Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Notation

I'm here so if you want some outside opinions, please just respond and I'll chime in! Marking for watch! This is a NECESSITY in my honest opinion. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Division-A college football teams of the highest leagues

You should clarify this a bit more.. do you mean just the BCS conferences? Or perenial Top 25 teams? People from WAC or Mountain West conferences might contend that their teams deserve to be included as well... and why just college football teams? Certainly college basketball is pretty close to the same level of notability as football.. we have March Madness every year after all.. currently we have pages on the North Dakota State Bison baseball team, which is certainly not an elite program.. and that needs to be cut down.. Spanneraol 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure i'm following you - are you saying this should be addressed or that it needs to be reworked form some other place? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Just commenting on some issues there might be with what jaranda has written so far.. To make these guidlines work they need to be more specific than they have been in the past. Spanneraol 01:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we need to include this type of information - but i don't see anywhere in the current revision that mentions this. Is there another conversation where Jaranda has written his thoughts on team notability? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That line was from the seasons section of his essay. Spanneraol 02:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Didn't see that. I'd think that if a league is notable - all of its' seasons are notable. If that doesn't fly - then you could take it from a "sport" level - as in - all notable events from a sports league could be included in a top level article (like 1920 in baseball). All major professional leagues (or attempts at one) should be notable enough. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Almost all leagues are notable, that doesn't mean that they should have seasons, I placed an AFD tag to that baseball article, I want to merge it but I'll likely get reverted, so I'm placing it to AFD for it to get merged or deleted. Mountain West is more higher than WAC in my opinion, but for those leagues I prefer top 25. As for college basketball teams, some seasons could be notable, like Duke, but good articles on the program are created. Wikipedia isn't a sports alamac Jaranda wat's sup 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually a "less is more" kind of person - but I'm thinking that any professional league's season should be notable enough for a season article and any NCAA division season is notable (like 2007 NCAA football season). Now - if the information is short and not very in depth - you might end up with a "grouped" article - like "Early history of the _____ league." I don't know that you can set anything by "top 25" , that always changes anyway. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, if it's very short and not informative, like the North Dakota baseball article is, merge it, if it's good sourced prose, keep. Jaranda wat's sup 23:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor League Players

  • I'm pleased that Jaranda is allowing Triple-A players to be notable now.. But i'm a bit confused by his terminology. Is he saying current Minor league players are notable but past ones who didnt play in the majors aren't? So if player A plays today he is fine, but if he retires without making the majors in a couple of years we need to delete him? Spanneraol 23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, what would he consider a good reliable source since he says baseball-reference (and i assume baseball cube) don't work? Team media guides? Press kits? Half the baseball player stubs we have on here just have Baseball-reference links right now. Spanneraol 23:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't want to speak for him, but we've gotta start somewhere. I think any high-level minor league player should be included (AAA here in the states). I think the point of the "stats" sites as a reliable source is that they don't do anything but show that a player appeared in a game. If the criteria is that there has to be something "more" to the person than appearance in a AA-game - you have to find a source with content. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
What Jmfagio said, stats are a reliable source, well... to find stats and that's it, not to create articles on the player themselves. As for Minor League players who retired, many of the top minor league players who never made it to the bigs qualify, all that it requires are some good non-trivial sources. If the player retires at AAA level at the end of this year and never made the bigs, it could be deleted, especially if he's a career backup, but most players who started likely will pass the non-trivial criteria. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So you would need a magazine or newspaper article specificaly about this player rather than an article on the team that mentions the player? Just trying to figure out what sources would qualify. Spanneraol 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yea or a website that meets WP:RS, book, anything that meets WP:RS and is independent, there is plenty of books that go to the most notable minor leaguers in detail. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 00:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I just made some more changes to the "Baseball" player criteria - the question is should we lower the bar to include all players from the Israel Baseball League? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should restrict notability for international leagues to people who are natives of that region (not necessarily country, since there are Chinese/Korean players in NPB, etc.) Not sure either way, just a thought. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that, it's a terrible idea. We could have a situation where backups were notable, but the MVP wasn't. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think he meant the Baseball Prospectus series of books/articles, not an actual prospectus as such. BP's book would probably work as a source (it's reasonably restrictive, including only 20-30 minor leaguers per team, not the entire system). A team media guide wouldn't be useful for purposes of establishing notability, but it'd be OK to use as a factual reference, as long as the editor using it keeps in mind the guidelines for using self-published sources. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The starters I don't mind, if they have reliable independent sources. I don't agree about the backups having articles though. The Players League is a issue that needs to be discussed here, as I read the Bill James book that I agree with, which means it wasn't a "major league". Most of the players who played in that league was their only season ever with any league. Jaranda wat's sup 02:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean starters and backups? I have no real opinion either way on the Players League being included - i did it for others, not because i think it should be included. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I clafifed it. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My two cents on the AAA players. While I love AAA games, and go to many more AAA games than major league games, I still don't think every person who had a single at-bat in a single AAA game should automatically be notable. I have no problem with their notability if they would normally be notable under the general provisions of WP:BIO (ie independent, reliable sources, such as newspaper biographies). (This has bothered me ever since the baseball guideline was changed to read "fully professional league".) --Fabrictramp 00:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • One single at-bat will likely fail the independent, non-trivial, reliable sources that is mentioned in the top of the page. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 17:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I replaced with one whole year of AAA to not include players who only played in a few games, like they meet the valid wikipedia guidelines anyways. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 17:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course, part of the problem with using AAA as a standard is that the AAA designation only goes back to about the 1950s; it's not going to be easy to create a blanket policy for the period prior to that, when numerous designations came and went. I'm also not fond of the suggestion that making the All-Star Team in a class A league should count as a qualification. Maybe league MVP or something similar would be a better standard? An excellent month or so at the minors' lowest levels is a really low bar. As for umpires, I'll note that (with one exception) all the current articles for 20th-century umpires are for those who worked postseason games; given the fact that far less is written about umpires than about players (beginning at the youth level), I'd suggest that to qualify, an individual needs to be a member of the regular staff of a major league, and needs to work at least one postseason or All-Star Game. Accommodations can be made for 19th-century umpires as well; keeping in mind that most umpires worked games singlehandedly in that era, I'd suggest a minimum of 200 games. That would constitute at least a couple of seasons behind the plate, which modern umpires would need several seasons to achieve. MisfitToys 01:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with this, I will change the info about umpires, about the Minor League Players, especially the All-Star part it needs to be discussed more here. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 06:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Good changes. Could I suggest inserting the word "automatically" in the wording about minor league umpires? It seems that if a MiLB umpire has a number of non-trivial secondary sources, he (or she) should be notable, just like any other bio.--Fabrictramp 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I had forgotten to discuss that; I think Pam Postema certainly deserves her article (was she the first female umpire in the minors? I can't remember, and the article is unclear on that point); if someone became the first female umpire in the majors, she would certainly deserve an article regardless of whether she ever worked a postseason or All-Star game, and I believe Emmett Ashford would have merited an article upon working his first AL game. I know that some minor league umpires have been elected to league halls of fame (e.g. Steamboat Johnson in the Southern League); I'd suggest that minor league umpires would need a similarly exytraordinary level of recognition. (Proposed guideline: Minor league umpires must have been elected to a particular league's hall of fame or earned a similarly distinguished honor, or achieved some historic accomplishment.) A note on my proposed 19th-century standards for umpires - I see that Dick Higham only worked 87 NL games before being banished, but perhaps the notoriety involved would qualify him for the category in lieu of meeting the minimum games standard. MisfitToys 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Bernie Gera was the first female ump in the minors -- she didn't last long. (One game, IIRC). As long as we don't add language that excludes people who otherwise meet WP:BIO, I'm happy. Do we need language specifically including particular MiLB umpires, or is the WP:BIO standard enough? --Fabrictramp 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, I think that the first criteria ("The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject") would certainly qualify anyone just for being the first black/female/etc umpire. Higham qualifies for an article anyway as a player; it's just a question of whether to include him in the umpires category. MisfitToys 23:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
          • The edits are added. I'm also don't agree of the suggestion that making the All-Star Team in the minors are notable, we meed more comments on that, something like league award or at least multiple minor league all-star teams, any suggestions. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, then, let's talk about it. Why don't you think those people are noable? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • One good season in the A or rookie league minors doesn't indicate notabilty, there are many players who tried and never made it to the big leagues. There are different minor leagues out there and the most 16 teams in a league, so it's common for a player to have even a "ok" season and still make it to the All-Star team, too subjective. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If I can put in my two cents, I think that it's reasonable to draw the notability line at AA/AAA. The reason being, that most AAA players are on the 40 man rosters of their respective parent Major League teams. If they are on the 40 man roster there is a strong likelihood that they will play in the majors, especially during the September call up. Therefore, since 40 man roster guys probably have a WP article, or will imminently have one, we might as well give WP articles to the whole AAA.--Truest blue 04:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I would probably be willing to accept limiting it to AA/AAA players, someone that washes out of the rookie leagues probably isn't worth the time it will take to research him. So can we say that all AAA players and AA All-Stars are acceptable? Spanneraol 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ind. Leagues

How can all "Current ... players from independent leagues" be excluded when many have already met other criteria such as playing in the majors and being all-stars in the minors? This is contradictory. Kinston eagle 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Independent minor leagues aren't fully proffesional, if they did anything other than playing for one, then they may or may not be notable. Jaranda wat's sup 02:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Many independent leagues are fully professional. Kinston eagle 02:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 1,000 a month is fully professional but that's my opinion. Players in leagues such as the Frontier League are clearly non-notable. But other leagues are a bit higher, almost none of them has the talent beyond Double A. If a seperate criteria is needed I'll do it, but it should be rather common sense. If they meet the other criteria they are notable. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the current listings mention MLB, japanese league and the chinese baseball league.. but don't mention say the mexican league or the Korean leagues.. Shouldnt you add something along the lines of "or other major foreign leagues" or something of that sort? Spanneraol 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

If "A team media guide isn't independent" than neither are sources from MLB including the Hall of Fame. If this is made the new policy than over half the articles on Hall of Fame players will be up for deletion since most only rely on baseball-reference and the Hall of Fame bio as their sources. Kinston eagle 02:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's common sense, news stories from the MLB obviously could be used as a source. And also every hall of famer has hundreds of good sources out there. The criteria is only for players who's only source that could be found baseball-reference and related stats sites, or trivial mentions which is very rare and should involve less than 1% of players. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So you seem to be saying that the criteria isn't that the articles actually cite independent sources but that sources could be found if someone actually took the time to look for them. And, I don't get how you can flatly state that material from teams such as media guides are not reliable while sources from MLB "obviously" are. That seems to be a contradiction since MLB is just the parent organization of the teams. Kinston eagle 02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite a number of the pages on former MLB players are just stubs that site baseball-reference as their only source. Are you saying those should all be deleted until someone goes out and researches all these players? Spanneraol 05:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to speak for him, but based on the fact that these players appeared in at least one MLB game - they already meet the notability standard. The fact that those articles are poorly written, undersourced, and/or stubs is another issue entirely. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jmfagio, if they appeared in one game, they meet notabilty, but if the only sources that exist are baseball-reference and related stats site, it will have issues with WP:V and should be considered for deletion. For example I went though about most of the blue-links in Montreal Expos all-time roster, only one of them Rick Grapenthin has the problem. Grapenthin only had 90 related google hits, all baseball reference, wikipedia, and mirrors nothing on google news and books, and only loose trivial mention in a a newspaper archives I use. He could be considered for merging somewhere or deletion, but an obvious 99% of articles doesn't have that issue. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Double Standard?

What is the reasoning behind allowing all current college basketball players but requiring baseball players to "have won a national award" or achieved "a NCAA record"? Kinston eagle 03:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As a side note on allowing "current" college basketball players. According to notability guidelines, notability is not temporary. Once they leave college and become doctors and garbagemen, will they then be considered non-notable? Once someone becomes notable, they are notable. They don't lose the notability that they achieved in the past. Also, it may be wise to narrow this down to certain divisions since there are literally thousands of colleges and community colleges all over the world that have basketball teams. Kinston eagle 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really like the wording on the college basketball section either. "current starters"? So if they lose there starting spot they are no longer notable? And how do you define "top universities"? That's too open to debate. It should be something along the lines of "all players who have started at least X number of games on a Division 1 NCAA team"... Spanneraol 16:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tightened Up

My last edit tightened up all the notability requirements for baseball into one simple list. There was no reason to mention Rookie League for example since they are already excluded by the requirements. Let me know if I'm wrong, but all the requirements seem very clear now. I tried to eliminate as many loopholes as possible. From the deletion discussions, it seems as though I'm one of the most extreme inclusionists, and even I think these requirements are fairly reasonable. Having award winners and all-stars is a reasonable compromise between those who wished to have only major leaguers and those (like myself) who would have no problem including everyone who has ever accepted money to play baseball. Let me know what you think. Kinston eagle 04:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem with the current version being incorporated into WP:Baseball's guidelines. Even with the changes User:Jmfangio just made. Also, can we stop with the AfD's until this is all settled? I'm glad this is finally being addressed. I hope a consensus can be reached. Thanks. Kinston eagle 04:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Following conversations

Hi there, I certainly appreciate the passion you have for getting this thing adopted. I am hoping this happens sooner than later. However, it's getting a bit difficult to follow all the different conversations at one. While having a couple of extensive discussions is great, opening this many makes it somewhat difficult to follow. Would you mind if we focused on a few topics at one time? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help on this Juan and Jaranda. The baseball section seems to really be getting to a good point. I propose that we include that section on WP:Baseball page as well so that anyone looking in either place will see the guidelines. There should at least be a link. If the page as a whole is taking a long time to come to a consensus, then it may be a good idea to copy and paste just the baseball section to WP:Baseball until the page as a whole is settled. A section concerning verifiable, reliable sources would have to be added back in though such as the last paragraph of the intro that Juan wrote or the paragraph that was deleted: "*NOTE WELL: In addition to the above, baseball figures are only considered notable if they have been discussed in independent, non-trivial, reliable sources - not including sources that only include the stats of the players (like Baseball Reference). In short, they should be able to meet the requirements of WP:V." Either one would get the message across. Thanks again. Kinston eagle 11:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I readded the games, rivalries, etc section, as that's something that needs to be discussed here, it's a must for a sports notabilty. It could be split off though as one seperate page for athlethes, and another one for sports in general. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A few minor tweaks

The proposal for baseball looks pretty good to me, but I might also add the following:

  • Conference player/pitcher of the year in college.
  • Set a non-trivial league/career record in the minor leagues.

We might also want to create some provision for notability on scouts and umpires, even if it's just "to be determined on a case-by-case basis". I think that people like Howie Haak and Steve Palermo are notable, for example, but the proposal as written doesn't address the issue. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that Major League Umpires are notable enough that they should be included, not sure about scouts... most of them are former players anyways.. I don't know about conference awards in college.. the standards currently include national awards but do we want to include anyone who won a conference award? Lots of conferences. Spanneraol 16:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of conferences, but since there are going to be at most one player of the year and one pitcher of the year for each (and most of those guys are going to subsequently become notable for other reasons anyway), I don't think it'd be too big a strain on the system. Most scouts are notable as ex-players, but some aren't, and Haak is one of those. He was basically THE guy who invented Latin American scouting as a viable practice (signing Roberto Clemente, Manny Sanguillen, etc.), he was the first guy ever honored as Scout of the Year, and there are a kajillion different kinds of media coverage of him[1][2]. I'm OK with most scouts not being notable, but I don't want to see a situation like we had with the Negro League players on AFD develop around him, through an error of omission. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That guy should definitely be included. Still unsure about the college conferences. Is someone notable because they won Big Sky Conference player of the year five years ago? Spanneraol 16:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed they put the old notability guidelines back on the WP:BASEBALL site.. Are these new guidelines ready to copy over there? Or perhaps the discussion should be opened up on the talk pages there in case the rest of the project is unaware of it? Spanneraol 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I put a link on the homepage there to the page here. Spanneraol 15:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to remove those guidelines completely, and a link here unless it's rejected. Jaranda wat's sup 20:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the HOF qualification - I do not think it is needed at all. I don't know anyone who would argue that a hall of fame inductee is not notable. Also, Henry Chadwick, does not really apply as he is notable as a writer. Similarly, Alexander Cartwright is so obviously notable that putting in a "clause" is not necessary for that one person. Put it like this - notability standards are used to get over the hump so to speak, but if there is no "hump" to get over - then there is no reason for a standard. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
As an aside - i just moved Chadwick as his profession was writer - not baseball writer. His field was baseball. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to reverse your move, but you may want to keep in mind that Henry Chadwick (theologian) was also notable for his writing, having published more than 125 books and articles on various religious subjects. Hence the qualifier in the name of Chadwick's article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who would think that any of them are non-notable, but youneverknow what's going to pop up on AFD, and in any event it's usually best to make policies/guidelines as idiot-proof as possible. The Wilson article is currently in pretty shoddy shape, and I could see someone nominating it for AFD if they do a half-assed job of research. Also, this clause would have more value if people decide that the Mexican and Canadian Halls should be included, as there are additional pioneer-type inductees in both (including some for whom we currently have no articles at all, like Ron Hayter and Knotty Lee). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I do appreciate the perspective, I think there are just different ways of going about the same thing. I don't think we can start saying "this hall of fame is important but this one isn't". To people in said country, I'd suspect they'd feel their hof is important. HOFs are in place to recognize contributions to the game - so let's identify some of the same things here. If the person is in the hall of fame, they should be able to meet any of the other criteria laid out. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the problem: These people don't meet any of the criteria as currently laid out. They never played ball, so they can't meet any of the playing standards, but they can't qualify as owners/commissioners either because the sport wasn't sufficiently well-developed at the time they were active. If you can come up with a nice firmly-worded criterion governing founders/pioneers, that'll be great, but I've given it a fair bit of thought and I can't think of anything that isn't so maddeningly vague as to be completely useless. I think it's easier and more effective to rely on the various national Halls to make their own determinations in that respect, and then use their judgement to determine notability here. I don't think there's anything inherently problematic with deciding which Halls are notable and which ones are not; at least, there's nothing that intrinsically separates that process from the process of determining which leagues are notable and which are not. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not revert the Chadwick article. He was a historian and a writer. I have some initial reservations about (writer) but it's better than (baseball writer). As for the HOF issue - again - we need to address that in other ways. The implication is that if the person is not in the hall of fame and does not meet one of the criteria laid out - then you are going to have to remove the person. We should think about mentioning a standard for "significant contributions to the game" that did not take place on the field. Also remember that someone like Furman Bisher did not make contributions to the game of baseball on the field. He was a writer - so this doesn't really apply. Same with Hugh Fullerton. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I already said, I'm not going to revert it, but since more than one of the Chadwicks was a notable writer I think the title you chose is likely to cause problems down the line. If you don't want to restrict the title by the topic of writing, maybe you could restrict it by time period (i.e. "19th century writer" or something like that)? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, like I already said, if you can think of some kind of useful language to define a notable pioneer, then please offer it as an alternative. I'll be glad to consider a different clause to cover those people, once there's something to consider, but right now I have to go with the HoF clause because it's better than nothing (which is the only other option that's been proposed). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that writers probably deserve some measure of coverage, but I'm not sure that this is the right guideline for that. There should probably be a separate notability guideline for writers, either a free-standing part of WP:BIO or a section attached to WP:BK. Alternately, we could just say that all winners of the J.G. Taylor Spink Award are notable, with others to be determined on a case-by-case basis. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • We should all familiarize ourselves with other notability guidelines and use those as the basis for this. The HOF is not a necessary point of inclusion. Anyone in a HOF will meet WP:NOTE, this article is not setup to repeat what has already been said. The purpose is this notability standard is to establish the "lowest common denominators" for acceptance. HOF is not a low level criteria. We also don't need to say "this person founded the sport and is therefor notable" because they would already meet WP:BIO. Let's not regurgitate - let's provide new information. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree with your assertion that anyone in any Hall of Fame is prima facie notable. For example, I don't think that all of the people in the Greater Buffalo Sports Hall of Fame are necessarily notable. Thus, a guideline predicated on membership in a Hall would have value in that it would help determine which of these institutions confer inherent notability and which do not. I agree that in the abstract a guideline that would efficiently sort the wheat from the chaff as far as sport pioneers are concerned without referring to other outside bodies would be a good thing, but as previously noted (on several occasions now), I can't think of one, and nobody else (including you) has offered one. If you have one to offer, please bring it forward so we can consider (and if necessary, adapt) it. If you can't think of one either, then we might as well wish for a perpetual motion machine as for a guideline that apparently none of us can generate. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Players

  • I'm still unsure about the language used on the college basketball and football sections about "current" players. If a player graduates and doesnt move on to the pros so he is no longer a current player does he lose his notability? I don't quite know how to word this better but "current" status changes pretty rapidly. Also "Major Division I schools" is still vague and would probably be different in football and basketball. Is there a better, less subjective way to say that? Spanneraol 21:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability

I suggest that the better parts of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability be merged here, then redirect that topic to thsi page. --Kevin Murray 02:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I merged the coaches, checking whatelse is useful. Jaranda wat's sup 19:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I disagree that you did a good merge. You seem focused on rules designed to keep content out. Your preferred rules are too restrictive, as shown by your recent AfD activity. This guideline needs to take into account that well written articles on college football teams or games should be included. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete articles that other readers will care about and find interesting. Johntex\talk 00:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Just because I voted to merge or delete some nn college football games that has community support, individual football games or indidual games for that matter doesn't meet the notabilty requirements, also the reasons you gave to keep the article are mainly agruements to go to wikinews not here like free pictures and that most of the newspapers need to be paid. WP:AGF with WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well, the community decides here not me and AFD concensus is key there. Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You say they are "nn" but that is not the case. They meet the WP:Notability policy in that these articles include multiple independent sources. I am not assuming any bad faith on your part, I am merely stating that you are incorrect on policy. Johntex\talk 00:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Every single game from every sport meets the multiple independent sources part though, it starts heading to WP:NOT a news source for these games. If something notable happened in the game such like a very big comeback, very major record, etc, then likely the community agrees with an article. Jaranda wat's sup 00:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
          • It has nothing to do with being a news source. The news sources report on Hillary Clinton and Virginia Tech massacre also. We make a unique contribution by pulling facts from multiple sources to create an encyclopedic entry. If someone cares enough to write a well-written article on any game, it is a strong indication we likely have readers out there who would appreciate the opportunity to read that article. Why would you deny them the ability to read a fair, sourced, well-written encyclopedia article? Johntex\talk 00:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't compare those two events to regular games though, wikinews was created for a reason. Someone could create a well-written article about anything, that doesn't mean it's notable, an encyclopedia does have it limits. I'm currently following concensus on regular games. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no policy that compels regular season games to be deleted. As to the limits of an encyclopedia, the limit is that articles should be written like encyclopedia articles. If they are mere collections of graphs or statistics they should go. If they are prose articles that comply with policies like WP:V and WP:BLP then they should stay. There is no benefit in trying to delete articles on sporting events if they are well-written, well-sourced, etc. Johntex\talk 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets see what the consensus of the college football games articles in AFD end-up before deciding. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Individual seasons

Articles can be created on indiviual seasons of the top leagues as they are notable. But if the article consists of mainly stats, Wikipedia is not a stats directory, and there are other sites on the web, baseball-reference for example that has the same kind of info. It is strongly recommended that those articles are redirected to the team page until sourced prose is created.

I strongly disagree about redirection. If the article is redirect, newer editors who may have useful information and prose to submit, may not know how to submit it from a redirected article. Also, if it is redirected, some editors may feel that the article is not wanted, when this comment is saying they are.--Borgardetalk 12:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the redirect issue. The pages should exist in whatever form with the assumption that future editors will add more content to them. Spanneraol 15:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New editors knows somewhat about redirects (and any editor more than a few weeks old), remember there are other sites that has the info, and most people will go there instead of here. We don't want to rip off baseball-reference and those other good sites on the net. Jaranda wat's sup 18:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few reasons to encourage articles like this:
  1. These article do NOT simply duplicate what is available elsewhere. We can bring together facts from multiple sources. For instance, the hometown newspapers for both teams as well as the national press.
  2. We can provide more historical context than most news reports will bother with.
  3. We can aid the reader with informative links to related topics, such as terms used in college football. No news source does that, not even online news sources.
  4. Unlike some on-line newspapers, access to our stories will always be free of charge, so long as we don't delete them.
  5. Many of our articles also come with photos that can be reused under GFDL or CC license.
Thank you, Johntex\talk 00:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support well-written articles on seasons of course, it's not saying Delete all the articles from the seasons, it's saying if it's just a list of stats, or little content, it recommended to to a merge. Jaranda wat's sup 00:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with merging lists of stats; I am not sure about "indiviual seasons of the top leagues". Would that allow for any well-written article on any team in NCAA Division I FBS, for instance?
Any Division I-FBS college football team gets enough media attention for a well-written article to be possible. The 2006 Colorado Buffaloes football team article is a good illustration of how even a loosing team can have a well-written article.
Also, given their historical accomplishment yesterday, an article on 2007 Appalachian State Mountaineers football team would be a useful article on Wikipedia, despite the fact they are NCAA Division I FCS. If someone wants to write that article, we should encourage them and help them to do so. The fact that they are not in the "top league" has no bearing on whether a good, useful encyclopedia article can be written. Johntex\talk 00:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested additions for notability of basketball players

I noticed a couple of major gaps in the basketball player notability criteria. Mainly, I see it as being a little too US-centric (I speak as an American). I suggest the following additions:

  • Any player who has played one game in the Euroleague is notable.
  • Any player who has played one game in a top-level domestic club competition outside North America (ACB, Lega A, NBL, et al., or for women, the WNBL) is notable.

Any objections? — Dale Arnett 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sold on a player who has started more than 10 games standard. You can be a very notable player without actually starting a single game, such as Marvin Williams, who received an All-ACC Honorable Mention and leap to the NBA after his freshman year without having started a single game. Is there a better standard you can establish? Chengwes 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Propose one if you like, a major award is notable, (like Williams got) Jaranda wat's sup 02:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is unnecessary and an example of WP:CREEP

Sports teams and leagues are already subject to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), while players of sports are covered by Wikipedia:Notability (people). Adding a "carveout" guideline for sports-related articles is a perfect example of WP:CREEP. The guideline as written is almost etirely redundant with the existing guidelines, but of course once this guideline is adopted it will take a life of its own and the guidelines will move in different directions. This will make editing Wikipedia much more difficult - which guideline applies again? And shouldn't my pet class of articles get its own special treatment too? UnitedStatesian 01:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not within WP:CREEP, many sports editors think its a must, as there are different types of sports, and WP:BIO doesn't clafify much in athletes and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) doesn't talk about teams and leagues at all, it also talks about seasons, games, etc which has been a focus of discussion lately, it's more important then lets say WP:PORNBIO which is creep right there. It's also in the same league as WP:MUSIC as there are as many or more articles about sports articles than music articles. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Jaranda, up above in your discussion of season articles you basically say "if the article isn't well written we should delete it." That I think is setting a really bad precedent. These guidelines should be to determine if something is notable. Your comments are that seasons of top professional leagues ARE notable. The discussion should stop there. When you start playing critic by saying that if it doesn't meet your arbitrary opinion of what a good article is it should be deleted then you get into some bad territory. Not everyone writes the same way.. we can't go around and say that only good articles can be written on wikipedia. If an article is poorly written, then it is our obligation to improve it, NOT delete it. These guidelines should be "is the season notable" not "the season is notable but only if you write a good article about it" cause that definitely gets into that WP:CREEP territory. Spanneraol 09:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying a season article if it's just a list of stats, it should be merged, there is no consensus for removal yet. (2-2) Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine and all.. but it has nothing to do with notability. Notability guidelines should not be based on the quality of the article.. That language shouldn't be in these guidelines. Spanneraol 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In General

I think this is a good plan, and I agree with much of it. I'm not a huge fan of all this "if you stepped on a baseball field for one second, you are notable", so I hope that will be tweaked, but I think a lot of that can be solved if we go by the "multiple/independent sources" guideline for notability. We don't need to just copy stats from baseball-reference.com and just say "that's an article". Dannycali 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The thing is, there are multiple independent sources out there for basically every MLB player. Could some articles be better sourced? Sure, but Wikipedia is a work in progress, and someone will add them somewhere down the line. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NFL/CFL comparisons

I highly object to the wording in the NFL guidelines, which also mentions the CFL. Canadian football is a different sport, different enough that they are distinguished outside of North America as "Gridiron football" and "Rugby football". The wording currently implies that CFL is a league for NFLers that didn't make the cut. False, completely false. Although some do come up North, it's a different game, and NFLers more often than not fail to adjust. I expect to hear a response to this. Cheers! Maxim(talk) 02:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

AAA Baseball

I don't see anywhere on the talk page where there is discussion about replacing the "AAA" requirement with "has contributed significantly to the game of minor league baseball." How do you define that anyways? Spanneraol 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Me neither I'm going to revert until there is discussion on that. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 03:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a debate about this so i removed the content until we can settle on something. That edit in no way prevents us from discussing the AAA issue - but i'm reading it above that there is some disagreement. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There was disagreement about the one game so I changed it to one year, I also reverted or rewrote some changes of leagues that are considered minor leagues, like NFL Europa, and some leagues that aren't strongly proffesional, such as Arena Football League (which dissustion should form) everything else seems good. Good work. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 03:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean strongly professional? To my knowledge - AFL and NFLE are entirely professional. They all get paid to play. AFL has certainly obtained a level of respect outside of the NFL and it is not a minor league - simply a separate professional league with a lower quality of play (generally speaking). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The NFLE was a league in which NFL teams normally send developing prospects to learn the game more, it's a minor league. As for Arena Football, I meant quality of play not strongly proffesional, my fault. I don't agree that playing part of one game in that league is notable, (many of those one gamers in that league will likely fail the independent reliable, non trivial part though so I don't really care much). Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in both of those leagues was paid - they are professional and wholly professional because none of them were amateurs. This "one year" requirement is highly subjective and will not stand the "test of time." We are now getting into "how do we define a minor league vs. a major league" and that's not a good thing. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Again I don't care about the Arena Football League, NFL Europa was considered a minor league mainly for undrafted and high round picks. The article even says that. Minor Leaguers are proffesional but that doesn't mean they are notable, one year is a whole spring, not a fall anyways, so if they didn't last a whole year, they were likely cut. I agree with a limited number of starts criteria as well. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For AAA, we could do either a hard cap of X number of games played at that level, or a progressive cap of appearances in X% of a season's games, or we could just say that it should be determined on a case-by-case basis and leave it at that. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just not going to work. It's a burden of "proof" that is unrelated. Remember - if a AAA player is notable today - they need to be notable in 10 years. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why someone meeting that standard now wouldn't be considered notable in ten years. Can you elaborate? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Golf

I would like to suggest the following criteria for Golfers.

A golfer is considered notable and worthy of their own Wikipedia article if:

  • They have competed in the Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup, Solheim Cup or similar international competition
  • They are enshrined in one of golf's recognized Halls of Fame
  • They have won at least one professional golf tournament (ex: PGA, LPGA, European Tour)
  • They have won at least one recognized amateur golf tournament (ex: US Amateur, British Amateur)
  • They have competed in one of the major tournaments (i.e.-Men: US Open, British Open, The Masters, PGA Championship; Women: US Womens Open, Womens British Open, Kraft Nabisco Championship, LPGA Championship, du Maurier Classic)
  • They have competed as a professional on the PGA, LPGA or European Tour for at least one full year
  • They hold a golf record (ex: lowest score) recognized by the USGA, PGA, LPGA or St Andrews

Making a hole-in-one does not make a golfer notable. There are hundreds made every year.

Truthanado 03:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for patience

It appears that there is a lot of discussion that needs to be had here. This page is broad and covers a lot of different topics. I would think that perhaps the most active contributors should try and focus their attention on one specific topic at a time. This will allow for consistency throughout the guideline and minimize edit wars and such. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

NBA Development League

The name says it all, the two leagues are considered minor leagues, will make it a whole year, any objections. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no desire to focus - we must forge on with no focus. In that case, I wholeheartedly disagree. If they are to be considered minor leagues (i'm not saying they are or are not) - but if they are - then how can you qualify exactly how long they are "in the league" Is it by months? By number of games eligible to appear in? How about games they did play in? Is NBADL=AAA or perhaps to AA? I think we're taking this in the wrong direction. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If they played a whole season in the league then they are notable, of course they will be notable if they reach the NBA, but if the player was released after two points in two games, and never plays again, thus..., get my point. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 03:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
But you can't rightfully say - this person played 6 games and is therefor notable. What happens between the 5th and 6th game to make them notable? Define whole season - do they have to be on the roster? What happens if they are on the roster for 90% of the schedule but not for the other 10%. What if that is because they are signed to an NBA contract? Better yet - what if they are signed to an NBA contract but sit on the bench. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with that at all. If someone signs a contract after graduating college - but does not appear in a game - why are they "automatically notable". I am not sure that standards for games played in non-major professional leagues should automatically supersede WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:BIO. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I meant if they are played in the NBA they are notable. WP:BLP and WP:V has nothing to do with this conversation, and BLP has nothing to do with the guideline period, it's a issue of WP:N and WP:BIO and this page suppose to be a subpage of WP:BIO like WP:MUSIC. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Let says this, if they started at least one game in the league, they are notable, not appeared in one game period, they still have to meet the sources critria. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Starting lineups in basketball (and NFL for that matter) are not nearly as important as in say Baseball. The players can be shuffled in and out - so starting seems somewhat subjective. Plus - how are we supposed to verify if they started? I'm not sure that information is readily available for all leagues and all years. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe reword to match the minor league baseball criteria, major award, all star game, etc, as again they are minor leaguers. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm so very confused - raised the issue. I'm fairly familiar with sports like baseball, basketball, am/can football, and formula1. I think we're setting up some huge inconsistencies here. While each sport is unique (hence the need for this) there are some underlying similarities that need to be addressed. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There needs to be more consensus, I invited User:Downwards to the discussion, is it ok to remove the sentence until consensus is formed. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What sentence? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
About the NBA and Continunal Basketball Leagues, until there is more support in the talk page. I invited another basketball project member to the discussion. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 04:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a complicated subject. I'm something of an inclusionist, but I actually think one year in the NBDL or CBA may be too generous. I mean, some of these guys are reasonably well-known, but most are pretty obscure. (Especially today, when borderline NBA-talents often shun the American minor leagues for better money in Europe.) Among those whose only pro basketball experience is in the CBA or NBDL, Wikipedia should limit its coverage to the following:

  • Anyone who was selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft (Even if they never made an NBA roster, they would at least have had a strong college career.)
  • Anyone who has won a major award in the NBDL or CBA (from MVPs to All-Star nods).
  • Anyone who has led the NBDL or CBA in a major statistical category for at least one season. (I'm thinking points, rebounds, and assists, and maybe minutes or games played.)

Exceptions, as always, can be made on a case by case basis. Players whose only pro experience comes from other American minor leagues (eg, the 21st century ABA, the IBL, the USBL, etc) generally shouldn't count as notable at all unless they had been selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft. Zagalejo 06:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Word Choice: Figures

Can we change the word "figures" to "sportspeople" or something like that? It's just that Figure skating figures is easily just another way of saying compulsory figures. Kolindigo 05:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say make that change. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How were the guidelines derived?

While most of these proposed guidelines seem reasonable, this proposal suffers from the same problems as other proposed notablity guidelines usually do: There appears to be no rhyme or reason for the individual proposed rules. They seem to have been drawn out of a hat. For example, the proposal allows for articles on minor-league hockey players with at least five years of pro experience. Why five and not four or six? What about junior hockey stars? (Junior hockey is huge in Canada.)

I believe the determiner for whether an article should stay, in any subject area, is whether enough independent, verifiable information on the subject exists. Notability guidelines should simply describe what types of articles typically meet that criterion.

If we accept that little axiom as the basis for drawing up guidelines, we have a subjective criterion we can use to decide what to include. For example, the stars of the Saskatoon Blades junior hockey team have undoubtedly been featured in the local paper and TV stations. On the other hand, the best players on the AHL's Chicago Wolves are probably lost in the shuffle of Chicago sports and may have had little written about them outside of the team's own literature -- unless they were written up when they played for other teams. So we could say that major junior hockey players make for better articles than AHL ones, but it probably makes the most sense just to judge players on a case-by-case basis. -- Mwalcoff 05:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this 100% Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The hockey wikiproject set up that guideline, as for the players it should be mentioned in the guideline that if a player doesn't meet the below criteria, (or the independent, non-trivial, non-stats, reliable source criteria), notabity can still be proven (case by case) Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Junior players do not meet the current WP:Notability (people) in that they have not played in a fully professional league which is why we don't have them listed unless they have achieved pre-eminence which is exactly what you seem to be requesting by saying on a case by case basis they should be looked at. And the shear number of players that cycle through the junior ranks. a minimum of 2700 every 5 years due to age rules, makes being a junior hockey player non-notable unless they have done something special. --Djsasso 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Another basketball comment

I think the pro basketball section should also say something about the American National Basketball League. The NBL was the primary pro league of the late thirties and early forties, and a number of current NBA teams originated there. Indeed, the Association for Professional Basketball Research and the book Total Basketball both class these players as equivalents to NBA and (original) ABA players. So, I propose that anyone who played one game in the American NBL should also count as notable. Zagalejo 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Auto racing

Consider renaming as "Motorsport" to include motorcycling and other events such as powerboating etc. As with all WP guidelines, vagueness is always better. Maybe you could use "Has competed in a professional FIA or FIM organized or officially sanctioned competition" or something along those lines. Note also that WP:NASCAR have their own set of guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards. 84.64.14.109 12:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, good suggestion. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering

I'm wondering what this page has to say that isn't already covered under WP:BIO (for athletes) and WP:ORG (for teams). >Radiant< 13:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So far nothing. Ideally though, there is a good amount of useful information that can be incorporated into this. I am not pleased with the overall direction of this, though i support the need for it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  14:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above, most sports editors think a notabilty guideline for sports it's a must, there are different kind of sports as well and WP:BIO and WP:ORG doesn't really help much in that topic. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Needing it is one thing (which many people do agree upon), how this is being formed is another thing entirely. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The beautiful simplicity of WP:NOTABILITY is that we put the determination of encyclopedic inclusion onto third parties in an objective manner. If the person, place, or thing is written about in a significant and verifiable manner it can be included in WP. Really we don't even need BIO or ORG, but certainly not this. --Kevin Murray 22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
There is certainly a great deal of truth to that KM. In theory - i would agree. In practice, i do think that the unique nature of sportspeople deserves some special attention. I am not happy with how this is being done here - but that's an entirely separate point. Personally, i think it's very weak to say that a person who appears in one game at a high level is "notable", but that's what most people want - so that's what we get. JmFangio| ►Chat  22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Juan, it's all about WP:ILIKEIT. We've been through this on many attempts to codify notability at WP beyond WP:N. Even the ones which have survived are fairly meaningless since for the most part the criteria would be automatically met by meeting WP:N, or the article can't be written about the special case since there is no verifiable information. --Kevin Murray 23:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)--Kevin Murray 23:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I hear ya loud and clear. I'm actually on the side of "less is more", but i have seen an inability in the sports editing community to recognize WP:N. I am not opposed to some "enhancement" to WP:N for just that reason; but I am very much with you in spirit and that's why i think there needs to be a major adjustment to this article. JmFangio| ►Chat  23:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
How would you like the article to be adjusted? Spanneraol 00:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be shortened and written with a consistent message and tone. Standards that apply universally (that have not been mentioned at WP:N), need to be consolidated. JmFangio| ►Chat  00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Question 1
They shouldn't be - but the majority of the communities argue that a person is notable if they have appeared in one game at the highest level of competition available. So you are faced with a difficult decision - many athletes with one appearance have stats listed on a variety of sites. However, there is often very little beyond that to supplement the articles with information. It's not the way I would prefer it, but it does appear to be the WP:CON so we need to move forward. JmFangio| ►Chat  00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just passing through... I should note that there usually is additional info available, at least for modern-era athletes in major sports leagues. However, you might have to dig through Google News or go to a brick-and-mortar library to find it. Pick anyone from basketball-reference.com, for example, and I'll bet that, with a little work, I could prove he passes WP:BIO anyway. Zagalejo 01:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Glad to have the comments. IMHO, we're sort of comparing apples to oranges. If there is good information about someone that's one thing - but asserting notability and establishing that the person existed are entirely two different things. I'm not going to argue the "one game" criteria because it would be against consensus. I'm supporting that; however, I am trying to help people understand that there is an inconsistency within wikipedia. People who only appeared in 1 or 2 games in baseball are almost a "novalty" item - but if someone appeared in 5 - are you sure there is a good bit of information on them? There are lots out there. JmFangio| ►Chat  01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that there are too many of these articles around, (over 100,000) and there need to be a notabilty limit set. Wikiprojects tried to set their own guidelines with those sports, but once some editors found out, outrage insured. There are different sports out there, and a criteria of notabily is needed for each sport, something that WP:BIO (which is useless with articles on sports figures, way too broad and concensus normally goes against it, and there isn't enough interest in the talk page there to change it) can't do. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If they played recently, there is definitely info available about them. Todd Belitz appeared in 13 MLB games and gets 532 Google news hits. Admittedly, it gets harder to find information on pre-Internet-era players, but many newspapers did have in-depth baseball coverage at the turn of the 20th century, and sometimes earlier, so it's not a lost cause. Last semester, I actually wrote a research paper about early 1900s college baseball and found plenty of newspaper articles. Zagalejo 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Similar to my recent posts below - it's not simply whether or not a player existed - it's almost like asking "So what?" Todd Belitz played in 13 games - "so what?" We know these people exist, but the notability standards that already exist for this provide you with the opportunity to assess this person's importance. JmFangio| ►Chat  04:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not sure you understood the point of my last post (maybe that's my fault). I'm trying to show that there's much more information about Todd Berlitz than the fact that he exists. Several articles are specifically about him, and describe his family background, education, etc. (Like this).
But whatever. I do agree that we already have notability standards to assess this person's importance. But the situation, as I see it, is that WP:BIO's present advice about athletes contradicts the general notability criteria. WP:BIO says that anyone who's played in "a fully professional league" is notable, but that's way too broad – it suggests that any obscure minor leaguer deserves a Wikipedia article. We're here to clarify which types of athletes are likely to be the subjects of multiple, non-trivial sources, so that editors have a more concrete idea of which sports bios are acceptable.
Although I've only been jumping into this discussion periodically, so I might be totally wrong. :) Zagalejo 05:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There's plenty of information available for all modern baseball players (I don't pay as much attention to other sports), even ones with only a handful of games played at the highest level. Most people who work on sports bios don't take the time to find and add those sources, but it's really not that hard if you're inclined. If you want a shortcut for sourcing older players, paperofrecord.com has a free searchable online archive of 100+ years' worth of back issues of The Sporting News. And even for the rare 19th century guys about whom little is known, I still think we're in a WP:NOT#PAPER situation here, where we do the public a service by presenting as much information as is available, even if that's just the statistical record of teams/games. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 11:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If you think that a page for every athlete is a challenge, just look at some of the biology-related projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods, for example, plans to eventually have articles on any and all of the 1,000,000+ known species under that heading, plus all of the extinct ones that can be documented as well. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 11:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Tacking on to what Zagalejo said, sources are out there for many players. Certainly for baseball, the sport I'm most familiar with -- baseball and newspapers have had a cozy relationship since the 1800s, and yes, the guy with just one plate appearance at the Major League level does often have a number of non-trivial articles written about him. (See Adam Greenberg as an example.) Even my local paper, with its two page sports section, has had a number of non-trivial articles on new players before they even make an appearance in the stadium. By saying that a player who has played in a single game at the major league level is automatically notable, we are simply taking a shortcut, avoiding lots of prods and AfD debates on players that are 99.9% certain to have plenty of non-trivial sources available on them but no one has (yet) taken the time to drag a laptop down to the newspaper archive and document those sources.--Fabrictramp 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If there are a million arthropods articles that says that xxx is an arthropod ((stub)), then it should be speedied or merged away, yes many players has sources out there, Chris Pittaro is a player who played like 20 games in his career back in the 1980s, but a very good article can written about him as he was considered one of the hottest prospects coming out, and was supposed to be a superstar, and became a well-known bust. Non-trivial sources are out there for even the least-known of players. Only less then 1% of them are a issue (especially those one game 19th century players who's first name are not even known) Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope you are kidding about deleting stubs on arthropods. Stubs on any topic are fine and good. They have the potential to grow. Also, nlike a merged article, they can be easily be categorized into appropriate categories. As soon as you merge two arthropods from different ecosystems into one article, you now cannot classify that article as part of either ecosystem. Johntex\talk 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
But if an article just says it's an xxx is an arthtopod and that's it, then it's an A1, but this isn't the arthtopod guidelines :p. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you were perfectly clear on what you wanted to demonstrate. If you have a person who meets notability standards, then you have a person who meets notability standards. The question here is what notability standards need to be addressed? The article needs to be trimmed and refined in order to serve as a supplement to the notability pages that are already in place. JmFangio| ►Chat  06:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this purpose can be achieved as a paragraph at BIO confirming which standards apply to athletes. That removes the need for another page, which per the discussion here will be a perpetually unmanageable opinion magnet. --Kevin Murray 14:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Question 2
I'm not sure why any professional athletic organization would fail notability standards. For organized amateur athletics (think NCAA), I would say the same. JmFangio| ►Chat  00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jmfangio, nothing really involved with teams. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If it is limited to people then I would say it should be changed to Notability (sportspeople). There is some disambiguation issue with the word athlete. JmFangio| ►Chat  16:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, the issue is that it involves other artricles, such as seasons, and games Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 20:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio

Since Jmfangio was pretty heavily involved in discussion on this page, I thought that it might be worth pointing out that he was indefblocked as a sockpuppet of User:Tecmobowl. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea I noticed, there needs to be more activity here though before it becomes official. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I had wondered why he stopped editing the page, and when I realized why, I figured someone else might be confused, too. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he is, though I guess there's a chance he might come back once he cools down. There's some context at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mzoli's Meats. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, he quits just cause he loses an argument? Spanneraol 21:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems kind of rash to me, too, but I guess he's allowed to come or go as he pleases. I mean, it's easy for me to say he's overreacting, when I'm not the one who just got publicly called out by Jimbo. Cross your fingers and hope that they can work something out once everybody's heads have some time to cool down. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Bleh, I'll still come to wikipedia once in a while as an IP, and will reply to changes here, I still hope this will become a guideline for my leaving gift. 131.94.145.132 03:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian rules football

Need something on this. This project, imho has been extremely lax in letting anything through the door. eg, see North Carolina Tigers and the AfD. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

United States Australian Football League - Most of these clubs are just a bunch of Aussie expats kicking a ball on Sundays. A lot of their websites have notices like "players needed" - so if you can get into the team simply by showing up, the team isn't up to scratch. There are 16 pro teams in the Australian Football League. Australia is the only coutnry that plays this sport at pro level. In all this time, only a handful of players from overseas have reached pro standard and been recruited in the AFL draft. ALmost all are from Ireland. None are from US. This shows the weakness of Australian football outside of Austrlia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Pre-suggestion for the motorsport section.

Note that this is only for Car racing. It is a little vague in places though.

Notable if any one of the following criteria is complete.

  • Attempted to qualify for a F1 Grand Prix (not really applicable as I think all have been done) or similar level of event pre-1950.
  • Started a race in NASCAR Nextel Cup, GP2 Series, F3000, Champ Car, Indy Racing League, WTCC, A1 Grand Prix, BTCC, V8 Supercars, DTM, NASCAR Busch or CTS, F3 EuroSeries or championships of similar levels of prestige three times. For BTCC and V8 Supercars etc. one race is one race, not one weekend.
  • Finished in the top third of a racing series that is not listed but is national or international (such as British Formula Three)
  • Is currently signed to a Formula One or NASCAR Nextel Cup team, either as a race, test or development driver.
  • Have a specific claim to fame for any other reason such as infamy due to being invovled in particular memorable incident, being extremely slow or being in a uncompetitve car (Example - Rick Kerry, although he already qualifies by the second point).

Any thoughts?

Duke toaster 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about "attempted to qualify".. I would think you would need to actually qualify... are test or development drivers really notable? Spanneraol 17:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
All drivers that attempted to qualify driving for Andrea Moda Formula. EuroBrun and MasterCard Lola (all of which have profiles on F1 Rejects because they were so dire) have articles already - they are IMO notable as they competed in (albeit not qualifying for the race) what are major sporting events. Re. The test drivers. Many of them have articles already, and they are first in line to replace a driver due to injury or similar. The development drivers probably qualify under another point, but they are notable as they are recognised as "stars of the future". Duke toaster 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

College sports

User:B replaced this with a shorter section today. While I agree that significant media coverage (for example, in a national magazine) is enough, just "nontrivial media coverage" isn't. Many players are the subjects of feature stories in local newspapers, but that does not make the players notable. College athletes are not public figures, and we should err in favor of privacy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • College players who choose to play for Division I programs have consciously chosen to seek the limelight. That does not mean we need to report every-time they get a speeding ticket, but their on-field accomplishments or lack there-of are certainly notable. We can "err in favor of privacy" simply by choosing what we write. We do not have to do so by eliminating coverage. I am therefore restoring B's change. Johntex\talk 19:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition to what Johntex said (which I agree with), it is an important part of our banning policy that we revert edits that banned users make after they are banned. If we leave edits in place, then there's no reason for a banned user to not come back - they will still be able to influence our processes and articles. Obviously, Techmobowl's sock edited so many articles that reverting everything isn't possible ... but where there is a discrete portion written solely by him, it can and should be removed. If you want to re-add some concepts in your own words ... ok ... but I strongly suggest that the instruction creep here is a bad thing. There's no hard and fast rule for notability and short of codifying the vision test (I know it when I see it), I think the notability criteria for anything ought to be that if you can write a well-sourced non-trivial article about it, it's notable. --B 20:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree about reverting everything written by banned users. Reasons for banning vary widely and they could easily have contributed constructive edits before being banned. That particular user was very much involved in the discussions here and his contributions should not be just thrown away. That said, that section had been written by more than one person and the way you changed the article I disagree with. You could say that same language for any of the categories. The point of this essay was to have more specific criteria which would hopefully lead to fewer AFD arguments because the policy would be a lot clearer. Spanneraol 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Hello Sapnneraol, I reverted your restoration of the prior wording. Please see WP:BAN, which is official policy. It states that edits by banned users may be removed. It also cautions against restoring them, "Other users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users." Johntex\talk 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Johntex, the wording you are removing was NOT just written by this user you refer to, but by a number of people. You want to throw the entire thing out because one person contributed to it? That is illogical and ignores the contribution of other people simply because you disagree with it. Spanneraol 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
      • We don't revert everything written by banned users - we revert things written by banned users AFTER they are banned. In other words, things TecmoBowl wrote with his original account do not need to be removed, but things written by his sock puppet do. This doesn't mean that we need to go undo his page moves (which would only be a pointless waste of time as someone would have to go redo the same move) but that does mean that his non-trivial edits to policies and articles ought to be removed where practical. If he edited one word, we don't strain at a gnat to rollback 4 months of edits so we can get rid of his word, but in this case, where he wrote this section, it should be removed and redone from scratch. Otherwise, we send the message to Tecmobowl and other banned users that they can create socks to have an influence on our policies and practices. --B 21:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Jaranda wrote more of that section than TecmoBowl did, and last I checked, he chose to leave, he wasn't banned. I also wrote some of it. Why are our contributions being ignored just cause he wrote part of it? Spanneraol 22:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, it looks like you are right and I was in error. I was going off of this series of edits where I thought it was new content. I was in error - he was just moving it down from elsewhere in the guideline. I still think this version is instruction creepy, though. I really don't see any reason that any topic needs more than just the fundamental notability guideline.--B 23:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
            • OK, I'm sorry, I also thought it was written by a banned user. Never-the-less, the section as written was far too restrictive. We don't need to make it harder to write articles. If someone writes an article that complies with existing policies like WP:CITE and WP:V and WP:BLP, then we should keep that article. Johntex\talk 23:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think we should cover these people. But we should do so in the context of their school team. If someone plays for four years and then goes on to live a private life, they have not earned permanent notability, and we don't need an independent article on them.We can still cover their sports achievement in the articles related to their team. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I would use Corey Moore as an example. This is one of those articles that I keep meaning to go improve approximately whenever I get around to it. I don't think he ever set foot on the field in the NFL - he was too small to be an NFL DE, but in college, he was dominant and won every award. He was to our defense what Michael Vick was to the offense. Does the article need to tell about his private life since leaving the NFL, that he spent some time finishing up his degree at (some school), and now lives in (some city) doing (something)? No. But there's no harm in having a well-sourced article on his time at Tech. Another player is Maurice DeShazo. As far as I know, he never played in the pros and I'm sure he's living a happy private life somewhere now, but he was a four-year starter at quarterback for Tech and it isn't an intrusion on his privacy to have an article about the time he was here. Articles about people like Moore and Carpenter should not tell where they are now unless it is something public (NFL player, elected official, college or pro coach, etc), but just having the article is not an intrusion and it adds to the value of the encyclopedia. --B 00:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • If someone won awards, the language I am supporting says we can have an article about him. The people who should be merged into school articles are the people who played for a top team but drew no special recognition - won no awards, didn't go pro, did nothing except play for the team. Those are the people I'm talking about. If the only reason we have an article about someone is because they played for a notable school team, then it's really the team that is notable, not the person. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • But there's no magic merge button. If Player XYZ started for four years at LSU, you have the 2003 LSU Tigers football team, 2004 LSU Tigers football team, 2005 LSU Tigers football team, and 2006 LSU Tigers football team articles over which the information is spread out. It makes it less useful as a research tool. You have to go to the 2002 LSU Tigers football team article (which is a glorified stub) to get information about his recruitment, then look through each of the four years to see if they have anything on him. It makes more sense just to have an article about him. --B 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
        • No,it doesn't make sense to have an article about the person if they aren't notable. The people who you and I agree are notable (top skill players, national caliber defensive players) will get plenty of media attention. But the people who just play on the offensive line for 4 years and don't go pro really aren't notable, even if they get a feature story in the local newspaper. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
          • But you're using your definition of notability to prove your definition of notability. It doesn't make sense to have articles about people that are non-notable, but the question is what constitutes notability. My contention is that the general notability guideline is correct and sufficient. If multiple sources have felt it worth writing an article about someone, beyond simply repeating statistics, recapping his bio, etc, then there's probably some importance there. Do we need an article on Northern Illinois' right guard that does little more than recap his official bio? No. But if there has been significant coverage of him because he is a team leader, etc, then an article is appropriate even if he has not yet been drafted. --B 01:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm speaking in favor of my proposed language for the guideline. What do you think about "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." I think that would include your hypothetical team leader, if he was covered by a national publication, but also cover my concerns about people being covered in their hometown paper without actually being notable in the abstract sense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Yeah, but national coverage doesn't really mean anything. If a Maryland Terrapins player is written up in the Washingon Post, that's their local newspaper, but it's also a well-respected national source. A newspaper in California isn't going to do a writeup on very many people from Virginia - football player or otherwise. Sports coverage is regional. Fortunately, in the internet age, if you want to research Big XII football, you can go to websites of 50 newspapers in Big XII territory and find anything you want. The truly national sources that are not tied to a region - ESPN, AP, Reuters, etc - don't really carry a lot of player profiles ... but during the offseason when there is nothing to write about, every D2 player with a speeding ticket makes the front page of ESPN.com ... and I don't think anyone believes they need articles. In general, I don't think we should be sourcing things with school newspapers ... but if the Washington Post gives coverage to a player beyond that which they give to every player on Maryland's team, I think the player should be considered notable ... even if California papers don't care about him. --B 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • (←) The issue I'm concerned about is that many players get local coverage just because they are on the team, but don't really deserve an article. It's just that the local paper decided to run a feature story on them once. Can you rephrase the sentence I proposed to exclude that sort of person? The sort of national media I was thinking of is really sports media - Sports Illustrated etc. - but the sentence isn't crystal clear about that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I would exclude "school-affiliated media, recruiting websites, or other coverage that is common to all members of the team". I don't really think that limiting it to Sports Illustrated, ESPN, etc is a good idea. --B 13:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Note me and Spanneraol did propose most of it, and added it to the main page, and I'm not banned, just disgraced out of the project. I wanted to see how this guideline is still going (I don't want it to fail) Jaranda 131.94.55.73 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is too instruction creepy

What is magical about 10 games that makes a rugby player notable? Why not simply say, "anyone who has played in a major league or won a well-known award for whom there are sufficient reliable sources of information to write an article" is notable? That covers all professional athletes. --B 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The rugby wikiproject added it, I agree it's too vauge. 131.94.55.73 00:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you log in? --B 00:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I purged the password (I'm still gone from the project, only here to see how this propsal has progressed) 131.94.55.73 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this proposed guideline

This proposed guideline:

  1. Defines inclusion criteria that are less restrictive than the general notability guideline.
  2. Attempts to define policy that is not already in practice.
  3. Contains arbitrary values.

The essay on notability sub-pages gives more details on why these things are wrong. —gorgan_almighty 12:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The proposed guidelines are actually more restrictive than the general guidelines and the arbitrary reasons used in AFD debates is why this was necessary. Though I find your guideline on creating guidelines to be somewhat amusing. Spanneraol 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I stated #1 because this proposed guideline suggests alternative criteria that are not dependant on WP:N. Most of the criteria here may be more restrictive, but there is still no requirement that the criteria of WP:N be met first. Also, I don't see any justification for the arbitrary criteria in this proposal. Why should these criteria be used instead of WP:N? Taking a single example from your criteria, why should a baseball player only be notable if he/she has played in a major league? Why can't the standard criteria of WP:N apply? The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not importance. Why is playing in a major league essential for verification? As for NSUBS being amusing, well it's only an essay not a guideline. —gorgan_almighty 15:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's suggestive of WP:BIO, rather then WP:N, as it mostly involves people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.145.132 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Status

Activity here has ground to a halt since Jaranda left... What do we need to do to move this forward? Spanneraol 21:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be very little support for guidelines that set an inclusion criteria more restrictive than WP:N (see Wikipedia talk:Notability). I think it would be best to mark this proposal as inactive. —gorgan_almighty 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Proposals are either accepted or rejected. Proposals which do not demonstrate progress or consensus for acceptance are defacto rejected by the community. This proposal attempts to have wide reaching effects on large number of articles, but has received little attention, has meager support, and among the proponents there is little consensus as to the content. The one consistent view is that this is not progressing. I can't think of a better example of a rejected proposal. --Kevin Murray 14:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This proposal should be scrapped in its entirety. There's obviously no support for imposing stricter guidelines on sports minded Wikipedians than on everybody else. Kinston eagle 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggested marking it as 'inactive' because I didn't want to be the one to ruffle Spanneraol's feathers too much. But I agree that there is no consensus on what this guideline should contain, even among its proponents. Progress has indeed ground to a halt, so I think it would be better to mark it as {{rejected}}. —gorgan_almighty 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bleh I'm in a new account now (purged the password of the other one), I would address any concerns now. Secret sup 02:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to remove the rejected tag for now, as seriously it died when I left for a while, this is my new account. Thanks Jaranda/Secret sup 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's too bad that you quit the project. But this was rejected and can not be revived on your say-so. I suggest that you demonstrate your commitment to the project before trying to influence policy. --Kevin Murray 23:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See above, most people seems to support it, but it died down when I left, only you and gorgan rejected the proposal. Jbeach sup 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read the policy regarding rejection, where this clearly fits the case. Furthermore, current consensus among the notability sections is toward consolidation to and improvement of the core guidelines. I suggest that you focus attention of how to improve ORG and BIO to address concerns. --Kevin Murray 23:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't meet any of the above, it has the support, and the only reason why it was rejected is that it suddenly died down. we both have bias (me for) and (you against) this proposal, let another person decide if it's rejected or no. Jbeach sup 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Look through the history. If was proposed for MfD but we saved it for archive as rejected. It's not a me or you thinng; it is a trend at WP and there is much support for simplifying. You need to read some recent discussions at WP:N, BIO and ORG. --Kevin Murray 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Football notability

Since when are former professional football players not notable? I.E., what made this consensus?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, just to let you know that the proposal died down, you are free to restart it though, I'll agree, especially now that two other notabilty guidelines are going though fine, schools and media. Thanks This is a Secret account 04:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

High School Football Teams

Is there a standard for High School American Football teams? Since high school pages are mentioned as often a "keep" in the outcomes page, this isn't very clear. c.f. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2007_Coshocton_Redskins_football_team Gigs (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Motorsports

Since it's been years and nobody has proposed motorsports guidelines. I'm going to go ahead and do so here and request feedback.

Motorsport figures are considered notable if they:

1. Have driven in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. For example, the SCCA Trans-Am Series is considered professional while the SCCA Spec Miata National Championship would not be.
2. For drivers that predate the sharp distinction between professional and amateur (prior to World War II), drivers who competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest (for example, the American Championship or 24 Hours of Le Mans).
3. Have owned or been team principal for a team in a major racing series (NASCAR Sprint Cup, Formula One, IndyCar, A1GP, CART, IMSA) for a full season or more. This includes Sprint Cup crew chiefs.
4. Have been enshrined in any notable motorsports hall of fame.
5. Founded, owned, or managed any notable professional racing series.
6. Designers or engineers who have been covered extensively by the media or motorsports historians.
7. Hold or have held a significant motorsports record, such as a land speed record.

Let me know what you think. -Drdisque (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability of athletes

There's an RFC discussion going on now at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RFC: WP:Athlete Professional Clause Needs Improvement if anyone here hasn't seen it.—MDCollins (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Added Section: High School Athletes

Do to the increasing number of high school athletes that get added both notable and non-notable we should have guidelines on this. I figured they should be very similar to the NCAA guidelines, so I based the section off of this. Please feel free to edit the section or discuss on this talk page.MATThematical (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing

If we are going to ruthlessly edit some of these, you might want to notify the project involved with the section you are going to go through because a lot of these were taken directly from their respective wikiprojects and went through extensive consensus building prior to being brought here. So it would be a good idea to get their expertise involved in refining them. -DJSasso (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest canvassing the sports-related wikiprojects with this statement:

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit in place if it needs improvement. I know that canvassing can be controversial, so I'd like some agreement before starting. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
agree We need to make sure that the sports communities are happy with these. The whole point is that people knowledgeable within a specific sport can review these, not just those who want to edit all of the sections to fit their idea of what WP:ATH should be as a whole. In the end it has to be cohesive, so both types of editors are necessary. Canvasing is the only way to make sure that all editors know what is going onMATThematical (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done I posted a message at the talk pages of nearly all the wikiprojects listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Culture/Sports, except for the inactive and non-sport (wikiproject caves) ones. -Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Motorsport

Have a problem with this distinction - A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. Most motor racing series outside of North America, including Formula One would fail to meet this criteria as the large prizemoney award is largely a North American invention in motor racing.

Could this be re-written to a far less region specific criteria? --Falcadore (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How are professional series determined elsewhere? I know that we generally consider Formula Renault to be professional while we do not consider Formula Ford to be. Is there a specific distinction or is it simply because of the sheer number of FF competitors must mean it's not professional? We could create a consensus list of all "professional" series however I think it would be subject to a lot of debate. There are a lot of gray areas (Star Mazda, Trans-Am, Grand Am Cup, Formula Renault, Super Vee, Porsche Supercup, Formula RUS, Formula Dream, Formula BMW, lesser European touring car championships, ASA, USAC Sprint Cars, USAC Midgets) and we've generally been inclusive in those areas since there wasn't much harm to it. Perhaps we should have three levels like Hockey does - "top-level" series, where all drivers are notable, "mid-level" series (most of the series I just listed) where only race winners or champions are notable, and "low level" series which bestow no notability to their drivers. -Drdisque (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The three-tier concept works for me. Arguing which series fits in which category would be a discussion of epic proportions. --Falcadore (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The three-tier concept works for me too. I was thinking about some of the ASA, USAC Sprint Cars, USAC Silver Crown, USAC Midgets, USAC Stock Car champions/race winners. I would consider these all to be fully professional series - for someone who has raced full-time and not just for a few events. I've seen a few articles on drivers who have raced and never won in these mid-tier series and don't think that they belong in Wikipedia. A good example is Bobby Wilberg who won many local track championships and did compete in ASA (but no indication of him winning a race). Just below the bar in my mind. Even if he won a single race in one of these series (ASA in this case) - I'd prefer to see only champions from these series or someone who won a lot of races (maybe 10-20+ races). I suppose a minimum of a single win would be a lot easier to discuss at AFD so that's my suggestion. I don't know much about Formula racing (I did attend one day of the SCCA national championship races last season) so I have no opinion about those series. Royalbroil 03:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the criteria because the definition makes much of pre-war Grand Prix racing non-notable. Whilst being the highest level of motorsport in Europe at the time, it wasn't a series - there were races held to the Grand Prix formula but they weren't organised into any series. We also don't have information about most of the races' prize monies, so there is no way it could satisfy the criteria at present. Readro (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This situation is addressed by criteria two, which could be clarified to include races run to the "Grand Prix" formula. Also, "Prix" indicates that there was a prize of some sort, and that it was "Grand". -Drdisque (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yea, pre-WW "Grand Prix" criteria makes sense. I wonder how the current criteria would apply to professional/amateur "outlaw" drivers that did national tours like Barney Oldfield or Rajo Jack if they weren't inducted in notable halls of fame. I suppose they could be argued under general notability. Royalbroil 03:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability of minor league baseball teams

Are minor league baseball teams inherently notable? Alex (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. However a minor league player is not inherently notable MATThematical (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I would say that not all minor league players are inherently notable, but some individual ones are, based on accomplishments. However, since all those guys meet GNG, it's kind of a distinction without a difference. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

One game

Why is every sport saying notability is established by playing one game in a professional league? I thought the aim of this essay (and proposal at large) was to eliminate one-offs. Participation should be on-going as to eliminate call-ups from minor leagues. avs5221 (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The point was mostly to eliminate the one offs in the minor leagues, not the majors. You make it to the majors even for a single game you have likely been covered at some point in your career. Its not quite as likely for someone who only plays a single game in the minor leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
But before we dismiss the question (as applied to major leagues) out of hand, perhaps we ought to take the time to examine the issue more closely. Does this apply equally across all sports, to all "major" leagues? Are there any where it would make sense to require more than a single appearance? Are there any special circumstances that have come up in the past, where a single appearance really did not fit with the spirit of having risen to a notable level of prominence? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well you would have to ask those specific projects. These guidelines all came from the sports projects themselves. So clearly the answer for the ones already on the page is that yes this is the case for these projects. Remember we aren't trying to be equal across all sports, we are tailoring to each sport. -DJSasso (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but we are also trying to create something that is accepted across the Wiki, which involves more than catering to each fan base. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, but the point is that editors that actually know the subject matter are the best ones to make the call on at what point an athlete is likely to have sources. For example I don't follow soccer at all, who am I to tell soccer editors at what point that is if I have no clue myself. There comes a point where we have to trust the editors of the various sports. Either way 1 game in the top professional league is a VERY considerable amount stronger than the current guideline. Right now I can create a page on a hockey player who is 4 or 5 levels down from the NHL (top level) who plays a single game. I don't think you will see anyone agreeing to get much stronger than that. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm just asking, because I don't understand: in your last sentence, are you saying that you feel the current guidelines allow hockey players who are far less than top-level to be included, and you disagree with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
When I say current guideline I mean WP:ATHLETE which currently requires 1 game in a professional league at any level. This propossed guideline (WP:NSPORT) for alot of sports are saying 1 game at the top level. Which is considerably stronger than what ATHLETE currently is. I don't think you will find many editors willing to make it even stronger than a single game in most sports because that would be pushing it and 1 game in the top pro level is a nice bright red line. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, now I understand. You may be right. I was just asking. Instead of continuing to predict whether other editors will answer differently, let's see whether they will. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the one game at the top level rule, unless we find that other sports do not get the coverage that baseball players do. There have been cases (like we discussed over at WT:BIO) where a Major League Baseball player who appeared in 1 game in 1907 has sufficient sources for a small article. Today I think you could get the same level of coverage on anyone who plays in AAA (the next highest level of professional baseball for those who don't know), but I don't think it should be a blanket include for the AAA players. Any sports leagues covered by the "one top game" rule would need to have similar coverage to baseball, and they would need a different mark for guaranteed notability. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, we are seriously saying that the Ed McLane article is a notable person? There is zero facet of notability (beyond whatever ATH/NSPORT has asserted) for this person. There's a bio, and the fact he was in one game but where nothing about how he played or the effect he had on the game is mentioned. If this person was alive, he would be deleted quickly via WP:BLP1E. If the same logic was applied to other non-athletic professions, we'd have thousands or more articles added due to a single bit of non-notable performance.
For the purposes of an encyclopedia, athletes need to be written more than just a bio and career stats. We need to be able to write about their contribution (positive or negative) to their team or the sport, or otherwise must be notable for some other aspect. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This article clearly meets WP:GNG and has many sources. So I am not sure what you are trying to argue. WP:ATHLETE and whatever becomes of this one are not created for the purpose of barring people, they are created to help show when a subject is likely to have sources. Whatever we come up with will never be something that rejects articles because WP:GNG trumps all. Oh and I would note that he wouldn't be deleted per BLP1E because his notability doesn't come from the one game, it comes from his career as a whole. What got him to the 1 game etc. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is not significant coverage in secondary sources, the requirements for GNG. Being mentioned in passing or as a factual mention in a news article is not significant coverage. This the major problem with ATH in the first place - sports are widely covered because of the amount of interest in them, but there is a difference to articles that are basically recounts and box scores/stats of the games played, and articles that actually talk about athletes and their contributions. The first type are great for backing up data, but named that are only mentioned there and never brought about in the second type of articles are simply non-notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. We're summarizing human knowledge here, and while sports are a large part, the "one game" aspect gives athletes much more prevalence than any other type of profession. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
And due to the popularity/interest in professional athletes, that is how it should be. Spanneraol (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Notability is not based on popularity or interest. Certainly there's a larger likelihood of secondary coverage for an athlete due to the popularity of sports, but we're still talking about the use of a blanket rule that places athletes on a higher level than most other people in the world based on this idea that "sports are popular". They certainly may be, but we're still an encyclopedia and this purposely gives preferential bias to sports. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Notability is definitely partially based on popularity and interest. Look up the definition of notability and "fame" and "popularity" are some of the words that are commonly associated with it. Spanneraol (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
But within WP, we consider notability without explicitly considering popularity or interest; otherwise, we'd have a lot of articles of things like memes and Naruto characters which are also just as "popular" and "interesting". We're looking at notability from an educational aspect which has different goals than if we were just an open non-encyclopedic wiki to contribute whatever they want. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
But popularity & interest can enhance the notability of certain topics.. such as athletes.. I still fail to understand your often stated opinion that athletes are just common worker folks that should be treated the same as welders and construction foremen. It makes no sense. Spanneraol (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The popularity and interest in sports creates a larger number of potential sources to pull from, which in turn, if we strictly went by the GNG, would certainly allow for more people involved in sports to be included than from most other areas. That I can't deny. But I still take strong exception to the consideration if the player played one single pro game that they are immediately notable. Yes, because of the number of sources that exist, it is bound that player will be mentioned (see case above). But again, there's the mention in passing or routine mention, and then there's the coverage that this player actually did something that helped or deterred the team from winning. Playing one game, for most players, is not assurance of the coverage we are looking for. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The Coverage you are looking for..not "we". Are you to determine if the player did something that helped the team to win? Every player in a game does something to affect the outcome of a game, either positively or negatively. This all gets into very subjective territory.. which is why the one game rule exists.. to take the subjectivity out of the equation. Spanneraol (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Just showing up and doing a routine part of the game, even if that is considered helping, does not equate to notability; that's just doing their expected job, and thus a routine part of being an athlete. It is the ones the are noted to significant affect the outcome of a team's success over several games or a season that gain notability. That may be everyone on a team for some sports, but it is not true for all sports, and certainly not just based on being put out to play one game.
While I commend the effort to generate an objective standard to avoid issues, it is overly objective, including many people that would otherwise never meet the GNG. The objective should be set at a point where assuredly most subjects would be notability via the GNG, and presently are only limited by difficulty in getting sources or that secondary sources are yet to be written (eg, I would see no problem that the first-string QB for a pro football team would be presumed notable since it's nearly universally true that the pro QBs performance will be consider in pre- and post-season on a team's strength, with very few exceptions). Whatever criteria is used should aim to have the case where nearly 100% of those that meet can clearly be shown to be notable (via the GNG) based on what editors' past experience has shown, instead of the current situation where a good number of players that play at least one game would not meet the GNG simply because they do what is expected of them to support the team, but neither exceed or fail at it beyond that, thus giving sportswriters no urgency to go into details on that player's role. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That's certainly a perfectly valid opinion, but it's not one that I share, and based on past participation in other versions of this discussion, I suspect (and, to be honest, hope) that you're going to have trouble establishing a consensus in support of your position. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Whatever criteria is used should aim to have the case where nearly 100% of those that meet can clearly be shown to be notable (via the GNG)" - And that point is playing a single game in the top level league. I can source pretty much any player who played in the 2nd level of most sports leagues 100%, so people who have played even a single game in the majors is all but guaranteed to meet GNG. Especially when you think that those players that get the call up to the Majors would have been the stars of their minor league team which equates to coverage of their minor league career. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing an article is very different from meeting the GNG. I am 100% sure that you're right, any player in a pro league for those sports will have a bio that can be used for a source as to satisfy WP:V. But a bio that just iterates facts and gives no further insight on the player - how well or poorly he's done, why he was selected to play pro, etc - is just a bio and would fail GNG. If it very probable that a player that matched criteria X would eventually have something that can meet the GNG, that's fine (and thus a WP-V-passing bio in the short term is acceptable), but again, I am not convinced that playing one pro game is certainty of GNG-type sources. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_1&oldid=1136057449"