, and Indy beetle: I appear to have been insufficiently clear given that the three of you also appear to have misunderstood this; the intent is to alter the presumption of notability through NSPORTS, and is intended to have no effect on the requirements for a sportsperson to meet GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
      • If there is no correlation between an obit and GNG there is no reason to make it a requirement for an SNG that is supposed to approximate GNG. Sorry, it’s a bad idea. Rikster2 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• If people still aren`t convinced that "Keep - passes NWHATEVER" is not an issue, or they want more evidence of it, here is one very very typical example. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, seriously. This happens even when lack of coverage is demonstrable, which just goes to show most such !votes are purely based on a premise of inherent notability rather than presumption of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Extend RFC?

The RFC tag is currently a week away from expiring, but new proposals have continued to be added to it, and discussion is still going strong on post proposals. Should the tag be renewed, or do editors believe that there is no issue with allowing it to expire on the 19th and listing it at WP:RFCL? BilledMammal (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest closing the "easy" ones so that attention can be focused on the remaining subproposals. The easy ones are:

• "Main proposal" (i.e., abolition) - open since Jan 19 with 61 opposes and 30 supports.
• Subproposal 5 - open since Jan 22 with 46 supports and 19 opposes.
  

Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think lumping every disparate proposal together has lost its effectiveness. I'd suggest more deliberate proposals, each as its own RfC.—Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It has become rather unwieldy. I couldn't even figure out where to put my vote on the newest proposal regarding Olympic participation. Cbl62 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Also see #Subproposal 13 below about more subproposals.—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Sub-events

Irrespective of all that wall of text above that I haven't read, my issue in sports article is mostly around notability of subevents, e.g. in tennis, such as "XXX Open – Mixed doubles". In most cases, these articles don't even have leads, and don't bother to mention what sport they are about. Can't these be sections in the main event article? When are they independently notable? Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Not really in the scope of the RfC, so ironically -- if far from uncommonly -- you're adding to the "wall of text" without advancing the topic as such. Granted it's a related issue, and similar consideration -- "is this too short to be separate if there's an obvious parent?", "is it sufficiently sourced?" will also apply. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also a WP:NOTDATABASE issue (and I'm afraid that this would throw up yet more dust from whoever it is that is actually doing that). A separate discussion should be opened if it really feels necessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Further sub-proposals

Subproposal 9

Rewrite the lead of WP:NSPORTS to avoid any wikilawyering. Propose changing:

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. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. [paragraph break] If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).

to

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. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines).

i.e. cut the confusing sentence in the middle which is at odds with the rest of the guideline and which leaves itself open to lots of wiki-lawyering... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I believe the last sentence would also need to be removed to address the confusion, as it is could be incorrectly read to imply that this guideline can establish notability, with GNG and other notability guidelines being an equal alternative to it. However, I do believe this proposal is a step in the right direction, and should address many of the "oppose" !votes that were concerned about the lack of details. BilledMammal (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. I would prefer the last line was also addressed, but this is a step in the right direction. BilledMammal (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Oppose - While I do not interpret this as making matters worse, the fact that others have makes it clear that it can be interpreted that way, and given that this is the sort of misinterpretation we are trying to prevent I must oppose this. BilledMammal (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support The correct interpretation of this is already given by FAQ5, which quotes that very sentence and goes on to say, No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. But it's pointless to have a sentence which is misleading enough to require clarification in the first place. Evidently it needs to be deleted due to the susceptibility to wikilawyering/gaming. Avilich (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Though would the stress go on eventually rather than must? In an article about a Sodornese sports hero, if all the expected sources are in Sodornese media, and there is no Sodornese media available online yet; eventually could be a long time. Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  In which case NORUSH and WP:RF apply - i.e., the article can be created when sources are shown to exist and when somebody has taken the time and effort required to write something of interest to our readers and not a mere copy-paste-with-personal-details-changed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  That seems unnecessarily prescriptive - and may violate the WP:BOLD part of the Fifth Pillar. I wouldn't advocate someone going around creating tons of such articles, but I wouldn't see the need to delete such articles. Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  How is this "overly prescriptive"? When I add information to existing articles, I look for the sources first, I don't add information and then look for sources. It's the most simple of requests for people who write article to look for sources first; then write the article. Not "write something that looks like an article" and then "complain that subject passes NSPORTS and I haven't been given enough time to look for sources". This is an encyclopedia written for our readers, and we're not really being a useful summary reference work if the "looking for sources from which to make a summary" part hasn't been done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Must" is not my emphasis, it's the guideline's own. I'm not willing to place much value on "eventually": one can obviously see how a bad-faith/wikilawyer interpretation can cause this to mean that non-notable articles can be kept indefinitely, because "enough" time should be given for finding sources, essentially rendering AfD and WP:NRV useless. Avilich (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• The problem with requiring an immediacy is we already have people making that argument for 100-year old players with a score of international caps, in a country where we have zero online availability of contemporary references - obviously doesn't effect Anglosphere athletes much as we generally have good contemporary media availability. People seem concerned about a pro-Anglosphere bias - if anything this would help bend that a bit the other way! Nfitz (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I feel I need to link this again. There is no evidence that NSPORTs excessive inclusivity helps to address systematic bias, and there is evidence that it contributes to it. BilledMammal (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you keep linking to a BLUDGEONEd comment from a relatively new editor that appears to be both false, and didn't have consensus even in that discussion. Repeating the same thing again and again, in discordance with consensus, doesn't make policy (or even a guideline!). Nfitz (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I personally don't create articles without the sources for them to begin with, so I can't see the problem from my perspective. Also, 'systemic bias' doesn't matter, as a strict adherence to GNG would automatically give the 'correct' proportion of coverage to number of articles and content. I'm afraid anything else is simply WP:RGW, and systemic bias is probably unsolvable anyway. Avilich (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Systemic bias is unsolvable, so we shouldn't even be concerned about creating new measures that will exacerbate it? Nfitz (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Who said anything about creating new measures? I support getting rid of NSPORTS altogether. Again, what matters is that information from reliable sources be presented with due weight. The only way you can realistically address perceived bias is by finding sources for topics that are thought to be neglected. If there's a notability guideline that is causing topics to receive undue coverage when compared to the available sourcing, then the solution is to simply get rid of it. There's nothing that can be done, on the other hand, if the reliable sourcing itself is perceived to be biased. Avilich (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - finally, a sensible proposal in this farce! Seems uncontroversial. GiantSnowman 18:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support if the last sentence is refactored as well. JoelleJay (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This approach makes sense. Rlendog (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• I previously supported deleting or rewording the second sentence. As I said then, I'm tired of people using it as a part of their arguments either way. In multiple discussions the consensus has been that the sentence is there solely to emphasis the need to provide sources to verify whatever standard of having an article is being met. Since this is already true for any article, in my view it's not necessary to repeat this in the sports notability guidelines. isaacl (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, I fundamentally believe an SNG should be able to denote noteability.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Individual subject-specific notability guidelines can defer to the general notability guideline, if that's what consensus agrees with, and that's what happened with the sports-specific notability guidelines. But in any case, the sentence in question is only about providing citations within the article, and not about the relationship with the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  However, the intent was that NSPORTS, when met, would be sufficient to keep in most AfD nominations, though not necessarily in subsequent nominations. Otherwise, we're effectively demoting an SNG to a project essay.—Bagumba (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  So, your intent is essentially to waste other people's time, by allowing the articles to be deleted, just not in the first nominaiton? Avilich (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  The second sentence is not related to when it is appropriate to demonstrate that the general notability guideline has been met. (Personally I don't think the intent is as clear cut as "first AfD usually gets a pass on trying to demonstrate that the general notability guideline has been met". I do think in an environment where everyone's goals are closely aligned, there can be a certain flexibility in evaluating the potential of the standards for having an article being met. But in a community open to everyone, as it grows, views rapidly diverge, and it becomes harder to manage.) isaacl (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the proposal only offered a vague "which leaves itself open to lots of wiki-lawyering", so it's unclear what exact confusion they are attempting to clear by removing this.—Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  As you are aware from previous discussion, editors have used the second sentence to argue that meeting the sports-specific notability guidelines is sufficient even in the long run. Each time it's discussed, consensus is reached that the second sentence doesn't mean this, and time is wasted rehashing why the second sentence is there. We are better off just discussing the issues of concern directly, such as what period of time is reasonable to allow for appropriate sources to be found, when that period should start, if there has been a change in consensus regarding the relationship to the general notability guideline, and so forth. isaacl (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Not perfect, but it’s good enough. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not clear if the motivation is a rebuke on all SNGs. Per Wikipedia:Notability (emphasis added): A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right... The above proposal removed similar from NSPORTS: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  It is very obviously not a rebuke on all SNGs, and it's baffling why you are still so hung up on this singular sentence in WP:N that literally has no effect on NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  ...why you are still so hung up...: If in your estimation it "literally has no effect on NSPORT", but other people believe it does, it seems that you won't be so hung up if it stays?—Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  The effect it has is that people keep wikilawyering about it despite the fact that the rest of the guideline is very much clear that 1) NSPORT is not in and of itself an inclusion criteria; 2) that it is only an indicator that something may be notable by meeting the actual inclusion criteria (which it helpfully identifies as being GNG) and 3) sportspersons do not have a magical exemption from GNG just because they played sports, and no, there is no provision for giving sports articles multiple passes at AfD. The keyword is that notability requires verifiable evidence, not that such evidence must come "eventually" (a claim so detached from every other encyclopedic guideline that it only makes sense as a last-ditch delaying tactic). FFS, this is an encyclopedia, not a sports database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  ...No one else is even talking about the WP:N sentence in this thread? And you haven't offered an explanation of how the "or" in that sentence affects NSPORT in any way that wouldn't require changing the text of NSPORT first. JoelleJay (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This subproposal doesn't appear to be in the correct section; or is this intentionally split from the other subprops? Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  I think at this point we could put a subproposal under a level 6 heading in an off-topic discussion and people would still !vote. JoelleJay (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bagumba. Cbl62 (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this just seems like a whole lotta work for a whole lotta nothing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  Removing one sentence is a lot of work? JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, reading and working to understand all this mish-mosh of discussion is a lot of work. Removing one sentence is nothing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - as noted above, WP:N (to which NSPORTS is subordinate) notes that articles meeting either GNG or SNG should be kept. There's no point in creating even more confusion, and NSPORTS perhaps should be cleaned up to fully conform to WP:N. In clear cut cases, we already have consensus about deleting articles that technically pass NSPORTS, but are outliers. Nfitz (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  The problem with this argument is that NSPORTS clearly notes that it is not an inclusion criteria. It is an indication whether sportspersons are likely to meet GNG or not. It clearly says so at multiple places, and that is how it is applied in practice in most cases (with a few stubborn outliers) at AfD. The text as written allows wikilawyering that "the subject fails GNG but passes NSPORTS" (see for example this, where the emphasis is clearly put on the "or", disregarding everything else), and de facto is too often misused to justify some people's convoluted arguments that sportsmen (yeah, it is usually men) are exempt from meeting GNG if they "clearly pass NSPORT" (there are many editors who only say delete or redirect on clear cut cases only if the athlete in question has played a few games at most). If in practice, articles which clearly fail GNG are deleted, the guideline should reflect this, so that people stop wasting their and everybody else's time on creating pages without sufficient content to achieve GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  i.e. the first sentence clearly doesn't say "This is a guideline used to determine whether articles about sports should have an article", rather it says "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". The (sole) standard for inclusion is clearly "meet[ing] the general notability guideline", not "meeting the below criteria". Which is why a change which removes the misleading sentence is necessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose This rewording lowers the demand to include reliable sources. Reliable sources are the bread and butter of Wikipedia and need to be invoked. We need to make it more clear that articles need to have reliable sources, that also provide significant coverage, not just name dropping in a table.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: You must have misunderstood the proposal. The current wording is precisely what is used as an excuse to avoid SIGCOV, since the 'or' creates an interpretation that, if NSPORTS is "met", then GNG/SIGCOV isn't necessary. Avilich (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The sentence at issue is focused on the need for reliable sources to show a basis for notability under GNG or NSPORTS. It doesn't change the overarching principle that NSPORTS is intended to predict whether GNG is met. Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikilawyers would disagree. Anyway, reliable sources are already required by policy and by WP:N itself. There's no point to stating it again in NSPORTS, especially if such statement will be used to game the system in the manner already described. Avilich (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed new version indicates that meeting the existing specific notability criteria is sufficient without meeting GNG, which gets us nowhere. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support rewriting to the truth. Say "if the subject does meet the criteria below, it is still in many cases highly likely that the subject does not meet GNG and should be deleted, because many of these criteria were written insanely broadly to facility the start of articles on people we know lack any significant coverage, by editors who never bother even looking for it, and the criteria were written as a comprmise with people who want to turn Wikipedia into a sport database and totally ditch it being in any meaningful way an encyclopedia, and so the criteria were not created with any attempt to show that passing these criteria is actually likely to mean the subject has recieved significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources that are intelectually indepdent from eachother. The sports SNGs as written at present in many cases clearly do not predict passing GNG, so we should not have language that falsely says that they do.16:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the removed sentence says that if you want to claim that the subject meets NSPORTS then you have to provide a citation to a reliable source to support that assertion. This is important and should be stated prominently. It also isn't said anywhere else on the page. Hut 8.5 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Could we strike the last sentence and add a statement to the effect of "any claim of meeting a sport-specific criterion must be supported by a reliable source"? And IFF none of the other proposals pass, we should also add something like "While meeting a sport-specific criterion presumes GNG coverage exists for the subject, eventually this presumption must be validated by GNG sources in the article". JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would support somehow fomalizing the need to "eventually" meeting GNG. That's always been in spirit of the FAQs. How to explicitly word this to satisfy enough people?—Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's already formalized in the FAQ. Cbl62 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if some would accept a separate page that is transcluded and collapsed by default as being formally part of the guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - This clarifies that GNG is the overruling standard. –dlthewave ☎ 13:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support One of several possible ways to help fix the big mess that this overly lenient SNG has created. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The purpose of SNGs is not to indicate when the GNG is likely to be met, but rather to set out objective criteria that indicate when a topic is likely to merit an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the essential sentence. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bagumba. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support - in agreement with Dlthewave. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removing the sentence The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. would put this SNG at odds with WP:N which clearly states that notability is presumed if either GNG or an SNG is met. NemesisAT (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Unlike the WP:N sentence, the sentence in NSPORT has zilch to do with whether a subject merits an article. And as has been explained probably a dozen times in this discussion, the NSPORT sentence has no bearing on how we interpret WP:N since we are still respecting the presumption of notability offered by the SNG (NSPORT). Just because that presumption requires GNG doesn't mean it's "at odds" with WP:N; there is not a single place in the PAGs that states an SNG can't use GNG-based criteria, so any interpretation that assumes such is absurd on its face. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this is attempting to avoid needing to meet GNG. If NSPORTS had higher standards, I'd be fine with that, but with it being so loose atm, it can't be done. Additionally, it's not wikilawyering - needing to meet GNG is a core component of NSPORTS. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 10

Non-neutral prologue. The myriad proposals above all miss the real problem with NSPORTS. That is, some of the sub-provisions are not remotely calibrated to GNG. Out of a sense of "fairness" or "political correctness", NSPORTS has allowed the qualifying leagues to be expanded to leagues that simply don't gain the same level of coverage as the major leagues. For example, NFOOTY allows articles on hundreds of thousands of players in any of literally hundreds of different leagues, including the Algerian Ligue 2 (second tier within Algeria), Azerbaijan Premier League, Cypriot First Division, Kazakhstan Premier League, Myanmar National League, Peruvian Segunda División (second tier within Peru), and Uruguayan Segunda División (second tier in a country with 3 million people). See the complete list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues.
Neutrally-written proposal. Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league (e.g., football, cricket, American football, baseball basketball, hockey, Australian rules football, etc.) within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual "random" (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS. Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If a particular project with a lot of leagues to review (e.g., FOOTY) has a problem with the 30-day time limit, this could be extended to 60 days. Cbl62 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Cbl62 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: Reading what I wrote above makes it seem like an attack on FOOTY, which is not intended. It has the widest (by far) list of qualifying leagues, but there are questionable leagues in other sports as well. Cricket also has a long least of qualifying leagues found here. Baseball has the Cuban League, the Union Association, and the Japanese Baseball League. Basketball has Lega Basket, Israeli Basketball Premier League and several others. So ... this is not just a footy problem. Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This is the underlying justification for all SNG's, and given the perceived issues with WP:NSPORT it is reasonable that its compliance with this justification is demonstrated. BilledMammal (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is the fundamental issue and relates primarily to team sports. As an example, in golf, 7,000 men have played in an OWGR event (a high level of professional event) in the last two years. Do we have articles for these? No. We only have 5,000 articles for all golfers ever, men and women, living and dead. There's no attempt to cover golfers who've played but not had some significant level of success. However, following the idea of many team sports we should be creating vast numbers of articles for these golfers, because they've hit a ball in an important golf event. Nigej (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment This might lessen the scale of the problem, but still won't really address its root. The problem is more the edge cases - those who played way back when when coverage as prevalent as today simply was not a thing; or those who actually played in some significant league but didn't for some reason get significant coverage (thus proving the saying that notability is neither inherent nor inherited). This won't really solve the mass creation of took-part-in-some-random-event therefore get-free-insta-stubs, nor will it help when dealing with stubborn resistance when attempting to deal with those at AfDs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  This absolutely does address the root problem of mass creation of micro-stubs. Subproposal 5 (receiving overwhelming support currently) requires SIGCOV from inception, thus increasing the threshold required for article creation. Subpropsal 10 takes matters a step further by narrowing the qualifying leagues that could support a "passes NFOOTY" vote at AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, this probably does address a part of the problem, maybe even a large part of it, but I'm not sure if it will really impact stuff that much. There have been plenty of tightening of criteria, and while there are maybe a fair few listed competitions where participation is unlikely to yield much attention, the recent issues have been about people who nominally pass one of the criteria (sometimes even recently amended ones!) but whose coverage is very limited due to some factor - this hasn't prevented people !voting "Keep passes NXYZ". Your proposal combined with no. 5, I guess, would solve this going forward for new articles, but it won't be of much help when dealing with the thousands of already existing problematic cases. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  RC -- We often disagree (despite shared Canadian roots), but I ask you to consider this perspective: Sure, if you dig hard enough, you can find the occasional NFL player where SIGCOV cannot be readily located. E.g., the current Jamie Fitzgerald AfD. But the NFL is the tippy top of American football pyramid, and it's pretty clear in my experience that NFL players without SIGCOV are very rare exceptions -- and not the core problem here. The far bigger problem is the myriad of marginal leagues (some listed above like the Uruguayan tier 2 soccer league) where I suspect that not even 50% of the players pass GNG. In other words, the problem isn't with SNGs that are 90-plus-percent accurate as predictors of GNG, it's with SNGs that aren't even close to 90% accurate. Cbl62 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: I agree with Cbl62 here; while this won't address all the problems with notability, it will address a significant number of them. They will also help to address the previously created articles by reducing the criteria that would allow an editor to vote !keep in an AFD, or to reasonably deny a PROD. BilledMammal (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support I think this solves the largest problem with the SNG - that there is a lot of leagues/events where I don't think it is clear that every participant would meet our standards for an article. I am of the belief that for many leagues and events there is verifiable information about all participants that can be used to create and maintain a page and I am ok that there is a strong audience for articles about athletes (just as there is a strong audience for articles about fictional universes). Having strong guidance in place to when an athlete is likely to be notable is helpful to editors. --Enos733 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support as long as this retains the strict requirement that all subjects must meet GNG and should at least eventually demonstrate this. I also think these wikiprojects should advertise their justifications to, and get feedback from, the wider community before being "accepted", as some projects' perception of what constitutes "SIGCOV" may be at odds with that of Wikipedia as a whole. JoelleJay (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The justifications must be real, based on actual, valid random sampling, and subject to scrutiny by the larger community. I suspect that, with most of the football and cricket leagues, the results will be non-controversial in showing that the presumption is not warranted. Cbl62 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It would also be imperative to group subjects by era as well as league, since obviously coverage varies considerably over time. JoelleJay (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support but with a longer time limit; not sure that 30 or even 60 days will be enough time for each project to complete the task and I don't think the task is so urgent given that the existing guidelines have generally been in place for years. Rlendog (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you think is a reasonable time limit? If there is no limit to light the fire, I fear that this will simply be ignored. Cbl62 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support I've seen this rule used as an informal standard for adding new SNGs already, and I believe it also came up during the discussion about the notability of Olympians - we had been assuming that significant coverage existed for them, and once we actually looked into it they weren't 90% notable, especially for games held before the internet era. If leagues actually do meet the 90% threshold, dealing with players from the early years and other edge cases is less of a burden, and if not we can take them out of NSPORTS. (Not to mention that if a league was barely covered for over 10% of its existence, it won't pass the threshold no matter how notable it is now, which might help cut down on substubs about athletes from over 100 years ago that are poorly documented.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not get a sense that anyone went through and showed the agreed on limit to the Olympics SNG, that medalists would get sigcov, was actually demonstrably true. I have seen medalists come up for deletion, people argue to default keep, and no one show any sigcov at all. One big problem may be that individual medalists and team medalists (especially on rugby, hockey or soccer teams, if it is a 2 person fencing team or 2 person tennis team the dynamics are a little different) have different levels of coverage. Then there are cases like the 1908 Rugby competition where they were 2 teams, so the loosers got the silver medal. This is not the only competition in the Olympics that had fewer than 4 competitors (if you count teams as 1 competitor).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - OK, and how is each WikiProject supposed to actually do this - one person decide, have a bunch of RFCs at each WP? And then even if an decision is reached, who is going to decide whether the answer given is good enough? GiantSnowman 10:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Each project would have the burden of justifying the inclusion of each league. It would be wise IMO to obtain consensus at NSPORTS as to the methodology for random sampling. Once the sample group is selected, a search for SIGCOV should follow. If SIGCOV can't be found on 90% of the sample group for a particular league, then that league should be dropped. If project members believe that a league satisfies the 90% threshold, a presentation should be prepared and submitted for approval at NSPORTS Talk. It's not so different than the burden we impose on those who propose new sub-parts to NSPORTS. It admittedly will be a lot of work, but it's overdue. Cbl62 (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Anyone can already, without needing prior permission from a subproposal, start an RfC and present their random sample of > 10% of players not being notable, and gain consensus from the community to delete that league from NSPORTS. This provides a course of action for questionable leagues, while sparing work on leagues that nobody is formally questioning. This seems more efficient.—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support but given the sheer number of these things and the work involved, I'm not sure 30 days is enough. Maybe 90 days? Or even 180? Remember, there is no deadline on Wikipedia - if it takes us a bit longer to get it right, it's better than being quick and wrong. Smartyllama (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Especially in the case of football it is clear there is no good reason to include so many leagues. The mass proliferation of alledgedly notability giving football leagues is probably the #1 reason why we have 1989 as the year we have the most births in, even though there are many areas of endevor where people almost never are notable before age 35 or even 40 (academics comes to mind, politicians at least the vast majority do not pass the notability threshold until that age, there are others as well), so one would expect that if we had anything near balance the largest birth year category would be no later than 1975. It is also the lead cause of sports people being 50% of BLPs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment This discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist) shows a continued tendancy of some editors to argue for keeping in the face of no identfied significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I really think this will only work well if it is paired with an end to the ludicrous one game rule. I also wonder if in some sports we might need a sliding scale. For example, maybe in MLB if someone played in 2 (or 3) games they are almost certain to have reliable source coverage, but maybe the Cuban Basketball league it would be 5 games before we can have a greater than 90% likelihood that a player will have significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Would this include reevaluating if every participant in the Tour de France is actually default notable. We have many articles on people born in the 1910s who participated in the Tour de France for whom that is the only thing we are told in the article they did in their life. To date I have not nominated any of these micro-stubs for deletion, because I know what happens when you nominate against a sports SNG, even with no sigcov. Also, because with the recent change of the Olympic SNG, I have enough to do with nominating people who do not meet that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I think that at least a start, so getting to the point of at least developing a potential sample, needs to be done within the next 30 days for each league, or we should drop the lead until the sampling is begun. I can see maybe granting 90 days for the approval of this proposal to complete for each league, but not any more than that. Clearly when 50% of our BLPs are on sportspeople we have a clear imbalance. Yes sports gets lots of coverage, but there are lots of notable politicians, losts of notable academics, lots of notable entertainers/actors/acresses/musicians, lots of notable artists, lots of notable writers, lots of notable businesspeople, lots of notable activists, some of whom are alive today and are notable but have not done much of note for decades, and there are several other categories I have not mentioned, so the notion that half of all living notable people are sportspeople does not hold up under scrutiny.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, this proposal seems intriguing, but I'm not quite sure how the "random sample" would be done. Would it be, say, me looking at PFA's list of AFL players and picking every 27th name, or? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, that would be suitable. Fewer names than every 27th would also work. BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - the time limit is far too short to allow a large enough random sample size to be taken with such a large number of leagues - bearing in mind that a properly random sample would need to be taken in each league and that each needs to be large enough for the outcomes to be statistically significant - so you're looking at a percentage of participants rather than a set number. Cricket already went through this process, without very much of the random sampling element, and getting it anywhere close to right took bloody ages. I would support the principle that there needs to be some reasonable expectation that sources can be found, but the reality is that: a) there is no way that 30 days is anywhere long enough; b) the time and effort involved will be huge; c) that time and effort would almost certainly be better spent improving articles. As an addition, if I were to look at first-class cricketers in the UK, for example, I know that there are excellent online sources of biographies for 3 of the 18 sides. Are we going to get into a position where we have biographies - based on clear GNG passes - for three sides because a) the sources exists and b) someone can be bothered to add them? That seems, well, a bit odd. Please ping me if there is anything specific you would like me to respond to here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Well if we cannot find adequate sourcing for those involved in the other 15 sides, than we should not have articles on them. Are sides anything like leagues? Are you telling me that currently we consider playing a match in any of 18 leagues that play in England a sign of default notability. Does anyone else think this is crazy? Such a position makes sense for the very top fully-professional leagues, generally 1 and maybe 2, at most, per country, but 18? For example with gridiron football it makes sense to consider anyone who played in maybe 3 games in the NFL to be default notable, but I do not think that such a supposition applies to those who played in any less coveraged league. We have also at times been plagued by lots of articles on people who bounced from NFL team practice squad to NFL team practice squad and never actually played even for a little bit of time in one game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment. Johnpacklambert there are not 18 professional cricket leagues in England. There is just the one (or three if you include the 50-over and Twenty20 stuff). It's comments like this which I know frustrates Cricket Project members because they are based on ignorance of a subject. And you're not alone, I've seen plenty with a flimsy knowledge on cricket making incorrect statements. StickyWicket (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • As long as the practice squad players meet GNG, we should have an article on them. And most current PS players are GNG passes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
      • No they are not, at least by any reasonable understanding of what GNG is. We need to apply some limits, for example with political candidates it is possible to find coverage in the papers that says quite a bit about almost every candidate for public office, but we have decided we will not be a platform for free advertising, and so will not create such articles for every such person. In the same way we should not be a sports databsase, and so if someone is not actually playing in regular season public games, we should demand coverage that is non-local and very clearly indepth about the person, not just name dropping in a report on a scrimage game put out to fill up space in a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Most of the current PS players do have in-depth pieces of coverage, whether or not its local does not matter. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
          • It should matter. Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of the type of coverage local newspapers choose to create, and thus we should not source articles entirely to local coveage in the vast majority of cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Johnpacklambert: I didn't say sources didn't exist - they almost certainly do. They simply don't exist online in an easy to find place for every player. Almost every county will have book sources of one sort or another. I've got book sources for one minor-county side, for instance. The problem with book sources is that you've actually got to have someone with access to the book. For example, there exists a book dealing with early Otago cricketers - it was written by someone who died in WWI and is incredibly rare. But it exists and would be an obviously RS to show GNG level sourcing for those chaps; there are just very few people with access to it and, as far as I can tell, no one has ever used it as a reference on Wikipedia as a result. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I am not convinced that a book like that is actually going to be providing sourcing on all the people at a level that actually meets GNG. If you wanted to be able to persuade us otherwise it would be very helpful if you named the actual book, instead of expecting us to take your work that this one book actually constitutes a reliable source, and is providing significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Also, GNG requires multiple sources, so one source on its own is not going to be enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
      • History of Otago Representative Cricket, 1863–1906: With a chapter on the pre-rep period, 1848–1863 JWH Bannerman (we know him as Hugh Bannerman - an obviously reliable source given his career as a journalist). It's available here for £200 and here for £195 is anyone wants to buy it. His other book, on Southland cricketers (Early Cricket in Southland: From 1860 and right up to 1908), is also available at the second source - for £750. As I said, they're quite rare. Wrt other sources, if you've used Papers Past you'll know quite how excellent coverage is of New Zealand newspapers - a myriad of papers cover the Otago area and are digitised. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Absolutely: we need to put up or shut up. Thirty days is plenty of time to prove our assumptions (especially if projects divvy up the work), and any projects that lack the will to do so -- or else are downright obstructionist -- well, then, tough luck.

  Beyond that, for all you sports projects regulars, consider this: do you get that the vast and disproportionate number of sports bios pisses a lot of people off? This is not the first time that there's been an attempt to trim NSPORTS back, and unless we police our own beat, the tidal waves are going to keep coming. And all this proposal does is force us to do the work we should have done in the first place as a prerequisite to writing the guidelines. Ravenswing 18:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  • @Ravenswing: Seriously, the experience of doing this in cricket tells me that 30 days is nowhere near enough. There simply aren't enough people with access to the right sort of sources. Not even close. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Then I suppose -- if you're telling me that it's going to take months to source (say) twenty or thirty random bio articles per league, the work that should have been done already -- the result is that the leagues that the many active cricket editors can't be bothered to source would run afoul of the proposal until they do. If the "right sort" of sources necessary to provide significant coverage to a league's players isn't available, could you explain to me upon what basis the cricket project determined that those leagues satisfied the GNG in the first place? Ravenswing 21:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Oh, I was assuming you'd want, say, a 5% random sample. Or at least a 1%. That's far more than 20 or 30 - where you'd only need 4 one game wonders to turn up to drop below the 90% - and there's far too high a chance of that in my view. So, for example, Kent County Cricket Club have had about 680 men play for them since 1840-odd. That's one of the 18 first-class counties in England and Wales - although one of the oldest ones. If we take out the ones who didn't play in the County Championship we're probably looking at in excess of 475-500. So, multiply that by, say, 12 to take account of the other teams - and at a conservative estimate you're looking at 5,000 plus players to evaluate. 1% of that is 50, not 20 or 30, but, tbh, a) that's really conservative and b) 1% is a poor sample size. Do the same for the List A competitions and then the T20s and, well, just in the UK it's a massive, massive job. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm confident that a lot of editors do understand that many editors become angry when people create articles that others don't like. What we don't understand is 1) why you don't like it and 2) why you take it so personally, like some editor went over to your house and kicked your dog. No, the editor just created an article on Wikipedia. We give people the authority to create articles: try not to take it personally when someone actually goes and does it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm confident that I don't answer "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" loaded questions. What is a problem for the project are sub-stubs created in blatant (and often willful) defiance of any notion of proper sourcing or significant coverage by editors riding hobby horses or chasing Game High Score. Try not to take it personally when other editors actually go and object to it. Ravenswing 21:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I support the idea of having a review of these, but it needs to be a collaborative process. I don't see any need for the confrontational approach of ultimatums and deadlines, or for specifying that only one type of evidence is acceptable. Nor do I think it's fair to presume that the outcome of the process will be the removal of these leagues - some of them are definitely acceptable. Hut 8.5 18:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. For those who resist this common sense proposal, there's a small part of me that hopes Subproposal 3 passes. This would completely eradicate NFOOTY and NCRICKEt. Is that preferable to doing the hard work to determine which leagues actually justify a presumption of notability? Cbl62 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  The elephant in the room is to propose nuking a few specific, suspect sports that seem the most egregious, and not the entirety of NSPORTS. The hope still is that they will clean their own house.—Bagumba (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• In theory I support the idea of trimming back the list of guidelines.. some of the leagues definitely should be re-evaluated..the footy ones mentioned above and i've always thought ice hockey was too lenient with its minor leagues and college categories.. I don't know however about the deadline... especially since this involves getting all the projects involved and some of them have more active memberships than others. I think it makes more sense to do it on the NSPORTS page and go sport by sport rather than some kind of free for all... and who is gonna be deciding if the projects proved their cases or not? Spanneraol (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of leagues will not even come close. For leagues where a project is able to compile data showing that the presumption is warranted, the evidence can be compiled and voted on at NSPORTS Talk. I suspect there will be many leagues where the evidence will not be found to support the presumption; in those cases, the project need not do anything, as any leagues not specifically endorsed would be dropped. Cbl62 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment (ec). If the notability tests are to be applied league-by-league, the selection criteria cannot be "random", since that would definitely bias results toward the coverage depth found in more recent years (I don't think 1920s NFL teams had 55 players on their rosters...). This should instead by grouped by decade(s) or "eras" or with some other temporal partitioning. If we go that route, there are some time periods and leagues for which GNG tests should be an easy task. Like contemporary leagues in countries using the Latin alphabet. Maybe those could have the 30 or 60 day time limit, and the harder leagues/times could have some set amount longer. JoelleJay (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, there would need to be consensus that it is a representative random sample.—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose (Formal !vote based on my earlier comment) Anyone can already, without needing prior permission from a subproposal, start an RfC and present their representative random sample of > 10% of players not being notable, and gain consensus from the community to delete that league from NSPORTS. This provides a course of action for questionable leagues, while sparing work on leagues that nobody is formally questioning. This path is applicable to all fields, including politicians, academics, or any similar SNG. No race to an artificial deadline. Propose only when ready.—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  That is not how it works. Usually, it requires dozens of deletions via AFD to show that GNG is not being met. This proves a very difficult hurdle due to WikiProjects turning up en-masse with bare "meets SNG" keep !votes that commonly result in non-deletion outcomes because closers remain reluctant to enforce N/GNG requirements in the face of such numbers. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 03:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I understand the frustration. It would be unfortuntate if the few rogue SNGs of specific sports can't be cleanup up without collateral damage to the other non-problematic sports.—Bagumba (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Qualified support. It has long been established that additions to NSPORT must demonstrate that the threshold is met. It is now anomalous that the longest standing parts of the guideline have never been subjected to such scrutiny. This proposal addresses that. However, the time limit is far too short; there is no rush, and 6 months seems like a more reasonable target. Also, WikiProjects may be invested but they do not own these guidelines; the burden is on all/any interested parties to do the work. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 03:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it makes more sense to do a giant study of all sports first, then RFC for the adjustment or removal of specific sports based on the results of the giant study. This gives !voters evidence to evaluate, and this shifts the burden to those attempting to increase the strictness of NSPORTS. As NSPORTS is the codification of years of consensus, it makes sense for the burden to be on those seeking change. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• support One of several possible ways to help fix the big mess that this overly lenient SNG has created. But this one is a little messy. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support with the requirement that any analysis must be presented for community approval via RfC.

A somewhat related issue is that NSPORTS references project-space pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Notability, Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Notability, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Notability and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues which are maintained in-house by project members, with no wider community discussion of any changes. The talk pages of the Cricket and Football supplements in particular are full of detailed discussions about whether or not a particular team is "professional" with no consideration of whether their players meet GNG. It seems like these should either be unlinked or moved to subpages of NSPORTS. –dlthewave ☎ 13:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support decertifying such lists. They lack sufficient controls and are problematic. Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Seconded.—Bagumba (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support per above. We don't do inclusion criteria by the equivalent of secondary legislation. MER-C 20:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support (but with longer than 30 days to do the grunt work). This fundamentally amounts to a statistically-based means of tightening the SNG inclusion criteria, which solves the issue of the thousands of sports bio microstubs in a manner appropriate to each project, without casting aside the SNGs which serve a valuable practical function of quickly resolving inclusion debates. It won't guarantee every article is fully sourced and meets GNG, but with the right effort it would make an effective 80/20 rule improvement. Aspirex (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. It's odd cricket is included in this. Anyone even slightly aware of our WP:OFFCRIC tournament inclusion criteria should know it is probably the most restrictive of any sports project. Essentially it's the 12 Test playing nations and their domestic tournaments, which are recognised by the ICC and whose matches carry official status. Even then, WP:OFFCRIC ranks some domestic tournaments as more notable than others amongst those (i.e. for deciding individual player inclusion). Typically speaking, few leagues outside the 12 Test nations satisfy our inclusion guidelines and leagues within the 12 which don't have matches of status must demonstrate historical importance and/or significant coverage, such as with ECB Premier Leagues or Aussie Grade Cricket. Trying to introduce a random league into the cricket project is no easy task. StickyWicket (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far too time consuming and bureaucratic. The amount of time required isn't possible with some projects who have suffered a membership drain. The time would be much better put to use expanding articles. On a sidenote, the cricket project does not decide which leagues are 'professional'. This is done by the ICC under its definition of official cricket. To that end we adhere to what the governing body of the sport decides. The document can be viewed here and is effective from July 2021. What we did decide as a project is what tournaments are likely to receive significant coverage and whittled those down to reach a consensus on which leagues are most likely to have in-depth sources for which players are likely to meet GNG, alongside NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support in principle. Timing to be worked on. A lot of leagues/competitions added with the laudable goal of countering systemic bias actually hurt the criteria because of the reasons cited by Cbl62. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per practical reasons, as StickyWicket said, it would be too time consuming and bureaucratic. If such survey is possible at all, than it should be done before the proposal. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment We clearly need to change something. 50% of Biographies of Living people being on sports people in just not sustainable, and the mass creation of sub-stub articles makes Wikipedia far less useful than it could be. One substantial article that says meaningful things about a subject is far better than 10 sub-stubs, no matter what the topic is. This is one of the key reasons I also dislike our current rules on places, they encourage too many articles on non-notable places that say nothing. We have an even bigger problem in this regards with high schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a mass change, and do individually by project with appropriate time frames. Giving people 30 days to justify why 100 football leagues are/aren't appropriate is a ridiculously short and inappropriate timeline. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support pending some concerns about timing. There are obvious problems with these lists that allow thousands of non-notable biographies to be created. It is very difficult to remove them because of the presumption of notability must be overcome. A few years ago, the third level of Russian football (a regionalized, semi-professional competition) was incorrectly added to the "fully-professional league" list, and a few editors mass-created thousands of BLPs on people who never did more than play in that competition. After we had a discussion about the sourcing that supported inclusion of this competition in the list, it was removed and we quickly deleted the thousands of BLPs (I think no more than one or two had appropriate sourcing to satisfy the GNG). Unfortunately, I don't think that was an isolated error. Jogurney (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Joseph2302. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support such an effort in principle. Oppose the timescale and the bureaucracy. Wikipedia editors aren't paid management consultants, you can't just "report on this on my desk next month!" your way to a consensus. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support in general. This could much improve the value of the 'presumption of notability'. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Qualified Support. Strikes at the heart of the problem, much needed clean-ups for leagues boldly added without thinking whether they really predict GNG that well. That said, per 109.255, dislike a strict timetable or strict limit here. Maybe 90 days rather than 30 days? And maybe more like 70% GNG compliance rather than 90%? SnowFire (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The way people knee jerk argue to keep based on SNGs, they really need to give at least 95% GNG compliance to be worth having. Anything below that and we are just opening ourselves up for a flood of perma-stub junk. Which is what one sees if one actually reads through say our articles on populated places. That is not at all a good example to follow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  Oh heck no to 70% compliance, we need 95% or else any subsequent attempts at tightening criteria will be tanked by "we already demonstrated this, it would be too much work to do it all over!" JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Conditional Support, I do think this should be done, but I'm not sure 30 days is nearly enough time (as it would probably be extremely hard for the association football project, which has something like 150 leagues that presume notability). I think 90 days, maybe a little more, could work. I also would support SnowFire's suggestion of a 70% GNG compliance rather than 90%. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support - Really insightful proposal by Cbl62. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for being a way to bring the many sports stubs into compliance with WP:SIGCOV. Also per multiple good arguments made here. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 11

Rewrite the introductory paragraph to put this guideline on a similar footing to other SNGs, removing the dependence on the GNG, and making it clear that standalone articles should not be created for articles that can only be sourced to statistics databases.

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets either the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Standalone articles should only be created where sufficient sources can be identified to create an article that goes beyond the contents of statistics databases and websites; Where the only sources available simply provide only basic personal details and details of participation, the subject should be covered in a list article or mentioned in a parent article rather than having a standalone article.

Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, 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 policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

--Michig (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support - sensible proposal. GiantSnowman 10:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The issue with NSPORTs is that is doesn't reflect notability, resulting in tens of thousands of permanent microstubs that can never be expanded because there is no significant coverage on the individual with which we could write an article. This proposal will make that situation worse, and cannot be accepted. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

And the proposed wording says that the 'microstubs' should be redirected to/mentioned in other articles, so improves what you complain of... GiantSnowman 10:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the actual wording will result in a suitable response, and would also note that there is also an issue with permanent stubs. Considering some examples might help. Under this proposal, what do you believe will happen to the articles on Marcel Rewenig, James Cook, Aage Leidersdorff, and Raymond Argentin? BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This proposal addresses the issue of 'tens of thousands of permanent microstubs' while also avoiding deleting content on sporting champions, olympic medallists, etc. I think you are confusing 'notability' with 'the GNG' - they are not the same thing. No other encyclopedia has ever based their inclusion criteria solely on something akin to the GNG. --Michig (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Not every sporting champion and Olympic medallist is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That's true -- they use much, much, much, much stricter standards than GNG for what is included. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

And far more sensible standards - such as expert consideration of which topics belong in an encyclopedia, rather than how many 'significant' articles a random person can find in a Google search. --Michig (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes...which is why, for example, Brittanica online has 100,000 biographies of footballers. Wait, no, it's just 67. JoelleJay (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Britannica Online has limits that Wikipedia doesn't have. There are clearly not only 67 notable footballers in the world, so it's rather a daft comparison. --Michig (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Lol then why did you bring up "other encyclopedias" at all?? You can't claim they have far more sensible standards - such as expert consideration of which topics belong in an encyclopedia and then turn around and basically say some undefined "limits" compared to WP are the only reason their exclusion criteria are several orders of magnitude higher than WP's. Who's to say their experts didn't stop at 67 because they determined that was the number of notable footballers? JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, even if they're limited by "paper" or "number of writers", the proportion of biographies dedicated to a particular discipline still reflects expert determination of encyclopedic merit. Encyclopedia.com, which draws from hundreds of encyclopedias, including ones that are strictly biographies of modern people in a single region, only has 400 biographies of athletes. It has 240 on American artists, 300 on architects, 382 on American authors. JoelleJay (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone really advocate making Wikipedia with its 5 million articles and 2 billion visits per month more like "Encyclopedia.com" with its grand total of 200,000 entries? Does anyone actually still use Encyclopedia.com? Encyclopedia.com got off to a good start in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but I didn't even realize it was still in existence. Cbl62 (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

IDK, I'm not the one who brought up criteria for selection in other encyclopedias. I'm just disputing the implication an SNG remotely approximates the standards for inclusion in traditional encyclopedias or is at all superior to GNG in this regard. JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

My point was that no other encyclopedia would use something like GNG, they would set objective criteria for inclusion based on significance - whether or not those criteria would look like what we currently have in NSPORT isn't really the issue. That was clear I think, but you seem determined to not understand any argument that doesn't equate to 'GNG is everything'. --Michig (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

And none of those other encyclopedias are crowdsourced. Does anyone have a suggestion on how Wikipedia would assign one editor-in-chief or select an editorial committee?—Bagumba (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If there was enough common sense around, it would get people with knowledge and expertise in an area (e.g. members of a related WikiProject) to agree some sensible and pragmatic inclusion criteria (i.e. SNGs). Which is exactly what it did until the GNG-supremacists came along and tried to reduce everything down to one clumsy guideline. --Michig (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject "experts" like the ones responsible for PORNBIO? Or the sports fans who want to see standalones on every single member of some regional football league regardless of whether a single independent entity has ever taken notice of them? Do you genuinely believe any broad encyclopedia should have 50% of its biographies be on sports figures, with a large percentage of those being perma-microstubs? Come on. JoelleJay (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You do love a specious argument, don't you? --Michig (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Your argument is that wikiproject members have the knowledge and expertise to craft pragmatic SNG inclusion criteria, and that this approximates the specialist panels hired for traditional encyclopedias; I am arguing a wikiproject comprising anonymous fans of a topic does not have an equivalent academic background or editorial restraints and therefore is not comparable to such a panel. The porn wikiproject created its own insular award-based criteria that failed to predict coverage in RS and more importantly routinely failed BLP. If SSGs weren't supposed to be calibrated to predict GNG, there would be no impetus for sports wikiprojects to tighten their criteria and we would have tens of thousands more athlete microstubs. Topical wikiprojects do not have the breadth of focus or self-policing capacity to develop concepts of notability in isolation, but that is exactly what removing GNG would do -- the rest of the wiki community would have almost zero sway in these discussions because there would be no way to evaluate how well the notability of a subject meeting an SSG criterion aligns with the notability standards of the rest of the encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if we assume that the PORNBIO experience were not representative, the very body of people Michig claims are "knowledgeable and expert" in this area have already perpetrated the very mess we're currently trying to clean up. Where someone playing one down in garbage time of a garbage NFL game is 'presumed inherently notably'. Likewise someone even once warming a subs bench in an English tier-four soccer match. Now this proposal seeks to change that presumption to an explicit entailment. It's doubling down on an existing blunder. Fix the 'participation threshold' thing first, O people burnishing your knowledge and expertise. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER applies, nor is WP merely the print encyclopedias of yesteryear, but now accessble online. At any rate, WP:N is the proper place for that debate.—Bagumba (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose would encourage writing stubs on topics that do not support an article. (t · c) buidhe 14:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. --Michig (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support conditional on it being tempered by (a) subproposal 5 requiring at least one instance of SIGCOV for new articles, and (b) cleaning up NSPORTS so that it's a better indicator of GNG coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to merit an article in Wikipedia. is clumsily written and completely at odds with how NSPORT is used in practice (it is an indicator of meeting GNG, not a direct inclusion criteria). The left-as-is second sentence is going to be open to the same wikilawyering as before. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Half-joking: You are quite fond of the phrases "wikilawyering" and "special pleading". It seems that when you cite and interpret guidelines, it's legitimate discourse. When others do the same but disagree with you, it's "wikilawyering" and "special pleading". Cbl62 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Reminds me of an old college drinking game where we would take a shot every time someone said "Bob" in an episode of The Bob Newhart Show, resulting in much drunkenness by the end of a 30-minute episode. Applying the principle here, I propose a shot every time you say either "wikilawyering" or "special pleading". Cheers. Cbl62 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62: This isn't an invention of my imagination. I've literally had people argue that because of the "or" in the second sentence, the subject does not need to meet GNG. So yes, call me a hypocrite, albeit next time make sure you're correct. As for the proposed text, it changes the tail end of the first sentence from 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. to evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to merit an article in Wikipedia., completely removing any reference to GNG. That is likely to lead to people saying that GNG doesn't need to be met, so I stand by my point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

When did I call you a hypocrite? Far from it, you are quite consistent in your advocacy against sports articles. I was simply teasing about overuse of the two phrases. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You accused me of double standards. As for "advocacy against sports articles", no it's not, it's "advocacy against articles which are cookie-cutter copies of each other and no pertinent information to be conveyed to the reader beyond what would be found in a database". That sports articles happen to be a disproportionately large amount of this might be indicative of other issues... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

At least I led with "Half-joking". Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, these proposals are all about changing the way NSPORT is used in practice - that's the point. --Michig (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds of GNG supremacy. Levivich 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose without applying TNT to most of the rest of NSPORT, since the existing criteria contained within the guideline are not compatible with this proposal. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – This idea that SNGs exist as an alternative to GNG is flawed. In essence, an SNG is a subset of GNG, with both agreeing that the article topic must have significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The last time this was discussed (WT:Notability/Archive 71#Arbitrary break), most agreed that SNGs are secondary in nature to the GNG. Where they can diverge is on the bullet point "Independent of the subject", of which an SNG may define "independence" in more detail and perhaps even in a different manner. An SNG may also end up being more restrictive than GNG. The attempt here to claim they are completely separate is misleading. The purpose of an SNG is to make it easier to gauge a topic's compliance with GNG using examples that have more meaning within a given subject area. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

SNGs existed before the GNG; Their purpose is not gauge a topic's compliance with GNG. WP:N has always stated that notability is about satisfying either the GNG or an SNG. This proposal simply gives us an SNG that fits with what WP:N says rather than having a completely pointless SNG that states that GNG has to be satisfied. --Michig (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

GNG defines a broad pathway to Notability, while SNGs tend to define a narrower pathway, but both ultimately share the same overarching principles. Their relationship is intertwined and often results in the view that SNGs operate within the same GNG framework. I call one a subset of the other, because either SNGs state explicitly that they defer to the GNG (like NSPORT), or they end up being more restrictive (like NORG). Guess it depends on your perspective. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And just to add... Perhaps we need to wait for closure in the other subproposals to determine how to best rephrase the lead. Doing that now seems to be putting the cart before the horse. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The essence of the GNG dates back to late 2006. Back then, it was called the "primary criterion" of the notability guideline, which required that "a subject must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". I'm not aware of SNGs earlier than that, but naturally I'd be delighted to be enlightened on the topic. NPROF is of a fairly similar vintage, but slightly later -- but before GNG was actually called GNG, if one wants to make such of that detail. But NSPORT is itself significantly later. And has problematic features unique to itself. So there's no 'grandfather clause' legitimately available here. And certainly no good precedent for yet-further drifting it towards 'inherent' rather than actually verifiable notability. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support – WP:N states that the subject of an article must meet either WP:GNG or an appropriate WP:SNG. The wording of NSPORTS has, to my knowledge, always included the provision that meeting SNG does not mean that an article must be kept; I have !voted to delete a number of articles whose subjects technically met NFOOTY for having played a few matches in a WP:FPL but whose careers never went beyond that. Anyone who states that GNG is "superior" to an SNG is kind of missing the point; WP:N is the overall policy guideline, while GNG and SNGs are subcomponents of that policy guideline meaning that neither is "superior" to the other. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Do you not believe it is possible for an SNG itself to mandate GNG coverage for its subjects? JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  @JoelleJay: WP:N states A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. If the SNG were to explicitly require GNG, then the SNG itself is no longer necessary as it has been made obsolete. GNG works in parallel with the SNG, as meeting one or the other meets the requirement of the overall notability guideline. I'm not saying that sourcing only a sports database is acceptable; I believe the opposite since a database or other routine coverage (such as a standard match report) doesn't meet SIGCOV. If we are going to rewrite NSPORTS to explicitly require GNG in all cases, then we might as well just put it up for MfD and WP:JUNK it. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Jkudlick NSPORT does explicitly require GNG to be met, though. And many other SNGs work as predictors of GNG as well; do we have to junk NBIO too because NBASIC is essentially a restatement of GNG, and meeting one of the "additional criteria" (including NSPORT) listed in it is not sufficient for a standalone article? Not to mention its description of NSPORT specifically situates it as predictive of GNG: and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

  I believe the opposite since a database or other routine coverage (such as a standard match report) doesn't meet SIGCOV. But if you believe all SNGs are in parallel to GNG, no articles meeting an SNG criterion would require SIGCOV... JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  @JoelleJay: If NSPORTS explicitly requires GNG, then why are we even here? Everything I read on the page says should not must. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I meant to also add, as I have said before, that I am not necessarily an inclusion it, and that I am not advocating any SNG as a replacement for GNG; what I am saying is that if we are going to hold an article to meeting GNG from the very beginning then we shouldn't bother having an SNG. No SNG means no confusion about whether an article should be kept. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Jkudlick Regarding the relationship of NSPORT to GNG and precedent, see my comment upthread. In particular, the FAQs at the top of the guideline page are informative. Regarding the reason why NSPORT exists, here is how I've tried to explain it before.

  We're here because some editors refuse to accept the wider community's consensus that GNG is the overarching criterion for sports bio inclusion (in fact, this is what this subproposal is attempting to overturn). It's also become clear that the permissibility of creating database-sourced athlete bios under the presumption of GNG, based on sport-specific criteria developed by sports wikiprojects with little or no outside evaluation, has enabled both uninhibited proliferation of microstubs and their retention at AfDs without SIGCOV ever being produced. The editors who do not acknowledge what the rest of the community has decided re: NSPORT v. GNG are the same ones who !vote keep at every AfD for any subject meeting their sport-specific criteria, even when GNG sourcing is demonstrably nonexistent. But because there is that second sentence in NSPORT (which applies to article creation) as well as the wiggle room offered by the "eventually" in FAQ #5, there isn't a strict, policy-backed reason to wholly discount their !votes when closing. So while admin closers frequently give these !votes very little weight and most highly-contested AfDs result in deletion, they are still reluctant to close against a clear numerical consensus to keep since that's basically an invitation to DRV. Likewise, there is little incentive for other editors to challenge the presumption of GNG for any non-Anglophone or non-modern non-borderline N[sport]-meeting subject if they can't prove beyond a doubt that coverage doesn't exist in an offline local archived newspaper article somewhere.

  Most of these subproposals therefore seek to create some mechanism to actually enforce what the majority of editors have agreed and repeatedly reaffirmed is the appropriate relationship between NSPORT and GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would do nothing to ensure articles on sportspeople are actually encyclopedic. A stub sourced to a database and a three-sentence blurb documenting the subject transferred to AEK Larnaca or whatever is no better than one sourced to just a database. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

If that was all we had, the subject could be covered in a list/parent article. --Michig (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not at all clear from the text of the subproposal (what does basic personal details and details of participation even mean?), and by removing dependence on GNG you are endorsing a notability threshold that exists somewhere between "database listing" and "what sports editors think is SIGCOV", which frequently is transactional coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure the wording could be improved to specify a level of content required to have a standalone article. My intention was to avoid having articles containing only basic personal details and career stats. --Michig (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Neither side is going to be satisfied until it is clearly identified what advantages an SNG provides over GNG. If the answer is none, SNG essentially become useless. On the otherhand, SNGs needs to provide some recourse for permastubs.—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The requirement to include sourcing beyond basic information is an improvement but we already know that editors will cherry-pick "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets either the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria" while ignoring "Standalone articles should only be created where sufficient sources can be identified to create an article that goes beyond the contents of statistics databases and websites", just as similar language in WP:SPORTCRIT is widely ignored. Best to make it crystal-clear that SIGCOV is the standard.

I would note that NSPORTS' participation-based criteria are much less stringent than other SNGs which are more like guides to demonstrating SIGCOV for a particular topic. –dlthewave ☎ 17:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we would certainly require several sources to have an article that goes beyond basic personal information and career stats, but a dozen or so briefer examples of coverage can sometimes provide more useful information than one or two articles that cover the subject 'in depth'. --Michig (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes sure, there's a "mony a mickle maks a muckle" logic to that. I've seen truly heroic efforts to But the existing standard is that "multiple sources are generally expected" and that they provide "significant coverage". You're proposing to rather drastically weaken that to "sufficient" non-DB-grade sources. So it's not even maintaining the same basic floor for "useful information", and does next-to-nothing to establish actual notability, beyond the -- clearly drastically flawed -- 'minimal participation' bars many of the individual NSPORT guidelines set. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The point of having SNGs is to add additional ways that notability can be demonstrated besides the GNG. This is a possible way forward. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose GNG by itself is already more than good enough. That it has to be made clear that SIGCOV is still required, and that database-style stubs are not allowed, just shows how fundamentally flawed the proposal is, and how arbitrary any alternative to GNG is. Despite assurances to the contrary, the elimination of GNG will surely legitimize the creation or preservation of a bunch of non-encyclopedic stubs. Avilich (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support This actually reads like a helpful document that one could give to a new editor, rather than something which disappears up its own navel, wasting energy trying to clarify the relationship between various acronyms. XOR'easter (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @XOR'easter, we agree most of the time in many other areas, so I'm surprised you're supporting a proposal that gives carte blanche to create even more athlete microstubs... JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

How on God's green earth does subproposal 11 give "carte blanche to create even more athlete microstubs"???? It expressly says the opposite: "Standalone articles should only be created where sufficient sources can be identified to create an article that goes beyond the contents of statistics databases and websites; Where the only sources available simply provide only basic personal details and details of participation, the subject should be covered in a list article or mentioned in a parent article rather than having a standalone article." And, if combined with sub 5 (receiving overwhelming approval currently), users would also need to include at least one instance of real SIGCOV upon article creation. These two proposals combine for real and substantial reform. Cbl62 (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Because there is zero definition beyond "more than a stats database" to clarify the depth of coverage from any one source or even combination of sources. Removing GNG is indisputably intended to lower the ultimate notability requirements for standalone inclusion, and the language of the proposal does not require these "non-trivial" sources be in the article from the get-go. It simply replaces the eventual need to demonstrate GNG with an eventual need to demonstrate...some undefined, explicitly lesser degree of coverage. It completely removes the GNG calibration of all NSPORT subguideline criteria, which means projects could arbitrarily loosen their criteria with no guideline-based way for the wider community to push back. The proposal also says nothing about whether sources have to be independent or secondary. And I evaluate each proposal's merits in isolation, so it doesn't matter if #5 is likely to pass. JoelleJay (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the proposed language is any more vague than the GNG itself is. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention (how precise, and not at all tautological); There is no fixed number of sources required (gee, thanks). And I'm pretty sure that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source is ignored in practice. I can't recall the last AfD that turned on it (and would we really say that multiple articles by Ronan Farrow in The New Yorker count only as a single source, for example?). In short, I don't get why people love the GNG so much. It's just a thing to point to when there's nothing else. Trying to fit all the questions about what articles should exist into the framework of GNG/SNG relations is pseudo-legalistic wrangling that makes the inside baseball of Wikipedia even more incomprehensible. XOR'easter (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "notability" is not as objective as some would have us believe.—Bagumba (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@XOR'easter It's not necessarily that the language is less clear, but that it explicitly requires less depth than even the shallowest claims of "SIGCOV" produced by sports editors (like two-sentence transfer blurbs) and does not say anything about whether non-independent and primary sources are discounted for notability purposes. The current NSPORT guidelines permit SSG-meeting microstubs to exist in mainspace until challenged, and the only way to challenge a subject's notability is to request the (requisite) GNG SIGCOV be produced. Hundreds of NFOOTY-meeting stubs have been deleted due to keep !voters not being able to answer that request, and this in turn has forced projects to tighten their criteria. This proposal would overturn the unofficial but widely-recognized minimum standards of athlete SIGCOV developed over years of AfD precedent -- mainly, that transactional and hype coverage are not significant, nor are strict interviews -- and, by virtue of not requiring SIGCOV, implicitly allow these sub-SIGCOV sources to count toward notability. GNG is vague and overly-inclusive, but in practice is a much stronger barrier to athlete microstub retention than the sport-specific guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that two-sentence transfer blurbs would fall under the Where the only sources available simply provide only basic personal details and details of participation language. And my guess is that the nature and extent of hype interviews varies from sport to sport, so it may be better to spell out more specific criteria in the individual sections. XOR'easter (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think that NSPORT both tightens and (to an extent) loosens GNG. NSPORT tightens GNG by making it harder for non-professional athletes to get an article (so a college or prep athlete does not get an article with a smattering of [local] coverage, even if it they are good enough for a profile). I believe that the SNG makes it a bit (to an extent) easier for a professional athlete to keep an article - as we expect there is coverage and we expect editors to find coverage of anyone who plays in particular leagues. I think this is a good balance - at AFD, if a subject passes NSPORT, more latitude should be given to the sources found, if a subject would not pass NSPORT, a heavier burden to find sources (especially beyond routine coverage) is expected. --Enos733 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Enos733 ?? NSPORT has zero effect on GNG, it does not make it harder for non-pro athletes to get an article. If they meet GNG, they can be created and kept regardless of meeting NSPORT. And the sports subguidelines are definitionally, not to mention empirically, looser than GNG, as evidenced by the fact they're supposed to be calibrated to predict GNG and yet there are hundreds of AfDs on SSG-meeting athletes that resulted in delete in just the last few months. The vast majority of these SSGs have never actually even validated their criteria predict GNG -- as should be clear from the resistance to doing so in proposal 10! JoelleJay (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@XOR'easter If such sources would be excluded by the proposed language, then what examples of non-SIGCOV (in the eyes of sports editors) material would be accepted? Articles with just an athlete's "details of participation" are claimed to be SIGCOV all the time by sports editors. Again, the intent of this proposal is to reduce the ultimate minimum coverage requirement for sports subjects. That is ALL it would do. Having coverage beyond a database or "basic personal details" is already required ("eventually") by NSPORT, through its deferment to GNG and the language in SPORTCRIT. This proposal removes both of those limitations and replaces them with an "eventual" requirement for a non-SIGCOV, non-database source. Sports project editors already refuse to acknowledge the first and third sentences of NSPORT when creating articles and when defending them at AfD; expecting anything different from this proposal is ridiculous.

Look, if you don't agree that 50% of biographies being on athletes is a problem, or that an encyclopedia shouldn't have tens of thousands of permanent biography microstubs, then that's where our disagreement actually lies and debating this proposal is pointless. But if you have any opposition to those things at all, please take what has been said by oppose !voters above about how this would affect proliferation of articles on, e.g., footballers whose sole claim to notability is one appearance in the 97th minute of a match in a third-tier league. JoelleJay (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree about the problem, and I've done my best to think through and over the arguments for how this would make it worse. I'm just not convinced. If editors are refusing to acknowledge wording in the current guideline, then they will surely ignore any replacement just as easily, and all this is nothing more than bikeshedding. XOR'easter (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The flaws in the current wording make it easy to ignore, or indeed just to differ in good faith as to what it does (or should) mean. We'll presume these topics to be notable... until what or when? Next week? Ad infinitum? Until people have done a few google searches? Until a notary public certifies that no reliable source ever existed offering significant coverage, even taking in account the theoretical possibility of an archive somewhere having burnt down? It's underdefined at present, if not simply un-. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

In my experience at hundreds of athlete AfDs and sport-specific guideline tightening discussions, there is very vocal resistance to producing GNG coverage from keep !voters precisely because it doesn't exist for a large proportion of SSG-meeting deletion nominees. Many of NSPORT's SSGs just do not correlate with coverage beyond the routine and non-significant, and that's even with theoretical calibration to GNG. As I said before, if we removed that GNG limitation, the rest of the community would have zero guideline-backed justification against expanding an SSG criterion to include more leagues/teams/tournaments/etc. With this proposal, all current and future SSGs would be entirely governed by fans of the sport, with inclusion criteria being determined by what level of participation they consider important within that sport, rather than by what is encyclopedic or what is deemed notable even by other sports projects. And we know this results in over-inclusion and rapid microstub expansion because that's what happened before GNG was implemented and projects were forced to calibrate their criteria to it. Every Arena football player and List A cricketer and fourth-tier semi-pro American footballer was once deemed just as deserving of an article as an NBA all-star.

The current wording is often ignored by AfD keep !voters, yes, but it still gives AfD closers the ability to disregard such !votes. It makes subsequent AfDs on the same subject that much easier to delete if no SIGCOV had been added in the interim. And it mandates an athlete biography have at least the capacity to resemble an encyclopedic biography, containing more than just sports stats and summaries of transactional announcements. This proposal strips all that away by allowing material that in aggregate doesn't even meet BASIC to confer notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That ability itself rests on very insecure grounds. When it happens, the 'only a guideline, keep, count all the "!"votes!' crowd are often unhappy about it, and could indeed argue that the have a 'law in the letter' case in doing so. If Wikipedia had well-founded rules that allowed one to make such a determination, which of course it does not. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose @Stifle: says that SNGs exist to offer additional routes to notability. While that is true in the case of NPROF and GEOLAND, it is not usually the case (but, of course, it could be for NSPORTS, too). That said, it should only be done where i) it would allow the inclusion of articles which are firmly notable in the regular sense but not in the wikipedia sense ii) there is a suitable alternate means to assess inclusion other than something like WP:THREE. No form which isn't insanely broad exists here - it would lead to major inclusion of non-notable individuals....when it's already the broadest inclusion in the encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as making bad matters worse. This would be a big change in precisely the wrong direction. I'm certainly not against the principle of "specialise and replace" for sport in the way that other SNGs do. But what that would sensibly look like is very different from this. First, it'd be to particularise 'significant coverage' to what that'd look like in a domain-specific manner, without simply drastically lowering it from multiple reliable pieces of significant coverage to "sufficient" pieces of trivial mentions (at least one to be of some unspecified non-DB/non-bio nature). Second, it'd be to overhaul the 'participation trophy' element drastically from stem to stern, until it's something a lot higher than 'got paid to sport for a day', and to set them to an 'achievements in the field' threshold that's at a sensible level. By worsening the first of those legs and throwing almost the entire threshold-to-keep on the second, this really is a charter for yet-more permastubs on topics of no actually encyclopedic importance. However many flat assertions we get to the contrary. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Where sufficient sources do not exist, the subject should not be covered at all. We should not encourage people to create more redirects. To do anything along these lines we need to first make the Sports SNG much more restrictive than it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as removing the only stopgap (GNG) to an even-more-overwhelming number of badly-sourced stepped-on-a-field-once athlete stubs. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 12

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposal to clarify Olympic participation as an indicator of notability to minimize the clutter here and to allow it to run its course there. Cbl62 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Subproposal 13

No more fucking subproposals. Let this thing run its course. Cbl62 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

PASSED

Closing statement: This is clearly snowing. In any case, fornication with subproposals is now forbidden. Oh wait, that's not what was meant... I see. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Support. Cbl62 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Support. It is impossible to keep track of this discussion at this point. Spanneraol (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Lol, Support. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Self-contradictory Making a new subproposal to not make new subproposals? Ha! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Amendment: Strike fucking subproposal 13 as well. Cbl62 (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Support Levivich 17:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Stop throwing more shit against the wall without at least first explaining how your bright idea addresses most of the major opinions—both pro and con—that's already been regurgitated ad nauseam.—Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Support Levivich 17:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC) FTR, though I support not having any more subproposals, I do not agree that what's already here should be discarded. I think a closer will be able to figure out what does/doesn't have consensus on this page, and that process should be allowed to play out, per nom. Just let this thing run its course. Levivich 20:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC) @Levivich: I didn't mean to suggest that the subpropsals already pending should be ignored. If a clear consensus for any of these is found, that consensus should be enforced. However, the proliferation has created a mess, and there are many who are saying that they can't even figure out how/where to comment (or don't have the time/patience to wade through all 13 proposals). Given these issues, changes to the guidelines should be made only if there is clear consensus. I would support moving subproposal 12 to the NSPORTS talk page, as it's rather granular and is the type of discussion that's normally dealt with there -- and moving it could help reduce the growing sense of trainwreck. Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC) No objection from me, if you want to do that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Thanks BilledMammal. I went ahead and moved it. Your proposal is legit and meritorious, but moving it helps keep the discussion here focused on the bigger issues. Cbl62 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC) @Cbl62: Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you were suggesting that anything should be ignored. Thanks to you and BM for moving 12. Levivich 23:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Support, although I guess we will have to start over with a more structured RfC after this trainwreck of discussions is over. —Kusma (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Support Agree with Kusma a more structured RfC will be needed. It is almost impossible for me to figure out how to contribute to the discussion above due to just how many proposals there are. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Support 12 sub proposals is way too many to get any consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Oppose No We NeEd MoAr SuBpRoPoSaLs!!!!! Support This is already a lot to sift through. To quote the Gumbys, "MY BRAIN HURTS!!!" — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC) I'd Support, but does that mean I'd be fucking a subproposal? I'm not sure I'm into that - but to each his own - no judgements. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Support - Everything that can be said on this has been said already. Shut it down. FOARP (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Support. Makes clear and explicit the only interpretation of the "presume one thing but should do another" guideline that actually makes sense, as opposed to the "make the presumption absolute, don't trouble with anything else" alternative. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

General Thoughts

I am quite discouraged by how few editors have done anything to nominate clearly perma stub articles on clearly non-notable peoipy non-notable participants in the Olympics for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Try not to take it personally that other editors are not as enthusiastic about that as you. We disagree 99% of the time, but I always value your input ('cept for that one time...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That's what this whole debate is about. The SNG sets the bar too low and defines them as wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. People keep raising obscure Olympic participants as a reason to toss out NSPORTS. The fact of the matter is that NOLYMPICS was substantially rewritten last year to eliminate the presumption of notability for all but medalists. Far from being a reason to eliminate NSPORTS, it demonstrates the correct method of reform -- i.e., if a particular part of NSPORTS is too broad, fix it --- but don't throw out the whole darn thing. Cbl62 (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The system is stacked against anyone who tries. A stub takes a minute to create but countless hours of effort to delete. It's a mad system that will quickly discourage anyone. Nigej (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please don't be surprised when anyone does edit. That's not the problem ... that's the point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

That's true, but we have a set of policies/guidelines/etc. that determine whether those edits are suitable. Nigej (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems a WP:SUPERVOTER or two is trying to make it easier. Stepping back from the letter of the law, it's another indication of how polarizing this is becoming, all because a few select sports continue to maintain the staus quo on their massive list of dubious notable professional leagues.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This rather rests on whether "closing in lines with our policies and guidelines" amounts to the sort of editorial misconduct you're here framing it as. If it does, that page itself prescribes a series of resolution steps. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the policies and guidelines are unclear. When they are contradictory or editors disagree and the closer sides with the minority vote, it does come across as a WP:SUPERVOTE. NemesisAT (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think the main lack of clarity here is whether if the "!"voters are brazenly ignoring the guidelines (in particular, as distinct from policy), and the closer takes that into account, they're acting within policy. (Other than in the IAR sense, of course, in which every action on Wikipedia is simultaneously within policy, and outside of policy.) That it's unclear the "keep per NSPORT, GNG be damned" votes are guideline-flouting is frankly a lot harder to credibly argue. But if you feel there's closer misconduct here, as I say there are prescribes steps to take. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS is clear that the closer is given discretion to enforce policies, not guidelines.—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What's especially clear is that that essay is... an essay, and itself neither a policy nor a guideline. So not your strongest plank in that argument, counsel-at-wiki. If you feel it's a winning one, then as I say you should presumably take up the resolution processes available in each case, rather than complaining about it as an alleged abstract phenomenon. Dunno why we trouble to have 'em, otherwise. Then again I'm equally not sure why we bother with guidelines if we can blithely vote[sic] to ignore those, for no even stated reason. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is a widely used source, and we have a responsibility to ensure the information is as accurate as possible. Our current policies have allowed actual hoaxes to stand for over 15 years. Some things need to be changed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that we are talking about "hoaxes" here--the issue in this discussion is what does or does not meet notability standards. It's a far different case for something to be "not true" or a "hoax" than for something to "be true but just not important enough to meet notability standards": please remain on the topic, this discussion is huge enough as it is. --Paul McDonald (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
    • You can handwave against hoaxes, but they are a relevant issue. Hoaxes can last so long because we have such non-existent requirements for article quality that it is very hard to tease out hoaxes from reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
      • The two are related at least to the extent of resting on minimal sourcing. If you can stitch together a permastub on an 'inherently notable' topic from a trivial source or two, that's a favourable environment for hoaxes, as well as for sportscruft. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It is going to be exceedingly difficult to take any substantive changes from this discussion (and the splintered ones). Not that anyone is asking my advice, but I think the best path is to identify the sports that drive the microstub issues and get those guidelines scaled back significantly. Cutting WP:NOLYMPICS from all competitors to just medalists likely made a difference. If I had to guess I'd bet WP:NFOOTY and maybe WP:NCRICKET are probably others with too inclusive guidelines (I don't have any experience with cricket, just going off some of the examples given). I would imagine the 80/20 rule applies - you can get 80% of the value by looking at 20% of the sports. That's not to say other sports shouldn't be reviewed, but just take it in chunks. I don't know if there is any Wikipedia version of arbitration, because I think some of the sports would dig in against any proposed changes (I have been in some of these discussions). A truly neutral 3rd party facilitating could be beneficial. I get the frustration behind the original proposal, but I don't think abolishing WP:NSPORTS outright was ever much of a possibility unless WP went away from SSGs totally. Rikster2 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

TLDR

I consider myself relatively detail oriented, but I long ago gave up on trying to keep up with all the various points here. There's the original proposal and its subsequent 13 subproposals, many running in parallel. I can't believe this is a real "discussion", even by RfC standards, and not just a series of isolated polls , where people are even more unlikely to go back and read or update earlier points. It's almost impossible to find past points when the TOC header's are just "Subproposal X" with no other desctiption.

While there might be a few proposals that appear to have gained support, I'd recommend reaffirming with a new, limited RfC with the exact (re-)wording proposal to the guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Bagumba, this has taken on multiple "lives and directions" and it's just too burdensome to attempt to comprehend the details. There's too much here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, I've voted on some of the proposals but not all 13 of them, as it's way too many to look at. That doesn't mean people necessarily agree with any consensuses on a proposal, just that it's too much effort to expect people to read 13 different proposals, especially when some are massively nuanced and changing minor implications of text. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the confusion/gridlock generated by the multiple proposals, I'd agree that a proposal that barely passes with only a narrow majority should not be viewed as having achieved a solid consensus sufficient to change the existing guideline. However, there are a couple proposals that received mass participation and have a clear consensus from 2/3 of the participants. In particular, the Main Proposal to abolish NSPORTS received mass participation from nearly 100 editors and was overwhelmingly rejected. Also, subproposal 5 (requiring at least one example of SIGCOV to support new article creation going forward) received mass participation and is overwhelmingly supported. Cbl62 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

But on the other hand, I feel that the consensus in favour of NSPORTS has always been lukewarm and marginal. It was established as a guideline in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4 § RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline. My position is that NSPORTS clearly doesn't enjoy wholehearted support as written, so we shouldn't require a supermajority to change it. I'm afraid I see this section as an attempt to influence or constrain the closer, and I rather disapprove of that.—S Marshall T/C 00:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I see this section as an attempt to influence or constrain the closer, and I rather disapprove of that: Your comments are open to scrutiny too, right?—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Obviously yes. I welcome community scrutiny of anything I do or say on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 01:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

So, you "rather disapprove" of comments attempting to influence the closer, but you then go on to try to do just that. I have to assume you disapprove of your own efforts. Cbl62 (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I prefer AGF, though we're probably long past that on this topic, but I'm open to scrutiny on whether my RfC organization concerns have merit or are gaming the system.—Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes: it's true that now that others have started this section which I think is meant to influence or constrain the closer, I've both tried to balance the influence and also deplored the attempt. That doesn't mean I don't think you're in good faith. I do: I assume that you genuinely think this proliferation of microstub BLPs monosourced to trivia sites is somehow a good idea, and that you genuinely feel this section will somehow help an impartial closer to reach the conclusion you genuinely think should be drawn. Thus you are in good faith, but misguided and in my view overinvested in the debate.—S Marshall T/C 02:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE would appear to apply to this; a proposal with a majority against it can still pass, and a proposal with a majority for it can still fail. Further, I believe this discussion has been sufficiently well-attended and comprehensive it should not be rejected on that basis, though I would encourage the closer to consider the issue of canvassing. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

As an outsider who doesn't really care either way, I do not envy the person who has to close this and judge if any of these proposals and subproposals pass or not. The way this was done is such an unmitigated mess. 12 subproposals was way too much. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

yes, almost like the RFC was started as an ill-thought out POINTy rushed endeavour... GiantSnowman 08:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Boy, I am LATE to this party, but just read through it all. This is dizzying. And it seems like all this discussion really led to no changes? SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 10:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

For now, Spf121188. Most subproposals haven't been closed.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that there is a pretty widespread agreement that something needs to be changed. IMO even the unmanageable size and number of proposals is an indicator of this. I think that the next step need to be to see if some of them pass. That would determine the next step after that.North8000 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It's rare for me to agree with GiantSnowman, but on this occasion I do. It's "almost like the RFC was started as an ill-thought out POINTy rushed endeavour.." Given the fact there's such a gulf between the two camps it was always going to be a near-impossible task to come to a consensus. Also it seems to me that some proposals have not been in the nature of finding a consensus. The reality is that a consensus shouldn't go one way or the other, it should be in middle and in all likelihood be something that no one really likes. I'd like to take a step back. I'd like to suggest two proposals. 1. Do we accept that the notability criteria for sports competitors is out of line with the rest of Wikipedia biographies? Given that nearly half of biographies of living people are sports competitors it seems clear to me, but perhaps others have other views. 2. Do we accept that this is a bad thing? This is the much more open question. Does it really matter? Until that is agreed I don't think we can move on. It's clear that many of those on the "loose" end of the scale think it doesn't matter, those on the "tight" end generally do. Why does it matter than everyone who's played in one professional football match qualifies but if you've written one book professionally, or performed once professionally as a musician or actor, or had one scientific paper published, you're not notable? Who cares? Nigej (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• • How certain is the statement "Given that nearly half of biographies of living people are sports competitors" ?? And if so, how much weight should that have? Examples: Abraham Lincoln was a wrestler, Gerald Ford played football at Michigan, George S. Patton competed in the Olympics... they would all turn up in a search on "sports" - and remember, sports is a major part of life in many locations. I agree, I don't see that as a bad thing. But even if it were a "bad thing" -- the average printed newspaper has about 25% to 33% dedicated to the "sports section". That's where we are.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a major difference between an encyclopedia and a newspaper. Almost all newspaper coverage is routine and of no lasting importance; we have explicitly chosen not to include such content on Wikipedia. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

yes of course there are differences between newspapers and encyclopedia. That's not the point at all. The point is that the coverage in newspapers shows a proportion of about 25%-33% of sports coverage. It stands to reason--or at least stands to be argued--that 25%-30% of notable matters are sports related because notability is based on coverage in third party articles like newspapers. We don't get to decide what is and is not notable, the world decides what is and is not notable and we respond to it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It is not intended to reflect the type of coverage provided by news articles, many of which are routine and do not have significant encyclopedic information on any particular subject.

2. Why is the proportion of material covering general sports in a newspaper relevant, but the proportion covering that topic in academic papers or in other encyclopedias is somehow just an artifact of wikipedia being NOTPAPER? Contemporaneous news articles are discouraged as WP:PRIMARY sources for non-sports subjects, so coverage of routine events like transfers or match reports really shouldn't even count towards notability at all, let alone constitute almost the entirety of athlete bio content beyond database info. JoelleJay (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty clear I think. see User:Nigej/sandbox which, although a year out of date, shows that we had 450,000 "sports competitors" and 520,000 "writers, journalists, artists, musicians, composers, entertainers, directors, producers, screenwriters, philosophers, historians, social scientists, religious figures, politicians, leaders, military personnel, revolutionaries, activists, scientists, inventors, mathematicians, businesspeople, explorers, criminals, etc. etc." combined. The numbers in both sports and non-sports is actually quite small. Nigej (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Today's numbers: "sports competitors" living 485,000, grand total living "1,030,000". That's 47%, which is "nearly half" in my books. Soccer now 169,000 (was 153,000). Nigej (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I repeat what I have said many times before and what would be a far more productive use of everybody's time and effort - tweak and tighten NSPORTS, moving the 'automatic' playing requirements more in-line with GNG (so adding/removing leagues and competitions based on media coverage, and not any other 'professional' or other factor), and making it clear that NSPORTS is a presumption of notability, not ironclad. GiantSnowman 09:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree again, except that I wouldn't use the word "tweak" when I'm more thinking along the lines of taking a sythe to it. As usual, that's where the disagreement is going to be. Nigej (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I used 'tweak' because it will invariably vary from sport to sport. GiantSnowman 09:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Let's have sensible arguments about which parts of the guideline are actually causing problems now (with proper evidence), then adjust them where necessary to deal with any issues. --Michig (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

We have hundreds of thousands of micro stubs, which only demonstrate notability through NSPORTS. There is plenty of evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a crazy thought - if people spent half as much time and effort on actually improving 'micro stubs' rather than whining about them/trying to delete them, we would have a far better encyclopaedia for a variety of reasons! 11:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs)

Less crazy thought - if people spent half as much time and effort creating articles on actually notable people rather than creating sports micro stubs, we would have a far better encyclopaedia for a variety of reasons! BilledMammal (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish, and such a ludicrously lazy and facetious argument that demonstrates an unacceptable lack of AGF that AFD nominators are following BEFORE. Evidence from AFD indicates that a significant proportion of these SNG-scraping stubs cannot be expanded because no significant coverage can be found (even eventually); hence they are getting deleted at AFD. Additionally, if AFD could cope with nominations at the same rate they get created at, there would be hundreds of new listings daily. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Or they should be. There is one at AFD right now that is leaning "keep" because editors are arguing that we cannot know there is not significant coverage until 2045, when historic Danish sources will be available online, and until we can check those the presumption of notability still exists. BilledMammal (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yet you still refuse (or are unable) to specify which parts of the guideline are leading to articles being created on non-notable topics. --Michig (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This part: WP:NSPORT. We've discussed the individual issues many times, and I'm not interested in doing so again here. BilledMammal (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"ludicrously lazy" response. GiantSnowman 11:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Countless examples of specifics have been given in the discussions above; some even have their own sub-proposals, e.g. simple participation (i.e. appeared on a field once so can be referenced to an all-inclusive database) criteria. But you know this already. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - and I also know that those kind of articles rarely survive AFD. So what's your point? GiantSnowman 12:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Or why this is an issue that only affects sports, as if any other topic isn't also full of poorly referenced/likely non-notable bios created on the basis of SNGs... GiantSnowman 11:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't only affect NSPORT but we are not discussing other SNGs here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Why not? GiantSnowman 11:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman and wjemather please just disengage, it's clear you two will not convince each other and I feel like y'all are both shouting at brick walls. Let's just drop it for now. It's clear that discussion on sports notability is winding down, so in my opinion we should all kind of let it be for a while. GiantSnowman if you are interested in discussing how to tackle poorly reference/non-notable bios you might be interested in helping out at this thread. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Bouncing back to the issue on the number of sports related articles vs non-sports related articles: Maybe that is because there might be more notable sportspeople than non-sportspeople. If we take WP:N and WP:GNG at face value, there appears to me to be whole lot more coverage of sports individuals in reliable third party sources than there are of other individuals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  But most of these microstub subjects don't have any coverage! JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't buy the automatic assumption that "most" "don't" have any coverage. But if they don't, then submit it to AFD, have a discussion, and do what consensus supports.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  So editors have to spend 7+ days exhaustively demonstrating a subject is not covered in depth in RS, for each of tens of thousands of database-derived microstubs that were made in <3 minutes, all while such stubs continue to be pumped into mainspace under the aegis of "notability criteria" that are "supposed" to predict GNG but for which any empirical validation of predictive accuracy has both never actually been performed and is actively resisted by the same bloc of sports editors that !vote keep even when they themselves are unable to find SIGCOV and even when the article is 14 years old and has been nominated and kept at AfD multiple times under the assertion that SIGCOV "probably" exists and editors just need more time to find it? NO THANK YOU. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Separate comment the WP:5PILLARS state "Wikipedia has no firm rules" -- this discussion has been an attempt to make firm rules and it has failed. I think that's an indicator that we should cease trying to make firm rules and have better, more civil discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Trouble is that many editors are very keen to apply (their reading/preferred parts of) NSPORT as a 'firm rule'. Found in the wild, an assertion that it's essential that are article be kept as "passing NSPORT" based on a modest degree of participation in a historic league... based on two trivial sources which disagree on the subject's name and date of birth -- i.e. which are likely referring to two entirely different people, and are thus in dispute as to very identity of this 'inherently notable' person. And many of the NSPORT diehards are uphappy at GNG -- a general principle if ever I saw one -- isn't "firm" and objectively crisp enough. So that seems an odd takeaway from this discussion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's a pickle.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Personally I'm no fan of GNG, vague in the extreme IMO. I'd be happier with NSPORTS. However the current NSPORTS leaks like a sieve, allowing articles for all sorts of nobodies. My preferred option would be a good NSPORTS but given the resistance to change from some quarters, I'm left with no option but to support the removal of NSPORTS completely and revert to using GNG instead. A pickle indeed. Nigej (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  In the "why not" category, "why not" apply the "did it for a living for one day" (bypass GNG) criteria to corporate executives, shoe repair people, Uber drivers, fast food workers and everyone and then have wikipedia become 4 billion articles on individual people? North8000 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Certainly being a corporate executive of a NASDAQ company is about as notable as playing 1 game in the Appalachian 1st division of foosball, I'd say, North8000.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. Why not a biography about a man who plays second violin in the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra ("did it for a living for quite a few days"). I'm sure there's few mentions of him in the Bournemouth Echo. Somehow this is laughable, but similar content about a footballer is enough for an article. I know the argument is that no one's interested in the man who plays second violin and loads of people are interested in the footballer, but personally I'm doubtful. The truth is that sports attracts a certain type of editor. In my youth it used to be trains and stamp collecting, but sports has taken over than mantle. Nigej (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  If you've got third party articles and significant coverage about that second violinist, then go for it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Why do those restrictions apply to musicians and not athletes?! JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Who is saying that they do? If you're looking for balance of types of new articles, recruit people who are enthusiastic about creating articles that you would like to see on Wikipeida.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  .......Have you read any !votes in this discussion? The RfC and all of the subproposals feature oppose !voters insisting the current wording of NSPORT says athletes don't have to ever demonstrate SIGCOV in multiple RS. Not to mention many other sports editors saying NSPORT should be changed to completely bypass GNG. And this is under circumstances already heavily favoring athlete bio creation, namely the ability to create articles sourced solely to a single database (something @Nigej's hypothetical violinist could not do, hence my prior comment). We have dozens (hundreds?) of articles on contemporary SSG-meeting sportspeople in English-speaking nations that have survived recent AfDs despite editors looking for SIGCOV and not finding any, specifically because the same people opposing the above proposals also !vote keep in practically every athlete AfD. Thousands more articles just haven't been brought to AfD yet, many undoubtedly due to the harassment and brigading nominators receive from these !voters. At the same time, we have successfully deleted hundreds of articles on NFOOTY-meeting footballers that didn't meet GNG, and yet the football project has resisted efforts to tighten the exact same criteria that led to those articles in the first place. We have tens of thousands of bios that were mass-created strictly out of database entries, far outpacing the capacity for other editors to even expand them, let alone bring them to AfD. These are the issues the proposals you so casually dismiss are attempting to address. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  This is under the heading "TLDR" which means "too long, didn't read" ... so no I haven't read the whole thing. Irony... but from your comments, I don't see anything about musicians.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Paulmcdonald I'd be glad to find databases with information on corporate executives if we really want to go all out here. In fact, why don't we search IRS databases and make articles on those running tax-exempt organizations? Of course, we can't make articles for all the executives so let's take the example of NSPORTS and say only those filing 990 forms and not the other variants, as they are truly top athletes executives if they reach that level of success and consequently presumed notable. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Go for it. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and create articles. You don't need to ping me and you don't need my permission.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a different topic, because it deals with calibration of GNG itself (such as NCorp does).....even for GNG, it's no accident that the term "Notability" was chosen for "has coverage". In addition to just having places for article material, there is also a presumption that suitable sources providing information on the topic is also a measure of recognition to help determine suitability for a stand alone article in Wikipedia. But in sports, the coverage itself is a form of entertainment and thus less of such an indicator. North8000 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• North8000, I sketched out what a possible solution on those lines might look like, in my response to SP#11. If the NSPORT achievement/participation criteria were themselves sufficiently high to be highly predictable of notability, then we could dispense with GNG-type requirements entirely. Or else we specialise GNG to the domain: this type of coverage in this type of source is qualifying, these others aren't. Or some combination of the two. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Statistics

Now that the main discussion has started to end, I decided to run the statistics of this entire RfC (not counting Subproposal 12, which was moved to a different venue, because I honestly couldn't be bothered to manually add that in):

• This discussion started on January 19 and ended on (*insert date here*), and lasted 1 month and (*insert*) days.
• This page is 768 kilobytes.
• Counting everything above the "General thoughts" section, there are approximately 111,117 words (n.b. this counts signatures and the timestamps; I can't be bothered to manually remove those); this translates to 247 pages in standard format (Times New Roman, font 12, single spaced).
• According to the site I copy-pasted this into, this discussion would take on average 6 hours 44 minutes to read, and 10 hours 17 minutes to speak.
• The most active day of the week was Saturday, followed by Monday and Wednesday.
• The most used words were GNG (648 instances), articles (488 instances), notability (439 instances), and sports (423 instances).
• The users whose names show up the most are: Cbl62 (139), JoelleJay (132), BilledMammal (116). (n.b. this doesn't necessarily mean these were the most participatory users, they could've just gotten name-dropped a lot; e.g. "per Cbl")

This was a slugfest of a discussion, thank god it's almost over. Curbon7 (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

A Question

Sorry if this question isn't really germane to this whole thing, but is there data out there that gives Wikipedia traffic report percentages for certain topics ala sports, politics, musicians, etc? Even before this, I've heard people complain in the past that Wikipedia has way too much coverage on sports, but if readers are percentage-wise reading sports articles en masse (not necessarily the one or two sentence stubs), then c'est la vie. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Of the 1000 most viewed biographies in January, 41 are under the scope of WP:FOOTBALL - 4.1%. Of our 2,023,252 biographies, 203,724 of them are under the scope of WP:FOOTBALL - 10.1%. I suspect the disparity becomes greater when we consider outside of the top 1000, but I don't know where to find that information. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems to show readership has a keen interest in such biographies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We know that people are looking at the big names in the news, these 41 football biographies, etc. The issue at hand is whether they're looking at the other 203,683? Nigej (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Errr ... that number indicates that there is a far greater percentage creating footy sub-stubs than there are reading footy bios. When you consider that Lugnuts alone wrote a measurable percentage of them ... Ravenswing 16:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

If a topic has enough coverage to write a neutral, whole article, there generally can be an article. WP:NOTPAPER applies, as we are not constrained by physical space like the print encyclopedias of yesteryear. Our volunteer staff is not limited by budget, and we don't obsess over profits, where page inclusion would be influenced by a given page's traffic.—Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

To those upset with sports coverage on Wikipedia

You have a right IMO to be upset with the proliferation of microstubs consisting of one or two lines of narrative text sourced only to a sporting database. We have taken measures to address that, including (i) dramatically raising the bar for presumed notability for Olympic athletes, (ii) topic-banning a particularly prolific editor (80,000 or so microstubs) from creating further microstubs. We also now have a clear consensus in this RfC for (iii) subproposal 5 requiring new articles to have at least one example of SIGCOV (i.e., no more microstubs sourced only to a database).

With those items accomplished, I urge you to take a step back and consider the impact of what to many sporting editors feels like an ongoing barrage of attacks in the form of one proposal after another to gut NSPORTS. Several good sporting editors have expressed concern, one of our best this morning posting that the trend leads them to want to spend less and less time here on Wikipedia. Some on the extreme may say, "Terrific, we want you to spend less time on here on Wikipedia." But I think the vast majority, while rightfully peeved about the proliferation of microstubs, value and respect the work of their fellow editors (in all substantive areas) and want to encourage rather than discourage further participation. Food for thought. Cbl62 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What I think people want to discourage is not so much people creating articles about sports figures than people being lazy when doing so. Looking for good sources, picking out the most important information, formatting according to standards, ... can take a fair amount of time. Copying from a database (and we have empirical examples here) is a no-effort 2 or 3 minute job, and when people get called out on it, instead of genuinely heeding the advice, we get contrived apologies and any attempt to delete such blatantly sub-standard entries is met with a bullet storm of undignified protest. If, like everywhere else on the encyclopedia, sports editors (I'm not saying this applies to all, but clearly, whether it is a majority, a plurality, or a minority, they're very vocal about it) held themselves to the same standards as others, we would not have anything remotely resembling this current problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. I disagree, however, with singling out sports and suggesting that "everywhere else on the encyclopedia" doesn't have similar problems. We see tons of ill-sourced microstubs on local legislators (Pete Jorgensen), tiny or non-existent geolocations, films (Goat Getter), music (F One (album)), and many other areas. Sports articles shouldn't be exempt from SIGCOV requirements, and neither should local legislators, academics, geolocations, etc. Cbl62 (talk)

Sports is only being singled out because of the scale of the issue here. If it was on a modest scale this whole discussion would not be taking place. How many parts of Wikipedia can there be that contribute half of all biographies of living people (facetious question)? Nigej (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I will note that only a minimal amount of effort was needed to find multiple sources about Representative and former University of Wyoming Trustee Pete Jorgensen. What I believe is needed is more work to expand articles. --Enos733 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's also being "singled out" as there's not a flying wedge of 'obscure politician' or 'average professor' editors who'll die in a ditch at AfD discussions to in effect say "keep, passes my own private interpretation of a SNG that ignores the GNG requirement explicitly baked into it". Those others either still require the GNG -- and editors in those areas apparently largely accept this -- or there's an actual alternative standard of comparable rigour that's likewise functioning. Certainly it's not unique in the mere fact of such articles existing at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above. What some of us are after is a change of attitude. Rather than creating articles to get a "complete set" of cricketers who've played at least one game for Otago (or whatever), we want to see better articles for the truly notable players who've played for that team. That's what Wikipedia can give the world. The stats websites (like CricketArchive) can provide the other stuff (which we can direct readers to) and indeed do it much better than we ever will. Nigej (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

If the stats websites are accurate, what is the harm in having short articles based on them? That's my big question here. If you don't like short articles why not just ignore them rather than spend lots of time and energy trying to get them deleted? NemesisAT (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There's no harm in short articles. In many ways I'm quite keen on them. However, if they just mirror stats sites there's no "added value". We're very poor at mirroring since we don't have an automated system for doing it. A short article still needs to have significant additional information (over and above that in the stats sites) for there to be any purpose in the exercise. Nigej (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

While they are sufficiently accurate for the modern era, the farther back you go the more inaccurate the databases become, either through incomplete information or by gaps being filled in via (educated, sometimes very educated) guesswork or outright revisionism, and there has been no verification (e.g. by cross-checking with independent reliable sources) before duplicating the data here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a database. JoelleJay (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that an awful lot of benefit has come from creating large numbers of articles. I did that quite a bit with college football coaches (and don't do it anymore). The Wikipedia main page featured William Wurtenburg on December 24, 2015. This was an article I originally created on June 16, 2008. There are many, many more quality articles that got their start as stubs--9 that I am aware of featured on the front page as "Did you know" items. Some get deleted and probably should, others get improved. That's how collaboration works.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly true that that process works sometimes and "some get deleted and probably should, others get improved", but many more do not and get more and more out of date. While you can show me 9 featured articles I can show you over 200,000 stub-class articles in the Soccer project alone. As I noted above, no one's saying everything is perfect elsewhere or ever will be, it's the sheer scale of the issue here that's the problem. Nigej (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is it a "problem" ? What's the real harm? Oh, there's work to be done... cleanup, discussions, research... and the end result is that Wikipedia is better. It's work. There's a lot of work. Is the problem that it's "too much work" ?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed that's one of the first questions that needs to be answered, see comment I made above: "Does it really matter?" (21 Feb). To a certain extent it is effort related. Why spend vast amounts of effort simply replicating statistical information held elsewhere. It can be done but it's fundamentally a waste of effort and as I noted before, we're extremely poor at it. People moan about how unreliable other sites are, but in really Wikipedia is by far the worst for reliability in the stats area, much of it is hopelessly out-of-date. No one in their right mind would rely on any statistical information we give. Let's stick to what we're good at, writing good articles about people and give up this idea that we can cover everyone in the world, we can't and we're useless at it. Nigej (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The argument that these articles are a problem because they are stubs is simply false. One of the problems that they will always be stubs because no sources exist beyond the database they were scraped from. The biggest harm comes from the fact that the databases are riddled with inaccuracies and guesswork, and there has been no verification (e.g. by cross-checking with independent reliable sources) before duplicating the information here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Some are much better than others, but something like https://www.olympedia.org/ seems to be just just a bunch of amateur sleuths doing a bit of not very reliable family history. Nigej (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That is not accurate. As I am involved with the Olympedia project, I should probably not comment further or involve myself in any further related matters, but the database is owned by the IOC and listed by the Olympic Studies Centre [4] as an external reference resource. Bill Mallon is a widely-published and frequently consulted expert on the field of Olympic history. The website is widely used within the sports data circles and Olympic historians as a reliable reference source and is pretty much where all the online historical statistical data from the Olympics originates from. Connormah (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it must be used for research with a great deal of caution, and with the knowledge that respected Olympic historians are not in agreement about many things. This is especially true when it comes to early Olympics, for which the information presented is very much the result of deduction, assumption and a certain amount of guesswork (e.g. some, but not all, conflicting contemporary reports are noted – more are detailed in Mallon's books). Work on the early Olympics is also extremely revisionist, with Mallon being one of the chief architects of defining what events are now officially considered Olympic that were certainly not regarded as such at the time, or even until relatively recently. The IOC are not the first, and far from the only, sporting organisation to embrace such rewriting of their history. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Or indeed just the "nanostubs" sources from databases. Other classes of trivially sourced permastubs are apparently fine! Paulmcdonald, one problem is that we claim to have notability-based inclusion requirements, but then fail to apply them in any consistent manner. If we're not going to apply them at all, better to drop the pretence and say so explicitly. Which would still be a necessary change to the existing guidelines -- indeed arguably is policy change, given WP:NOT. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that is an appropriate way to phrase it. The article was written by A Texas Historian, and the fact that you wrote a three sentence stub based on databases is almost certainly unrelated; the first edit they made was to move the article from "Bill Wurtenburg" to "William Wurtenburg". BilledMammal (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My reading of Subproposal 5 is that it would apply to all articles - it would be ridiculously bureaucratic to have one rule for articles created before 2022, and one rule for articles from 2022. BilledMammal (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose this depends on whether one deems "from inception" as meaning "at and only at", or "throughout their life, including at". It certainly if we restrict it to the late-breaking Founder's Intent in this way, it pares the cheese still thinner. While I continue to commend Cbl62's near-unique role as Centrist Sports Editor here, the dogged instance that "microstubs sourced only to a database" is the entire extent of the problem fails to convince. Much less that we should have a "solution" that's in practice never enforceable (see the sad fate of SP#6), and that it doesn't apply even in principle to articles with a proven track record as DB-sourced-only permananostubs. Really doesn't seem the time to be taking a step back: just the reverse. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear back from @Cbl62 if my earlier proposed application of #5 aligns with his intent: I interpreted this as the "presumption" of GNG sourcing is removed if an article created after this proposal passed doesn't have a SIGCOV source, which would mean !voters would need to demonstrate GNG during an AfD if nominated. I would of course support the same for older articles, but I imagine people would object to that, so instead we could tag the article for notability and if ≥1 piece of SIGCOV isn't added to the article in 6 months then the presumption is removed as well for AfD purposes. JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought this was cleared up already. Subproposal 5 was intended to stem the mass creation of yet more microstubs sourced only to databases. It does that by requiring that anyone wishing to create a new article must include at least one example of SIGCOV prior to publishing the article into main space. Editors who violate the rule will be subject to sanctions, including, in the case of habitual offenders, the type of ban imposed on Lugnuts. As for Joelle's clarification, I think it's quite fair. Articles created after this proposal passes should not be able to survive at AfD without presenting actual SIGCOV. Hope that helps. Cbl62 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel that this is removing the presumption of notability that NSPORTS gives, in that they now will have to pass GNG with SIGCOV immediately or they will be automatically deleted (i.e. they no longer are presumed to have coverage, they must present it right off the bat or else its deleted and the creator gets eventually banned). That, in my opinion, will make it much, much harder to create articles on historical/foreign topics, for which it is harder to find sources for. I'd much rather create articles than endlessly debate them at AFD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC) I also feel that this may drive away newer editors, as they may not be very good at creating pages, so they do a short one, knowing that it meets NSPORT, and then see it gets automatically deleted because "well it didn't have SIGCOV from creation." It may drive me away as well.

For GNG, "multiple sources are generally expected", so SP#5's standard is explicitly different from that. And nothing in it precludes "doing a short one", just as long as they have a non-trivial source to base it on, or indeed that one can be subsequently found. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it is written; "from inception" does not say or imply that it only applies to articles created after the proposal passes - and if it starts to be interpreted that way at AFD then we will be back here with another discussion, regardless of the desire to step back. BilledMammal (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

...it would be ridiculously bureaucratic to have...: 13 parallel subproposals and expect that people are abreast of all developments. But sure, railroad it through if vote counts suit one's personal agenda.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, one side is trying to "railroad" it through and the other is trying to "stonewall" any substantive changes. Take your pick. Nigej (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment WP:N is a guideline. WP:GNG is a guideline. WP:NSPORTS is a guideline. It looks to me like we are talking about refining WP:NSPORTS and making it a policy, when the greater rules are only guidelines. We've bitten off more than we can chew.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, it's about making the guideline coherent with respect to policies (e.g. WP:V, WP:NOT). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds a lot better, but I'm not convinced it reflects what is being discussed. If that's the plan, I suggest we start with WP:N and then work our way down through WP:GNG to WP:NSPORTS, rather than starting at WP:NSPORTS and working our way up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  The idea we need to take off the walls to fix the roof is as equal a hyperbole to me as needing to change N and GNG to change NSPORTS. Guidelines like GNG are bedrocks to the whole project, NSPORTS is a subject-specific guideline whose issues are not inherited from GNG but rather its significant incoherence with GNG.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  But where does the problem lie? Is it because WP:N and WP:GNG are inadequate or faulty? Or is it that WP:NSPORTS alone is the problem. I don't get a sense of agreement or consensus on that issue. If WP:N was adequate, we wouldn't need WP:GNG. If WP:GNG was adequate, we wouldn't need WP:NSPORTS. to stick with the building analogy, it is quite possible the problem with the ceiling is in both the walls and the foundation in addition to the roof.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you know

... that ridiculous has been used 15 times on this page.—Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we nominate this discussion for DYK, and this can be the hook for it ;) ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

that's...ludicrous. GiantSnowman 11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd nominate Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 16#A. Lawrey and this can be the hook for it:

that Wikipedians spent days arguing whether to keep an article called A. Lawrey when the man's real name was actually Arthur Lawry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talk • contribs) 12:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Pending QPQ.—Bagumba (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

wait, seriously? 晚安 (トークページ) 02:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• ... that Wikipedians wrote over 100,000 words arguing over the notability of sportspeople from January to February 2022? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Did you know that wikipedians will argue about anything!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Closes?

Proposal #12 was on a different topic and #13 was procedural, so the oldest proposal on the topic was #11, February 11th. Probably should go a full 30 days to not have questions which would be March 13th. If multiple ones pass, mayber the closer can reconcile them or if not, that would be the next task. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Good luck to whoever wants to close this mess... BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

BeanieFan11, mess would actually undersell this whole discussion. It's a bona fide clusterfu**. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 20:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's perfectly closable; longer and more contentious discussions have been closed. For an example of a proposal that began with a high-participation chaotic non-consensus and then coalesced around real change to a policy, see this RfC followed by this one. I think the only real difficulty will be finding someone qualified to close it who hasn't already publicly taken a position on the notability of sportspeople.—S Marshall T/C 09:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There's certainly that aspect; or not so much this person existing, as wanting to be found. "Who shall bell the cat?" Especially with non-specific grumbling within about "supervoting". There's also the whole Arrow's Theorem angle with the multiple SPs. If more than one of them is 'deemed passable', but they're contradictory, or even simply unclear how they might best be combined, what then? I tried to do some sort of 'preference voting' at first, but when gave up, and it certainly didn't catch on otherwise. Sure, congressional reconciliation is a model, but not necessarily the most encouraging one. Given that it's acrimonious trench warfare undertaken by well-renumerated pros... On the timeline, I'd personally not be opposed to 'rolling closes', but it might not be worthwhile if it's going to add to the complexity, rather than reducing it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe the only one that is contradictory is #11, but it doesn't appear like it will pass; the rest can be implemented as written, with the result the same regardless of order. The only difficulty will be, as S Marshall says, finding editors willing to close one or more of these, but they will eventually turn up. BilledMammal (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Two of the sub-proposals were already closed as obvious SNOW cases. With one being purely procedural, that leaves 10 + the original proposal. There's nothing that says that the same person has to close all of them; nor that it has to be done all at once. Many of the earlier sub-proposals have not had comments in a while: those would be prime targets for closure at this time. If nobody volunteers within the short-term, I might leave a notice at WP:AN (on top of the existing one at WP:CR) to expedite the process. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• Throw a subproposal 14 on the wall to place this in a state of perpetuity.—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Double standards

I was amused to see this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry E. Luther. Doubtless this man's article will get deleted because "he just sounds like your average scientist who discovered a few hundred species." whereas some on here would fight tooth-and-nail to keep an article on a man who played one game for Rochdale FC in 1921. Nigej (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I will likely be placing a keep vote there as there are several independent memorials written in academic journals (one example here) and it is possible (probable) that Luther might pass WP:NSCHOLAR, especially with his work, "An Alphabetical Listing of Bromeliad Binominals." I post this here because it did not take more than a few minutes to find independent sources on this "average scientist," and it did not take much time to find sources about Jamie Fitzgerald. I do believe that, for the most part, there are sources available on the subjects that meet the SNGs, even if it might take a couple minutes to search and add that information into the main article. --Enos733 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

To paraphrase Sid James, "if you think a few hundred species is average, you've been spoilt! <nyah-ha-ha!>" Apparently there's some very strange dichotomy going on here where if you've not won Noble prizes -- plural! -- and are a household name, then you're 'average'. Curious. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Don't feel too bad, I'm currently involved in a deletion debate where people are still voting "muh soccer player so notable" despite the lack of GNG coverage and in clear violation of the explanatory notes at the top of NSPORTS. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• The Harry Luther nom was made by someone who is either very inexperienced or someone making a joke. The vote there is an overwhelming keep. Cbl62 (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I did peek at that one, looks like a clear pass of WP:GNG to me. I didn't participate because I don't think my comments would bring anything other than an accusation of the crime of canvassing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    • To be fair, at time of the nom, the article was very short and rather undersourced, so it wasn't completely clear-cut. But the nom's subsequent comments have seemed... extremely off-base. The multiple obits (for GNG) and their citedness (for PROF) makes it very clear at this point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• So let's see: that AfD was filed by an utterly inexperienced editor with only 58 edits to his name, and closed as a snow Keep. If that's the best you've got for "double standards," Nigej, man. (shakes his head in bemusement) Ravenswing 20:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • At the time I commented there was one vote and that was for deletion, but perhaps you hadn't noticed that. Nigej (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Two, if we count the nomination (which was clearly in favour of deletion as not "the most famous biologist", and not just procedural), as well as the "delete" And the 'snow keep' was after it was mentioned here -- TBH the only reason I found it and commented -- and a significant rewrite and expansion. The first non-nom delete "!"voter was a highly active editor (user page with tabs and such), so I'm not entirely sure we're all remotely in the right ballpark on inclusion standards yet. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I had, absolutely: the same way I'd noticed that you attributed common practice to an inexperienced editor, that you were dead wrong in your prediction as to the outcome, and that rather than answering with a "Welp, guess I was wrong," you're doubling down. Good job! Ravenswing 10:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
      • While I would say that AFD is not a tool that should be used for cleanup, it certainly did the job of making Wikipedia better. I'm confused if I'm still supposed to think of this as a "double standard" or as a "success" --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Anyway, it was meant to slightly humorous, although that's gone over a few people's heads. Nigej (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

s

• And yet we also allow 13th century MPs that we know nothing about to have articles... The issue isn't just with sports, so people should stop pretending it is. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  And the 14th century too ;) E.g., William Derby, Roger Chaunce, William Porter, William Vyvyan. Cbl62 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Two wrongs don't make a right. If there are articles about other topics which routinely fail GNG, then that is a reason to change those other guidelines too, not to keep the status quo. Nobody is pretending that the issue is "just with sports", although I'd be hard-pressed to find any argument that sports are not the majority of the problem (given the very large proportion of biographies about sportspersons...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, it's a very similar issue, related to the idea of trying to make a "complete set", rather than treating the individual cases on their merits. Nigej (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, if we're being honest, there are some "sets" that are worthy of being "complete". Members of British Parliament is one such set. There are also some sports sets that are similarly worthy. The problem with NSPORTS is that it's bloated with too many leagues that don't justify being complete sets -- which was the inspiration for subproposal 10. We will see what happens with that. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  What sports leagues would you say deserve to be "complete sets"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I hate to admit it here, but a few years ago I did complete the "set" of the Ryder Cup golfers. I'd say the least notable was Stewart Burns, a Scottish golfer who played in 1929 (and who's death details are still missing). Nigej (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  That was better-looking than I expected. If someone can write an article like that on the "least notable" player, then I'd agree that should be a "complete set." BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  That's a big question that would require input from a broader audience. My knowledge base is mostly with American sports, and in that context, it would likely include NBA, American League, National League (at last post-1900), NFL (perhaps with a 1930 start date), NHL (perhaps with a 1930 start date). I don't pretend to know which association football leagues warrant such treatment (or what date cutoffs would make sense) but it's got to be a tiny fraction of the leagues that are currently included in NFOOTY. Cbl62 (talk)

  I actually this this is the right question for this entire discussion of NSPORT. Which sets are worthy of being complete? To answer this involves a certain about of real world judgment of what is considered important and a certain amount of "should we expect everyone in the set to have independent coverage." But I think this is generally what the SNG is supposed to do, suggest people/events meeting a defined criteria have a certain real world importance and are likely to have some substantive coverage (with the recognition that there are differences in the community about what does have "real world importance"). --Enos733 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Personally I'd go along with that too. One big issue is that a number of editors believe that if "their" league is not on the list, that means those players are not notable and are going to be deleted. If NBASKET simply says "Played 1 game in the NBA" there are going to be a host of complaints from non-US basketball fans. Somehow we need to get the situation over that players from these leagues can be notable too, and won't be deleted, they simply need to create articles with some decent content and they'll nearly always be kept. Nigej (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that NSPORTS has succumbed, I suspect, to a sense of political correctness. If the US's NBA gets a presumption of notability, then so, too, should leagues in Israel, Greece, Australia, Spain, Croatia, etc. This tendency is even more rampant in FOOTY where second-tier leagues in Algeria and Uruguay are included. And you're right, players in those other leagues can still be notable, there's just not a strong enough basis for a presumption, and it needs to be shown. Cbl62 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Of course "the devil is in the detail". No one's going to argue that there shouldn't be a complete set of England soccer internationals. Personally I'd be happy to include the old "first division" in that "complete set" concept. However we currently also cover the 2nd, 3rd and 4th divisions in NFOOTY and removing these (or not) are going to be major issues. And that's just English soccer. Nigej (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Removing the 2nd, 3rd and 4th divisions in NFOOTY (unfortunately, also the 1st) may already be a fait accompli, as subproposal 3 currently has a slight majority in favor and would have the effect of repealing NFOOTY. Cbl62 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I was just thinking that we didn't have enough of a wall of text on this issue (and the other related NSPORTS discussions) and that what we really were missing was a snarky sarcastic point that is to the side of the actual issues. Rikster2 (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Largely true, although the fundamental issue IS the disparity in standards between sports and non-sports. Feel free to delete the whole section. Nigej (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.