This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

RfC on WP:NFOOTY criteria being changed

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

Consensus against There seems to be (nearly-unanimous, despite a few dissenting voices) consensus that this is not a meaningful change, and that the guideline as written does not prevent, in theory or in practice, the deletion of footballers who are truly not notable despite seemingly passing it (this brings me to wonder whether it is possible to otherwise adjust this to make NFOOTY a more accurate indicator of actually meeting GNG, but that is not something I can do much about, and is truly another question for another discussion). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Context: At many recent AfDs, there have been articles deleted despite meeting WP:NFOOTY by playing in one or two games.

Note: There was a previous failed RfC with a similar object from 2019 (Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 31#Proposal - NFOOTY#2 - raising the bar)

Should the guidelines for WP:NFOOTY be changed from Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues to Players who have played in at least three competitive games, and managers who have managed at least one competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues? snood1205 17:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Football of this discussion. snood1205 17:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose change - these are arbitrary numbers. The point of 'one appearance = presumption of notability', and the reason that nothing else will work, is that there is a clear and meaningful step up from/difference between 'no appearance' and 'one appearance'. The same cannot be said between 'one appearance' and 'two appearances' (or three, or five etc). NFOOTBALL is fine as it is and AFD is working to delete non-notable players who have a technical pass but fail GNG comprehensively. Giant Snowman 17:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 17:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - why three? What evidence is there that playing three games will guarantee that sources exist to meet a suitable level of sourcing? There's nothing wrong with an article which technically passes FOOTY being deleted because there aren't suitable sources. You can change the number to whatever you like and the same thing'll be true. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. Changing to 2/3/5 will not stop articles still being created about players with only 1 appearance, and it will also not stop players with 2/3/5 apps being deleted if they fail GNG comprehensively (as currently happens!). I see no point to the change. Giant Snowman 17:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Strong opposeI do not agree at all. A player can made 3 apps but playing less than 10 minutes. In my opinion, players' notability does depend from the coverage they've received if they've made less than 3 apps Dr Salvus 17:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - again, why three appearances? This is no different from the last time this type of change was suggested and rejected. If someone can tell me why three is the magic number I could reconsider.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Strong support - Why 3? Why 1? Why anything. Why not scrap it completely. The question being asked is whether the new criteria better matches with notability than the current one. Given that most footballers who have played 1 or 2 games are not notable, then 3 is clearly better than 1. Would 4 or 5 be better still? Probably, but that's not the proposal being discussed. Nigej (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, completely arbitrary and puts Wikipedia on the backfoot of creating pages for players getting media attention.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I feel like this is misunderstanding the point of the SNGs. They are meant to give the presumption of notability. But if an actual exhaustive search for sources is done, such as in an AfD, and those presumed sources aren't actually found, then despite meeting the SNG, the article subject has nonetheless failed the GNG and that notability requirement is in the end the only one that matters. All of our articles have to meet the GNG, but we give leeway on the presentation of such within an article if they meet an SNG. Because that gives the implication that the sources to meet the GNG do exist somewhere. But, again, if that SNG source presumption for the subject is challenged and, after a discussion and search for sources, nothing of reliable source value is found, then that's it. Non-notable, for ultimately failing to meet our general notability guideline. So I think these AfD results are working just as they should and aren't conflicting with the existing SNGs whatsoever. Silverseren^C 18:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to say, this is not the way most of the SNGs work (although it is the way WP:NSPORTS works). For most of the others, like WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR, the SNGs create a presumption of Notability parallel to that offered by the GNG; please see WP:SNG for additional information on this relationship. (SNGs may also do other things, such as specify requirements above and beyond the GNG, as NNUMBRR and NORG do, or specify what counts as significant coverage in reliable sources for a specific domain, as NBOOK does.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  - Sure, sure, fair point there. I was only focusing on sports SNGs, since as a sport (an entertainment), the entire focus of their notability is on the coverage of their activities. Lacking that, then they aren't notable. Other types of subjects, such as academics, are notable for the importance of their academic work. So those SNGs function differently, especially since such subjects aren't usually properly covered in media, since academic work isn't inherently meant to be public entertainment. Silver seren^C 18:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  - The point is that those who've played 1 or 2 games are given the presumption of notability when all the evidence is that they are not generally not notable. That's the issue being discussed. There's no problem with AfD, the problem is that the articles are being created in the first place, encouraged by the wording of NFOOTY. That's why it needs changing. Nigej (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    - I'm not objecting to that; I'm just trying to break the implicit connection between how NSPORTS works and how most of the rest of the SNGs work. NSPORTS is not a typical SNG, even among the NBIO SNGs, and people often seem to forget that the GNG itself offers only a presumption of Notability; topics meeting the SNG may not merit an individual article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose WP:AINT broke, don't fix it. If a professional player makes it all the way through to play in a professional competition (ending up in historical club records etc), then he is notable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that it is broke. 1 in 7 of all our biographies of living people are covered by NFOOTY, a crazy proportion for something that purports to be an encyclopedia. Nigej (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  - That's doesn't mean anything's broken, association football is the largest and most popular sport in the world by far and one of the few that's universally played. It's not surprising, nor wrong that a large proportion of articles are covered by the most globally followed sport.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose your response is the flip side of the coin as an example of someone who doesn't understand the SNG in question and misapplies them. Your claim is incorrect. If someone meets the SNG, they are presumed notable, but if an exhaustive search for sources fails to find refences to meet the GNG, then the presumption is gone and they are not notable. Silver seren^C 18:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- And it says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The question is whether, for NFOOTY, that is actually true. In my view it isn't and that's why it needs changing. Nigej (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  - You say the issue is that there are too many footballer biographies - I say the actual issue is that there are too few other biographies. Football is the most popular sport in the world by far and therefore has the wikipedia editors and 3rd party media sources to support that. The same cannot be said for other less popular sports and professions. That is not football's fault. GiantSnowman 19:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    - I knew that would be reply. Doesn't convince me (and hopefully, anyone else) in the slightest. Nigej (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose the way it's working now (GNG overrides NFOOTY) works well, and is much better than creating an arbitrary threshold. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. If anything, an arbitrary threshold might make people more likely to claim that the SNG supersedes the GNG, which is not how things should work. Silver seren^C 19:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Didn't we had the same proposal already a year ago or so? If a player makes 3 subs and plays 3 minutes, it's not as notable as a player who plays once but 90 minutes. Kante4 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose While playing one match is no guarantee that the subject will actually have enough to meet GNG, three is no more of a high-bar. We should just drop this criteria and change it to a criteria that falls in-line with WP:AUD and more robust notability criteria. If all a player article has is "played one match for ..." and that is sourced only to some database, the article should be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Just so we are clear, there is no policy basis (and as far as I know, little support) for using AUD-type criteria outside the domain of NORG. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

And articles like that currently are frequently deleted at AFD under the current 'rules', showing it works as it stands. Giant Snowman 21:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. I previously proposed a similar tweak to the NGRIDIRON standard which unfortunately failed to reach consensus. The various sports constituencies would be well-advised IMO to tighten the SNGs to make them better predictors of GNG. If we did so, we would (i) not encourage the creation of so many unworthy articles and (ii) spend less time dealing with AfDs directed at one- and two-game players. That time could then be spent improving the truly worthy sports bios. Cbl62 (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose this particular proposal. I don't see the particular benefit of changing from one appearance to three appearances (unless there is some data on this resulting in greater coverage that I am missing). I have no prejudice on discussing the use of one appearance as criteria for inclusion, but I oppose the change from one to three as unnecessarily arbitrary. Jay eyem (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose, unnecessary + slightly less clear. Why should this be different here than for other sports? – SJ + 09:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I think NFOOTY is broken but the proposal of moving from 1 game to 3 doesn’t solve it. The list of leagues included in the one game rule is entirely too long and I am willing to bet they haven’t all been tested to see if one game in the league actually is an indicator they could meet GNG. If you were a footballer in a top league in England or Italy? Sure, 1 game is likely going to be an indicator the subject would meet GNG for their total career. But I look at leagues like those below MLS in the US and I know that the least of those players don’t get the kind of press coverage likely to meet GNG. My recommendation would be to cut the number of leagues included under the 1-game rule and make the rest subject to passing GNG, or add a more significant achievement to the lesser leagues like a season’s worth of games. I have no confidence anything will change on this SNG though Rikster2 (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment How would you determine which leagues would follow the one game rule and which would be outside that rule?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- You go through individual leagues and you do a source search for a decent sample of middle tier and end of the bench players and see what the hit rate is. If less than 95%+ of those meet GNG the league probably shouldn’t be included Rikster2 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  - I have previously - multiple times - suggested that we move away from 'fully professionalism' as the barometer for notable leagues at WP:FPL, and replace with a 'coverage' one like you suggest. This has always fallen on deaf ears. GiantSnowman 13:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    - It's inertia talking -- there's very deep resistance to change -- and the FOOTY project's by no means unique in this -- and an outside observer might be forgiven for thinking that there's a tacit belief in just about every WikiProject that "our" articles need defending against the barbarians, that AfDs and PRODs constitute personal attacks against the respective projects, and that the projects' status is defined by the number of articles they have. For my part, I could readily live with abolishing ALL SNGs -- despite the chaos it'd bring -- with the GNG being the sole determinant of notability. Ravenswing 15:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
      - I agree 100% about "abolishing ALL SNGs". WP:NSPORT needs deleting completely. Where I disagree is that it would cause chaos. The reality is that many sports already manage without it perfectly well and all the others could too. Nigej (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
        I'm not sure what removing the SNG is hoping to achieve, if you think there will be less football pages as a result you'd be wrong. There's tons of notable footballers who probably qualify for a page now with 0 appearances who are held back through the SNG. The Football project is the largest on Wikipedia for a reason.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
        It would stop the "collecting" aspect, where some editors are desperate to create all articles in a particular area (eg everyone who's played a game for Rochdale A.F.C.) irrespective of whether they're notable or not, an attitude that's encouraged by the way many of the sports notability sections are written (eg presumed notable if they've played 1 game for Rochdale). Getting rid of NSPORT would (over time) get editors thinking about whether the article they're planning to create is really notable and whether there's enough content to demonstrate that. And your right, it might encourage articles on players who currently fail NSPORT but who still got plenty of coverage. Nigej (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
        
        Really? And what do you fancy that "reason" is -- that soccer is the most important endeavor of humankind? That being said, I can't imagine how there'd be a single "notable" footballer held back through the SNG. If a footballer can meet the GNG, NFOOTY's superfluous. If a footballer can neither meet the GNG nor NFOOTY, upon what basis would they possibly be notable? Ravenswing 19:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment I wouldn't say it's a problem related to how many appearances, rather than the quality of them and the media coverage they are leading to. A five minute appearance in a Premier League game is certainly going to get more coverage than, say, ten games for a League Two club, a full season for a minor US league, or 15-20 games for the Maldives national team. If I were to be asked, I'd suggest widening the current notability criteria to "at least one game in a professional league or a national team" (maybe even as a starter, to make it even stricter) and considerable non-incidental media coverage (i.e., something more than just a passing mention of the player's name). --Angelo (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- We already have WP:SPORTCRIT but many editors choose to ignore it. Nigej (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose as written - I might support something along the lines of requiring 3 (or 5) appearances for footballers whose articles are only sourced to statistical databases. But not this proposal as written. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's a very interesting proposal to be honest. I think that the only sourced to statistical database will largely clamp down on the type of articles that get create for non-notable players. snood1205 21:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I don't really see a reason for this. The NFOOTY guideline is just that, a guideline. It is not ironclad and can be overturned if there are not enough sources. Best to deal with this on a case-by-case basis at AfD. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose On the basis that it is still a reasonable criterion for a guideline as moving from 0 to 1 games is a "step-up" of greater magnitude than from 2 to 3 games. Additionally, there is AFD process to delete non-notable players who meet the 1 game criterion but still fail GNG on other metrics. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment More to the arguments related to the relationship of the SNG to the GNG. All of the SNGs are basically means of presuming notability for a topic as to allow article creation (and thus visible to all members of the community to help improve) but towards a point where we know, after (infinity+1) time, that there was significant coverage to write a reasonably comprehensive article. (Even NPROF can be seen this way, though its more to point out that a academic's research is often better covered than the academic themselves). If there aren't any sources to support significant coverage in an article, then we shouldn't have such an article, but we give editors the benefit of doubt and the time via the SNGs. NSPORT just happens to be the most explicit about that because the current "played one game" is a very iffy means to judge if significant coverage will come out of that. I don't have an opinion on this specific change outside that it should be reflected for all sports in NSPORT, but it should be kept in mind at what number of games does non-routine coverage usually become assured for a player? --Masem (t) 01:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose as there are big differences in how this relates to players' footballing history. For example, a player may have previously played hundreds of games in the top level of football in his country where football is high profile but not fully professional before playing a fully pro game that would qualify for N.FOOTY and therefore there is substantial coverage of them. I know that should be covered by WP:GNG but in practice many football editors defer to the SNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment I don't think raising the bar itself means anything, because we'll still get GNG wrongly ignored when there's enough appearances (as stated by the main FAQ, NSPORT isn't above it) by editors here, just because of NFOOTY...such as this AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mikael_Blomberg. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm also dealing with one of those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Crabel (2nd nomination), where people keep claiming that the sports SNGs supplant the GNG requirements, which is blatant nonsense that the FAQ specifically says otherwise. Silver seren^C 21:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Um that AfD is for a tennis player not a footballer, so don't see how it's relevant. Lots of footballers who pass WP:NFPOTY by virtue of a few appearances have been deleted for failing WP:GNG, the fact other sports don't do it isn't a reason to change NFOOTY arbitrarily. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

? I'm just giving an example of people misleadingly claiming that the sports SNGs make the GNG not required, which is false. I voted oppose above, friend. So I'm not sure what your reply has to do with me. Silver seren^C 21:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes but that isn't the case in football AFDs, so not sure how it's relevant to this discussion? This is a discussion on footballers, not on sportspeople in general. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
There are still plenty of editors who !vote "Keep passes NFOOTY" (even some who routinely !vote against overwhelming consensus within an AfD) and refuse to respond to or even acknowledge someone noting the correct relationship to GNG. Granted, nowadays there is a strong trend for closers to ignore such !votes, but that doesn't mean they don't still happen (like this AfD where keep arguments are either "meets NFOOTY" or "an interview in a student newspaper at the school the athlete attends is an independent source demonstrating GNG"). JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ortizesp: you were not pinged, but I believe this was directed at you. RE: Amanda Dennis and student newspapers, I have responded in that AfD asking for clarification. Jay eyem (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree even with the principle that NFOOTY should be tied to GNG, although I acknowledge that it's a minority opinion at this point.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose arbitrary number, as stated by others above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NBasketball

As per Basketball guidelines there is only limited amount of Professional Leagues and no International Associations included within the guidelines of notability. e.g if the player competed at international FIBA level may deemed not notable, Although he played for National Team.

FIBA International competitions e.g FIBA European Championships, FIBA World Championship.

Also other leagues by league prestige should be included as well. E.G Lithuanian Basketball League, Adriatic Basketball League, etc. as them are deemed prestigious and professional competition, and as per page in a nutshell explains, that any professional level appearance is deemed notable. E.G player appearing in Lithuanian Basketball League, should be stated notable. Paulmafija (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

See this discussion from a year ago: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 38#NBASKETBALL: Adriatic league. Someone said there: "You'd need to demonstrate that anyone that played just one game in the league and didnt play anywhere else has enough significant coverage to meet GNG 95+% of the time. All bios are already notable if they pass GNG, even without NBASKETBALL. Are there a lot of AfDs for Adriatic players?" Also note that WP:NBASKETBALL does not determine who is notable or not, it just says who is "presumed" notable. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Olympic players (FIBA sponsors that basketball tournament as well) are covered under WP:NOLYMPICS. There are a limited number of leagues under WP:NBASKETBALL because the project has tried to take seriously the idea that any league listed should have the vast majority of it's members (like 90-95%) meet WP:GNG. If you have a specific league you'd like to add, start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball and members can help test it. There may be some merit for the FIBA World Cup (though I honestly can't remember a player who appeared in that tournament being nominated for deletion). Rikster2 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I've long thought we should add a few more league to the automatic notability criteria, but it has always been shot down in discussions over the years. Regardless, it is not usually an issue since those players meet GNG anyway most of the time. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Village pump proposal to abolish NSPORT

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Abolish NSPORTS to determine whether or not NSPORT should be abolished. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC on new Motorsports guidelines

There is a clear consensus that the proposed updated version of NMOTORSPORT is better than the current version and therefore should be implemented. Iffy★Chat -- 17:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Should the updated WP:NMOTORSPORT guidelines proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_44#Motorsport be endorsed and implemented? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Endorse - Simply put, these guidelines will result in less conflicts where a subject passes NMOTORSPORT but utterly fails GNG, such as the recent case of the AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Taylor (racing driver). Under these updated guidelines, such a person would not pass NMOTORSPORT. The old guidelines are archaic and desperately need a refresh. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Support - The proposed guidelines aren't perfect, but chasing perfection is often a dangerous rabbit hole. They're a substantial improvement on the current guidelines in nearly every regard. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Strong support, the guidelines need change and the proposal goes a long way to fixing the problems we have now. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Endorse and implement the new guidelines are a substantial improvement. We can always refine further down the line, should the need arise. SSSB (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Support looks reasonable, and there's already been a consensus for this. Changing the criteria just means it aligns better with who is actually notable under GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Support as a step in the right direction. Further tuning may be required to better align with GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Edit to add my !vote should also be considered "qualified", per wjemather. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Support per all the above, makes sense. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Support and Suggestion I think this adds clarity. The only issue I see is defining "Drivers or riders who have competed for at least one full season in any of the following series..." I would define that as competing in a % of a single season. 51%, 67%, 75%; and say it has to be in a single season - no 3 races one year, 2 another, all adding up to half of some random season. In modern times this isn't an issue, but historically drivers often didn't compete in every race. Look at the 1972 NASCAR Winston Cup Series. The 10th place driver only competed in 83% of the races and the 20th place driver in 54% (and looking at the list, 85-55% was common). RonSigPi (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
One can "compete in a full season" without completing (or even taking part in) every single race. A fixed percentage wouldn't help, as that would 1) not be sensitive to changes in circumstances between different historical eras and 2) favour mathematical nitpicking instead of people actually looking at sources to see if either the "full season" or the GNG-presumption is indeed met. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Beyond RandomCanadian's comments, consider: we're not establishing a threshold of what we think is important. We're establishing a threshold where we feel that a racer can meet the GNG. If we're just picking percentages out of the air, then we're shooting the latter assumption in the foot. Do we actually have any idea? Ravenswing 23:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
My comment was more in line with what User:Wjemather was saying. This is good, but vague. I don't care what % we put it at; it can be at 100% requirement. My comment was more this - if we don't put a %, then what does competing in a full season mean? Without it, we are going to be arguing the Academic Rookie of the Month for a guy that completed in 10 races over 8 years and someone says "well, in 19xx there were 19 races, so cumulatively he was over half, so that is a full season." RonSigPi (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The simpler solution is to not give a percentage and let sources determine this (instead of editors doing silly maths and missing the point that something requires GNG in any case). If someone competed "in a full season", then one can back this up with adequate GNG-acceptable sources. If there are no sources, then arguing about maths is a pointless argument that will get rejected by competent closers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Qualified support. While any tightening of the guideline is to be welcomed, this proposal is vague in many areas; i.e. phrases like "primarily-professional", "significant national/international importance", "major road races", "high-profile inter-city races", "major championship in which a large number of the competitors are amateur 'gentleman' drivers or privateers" [why is major in italics?], "significant motorsports record" sound impressive, but they mean different things to different people (some are just a open gate). These things must be clearly defined or there needs to be an exhaustive list of events, etc. held somewhere. The proposal is also extremely verbose, probably because of this vagueness. Any chance it can be consolidated into half a dozen simple bullet points (and a supporting list)? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, which is a reason I can't find my way clear to support it myself. I was enough of an idiot to put an undefined "Preeminent awards" into NHOCKEY, only to have an editor decide that an "Academic Rookie of the Month" citation from a collegiate hockey league met that definition. (I am not making this up.) Ravenswing 17:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I am not knowledgeable enough about motorsport to be able to adequately judge these criteria, and would rather leave the decision to those more involved, which seems to suggest that the proposal is a good one. That said, this proposal is very... wordy and complicated? Is there any way it could be simplified without loss of specificity? I know "wikilawyering" is a thing for a reason, but it'd be nice if helping out with AfD discussions did not require the level of research a real lawyer goes through before a case. Fieari (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
A big part of the issue is that motorsport is such a broad area that only having one notability guideline for all of motorsport is arguably something of a folly in-and-of itself. It's a bit like having one notability guideline for all forms of football rather than having separate ones for Soccer, Gridiron, Rugby, etc. That's probably something to be addressed further down the line though. The current guideline is demonstrably inadequate (with many individuals who don't meet the WP:GNG meeting it) and seems weirdly Sports Car Club of America specific in its wording. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- - Sound observation, there; perhaps we should break these down into discrete competitions such as NASCAR, Top Fuel, Formula One etc. Ravenswing 10:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    - Some of the criteria (4 and 5) apply to multiple series/competitions, so would be more complicated to list individually IMO. The reason it's long is because it's trying to be extensive for 10+ different sports all under the motorsport heading. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
      - On the grand scheme of things, for notability criteria that could be in place a decade or longer -- as has been the case, after all, for the devolved NSPORTS criteria -- I'm fairly content with the premise that breaking this down into discrete competitions might take someone an extra half hour. Ravenswing 11:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
        Part of the issue seems to be finding editors who are sufficiently familiar both with more niche motorsport disciplines and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines who would be willing to spend time working on guidelines. Based upon the feedback we've received during the course of drawing up this proposal I don't think it would be too hard to derive guidelines for single-seater racing, stock car racing, or rallying, but even with something as broad as motorbike racing I'm less confident. It would certainly be preferable to have separate guidelines for disciplines like drag racing, motocross, or drifting, as they have very little in common with other motorsports. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
        Well ... I submit that if there are niche motorsports for which there are knowledgeable editors willing to work on guidelines for them, those niche motorsports should not have NSPORTS guidelines until such time as there are. We shouldn't just be tossing untested guidelines up just for the heck of it. Ravenswing 13:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
        There comes a point when it's better to just fall back on simple stuff (WP:GNG, which is anyway the real criterion: SNGs are supposed to be indicative of it, not override it) instead of generating further instruction creep (WP:CREEP). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
        I don't understand where it was implied that this list is meant to override the WP:GNG. The problem with the current WP:NMOTORSPORT guideline is that a lot of subjects meet its criteria but do not meet the GNG. The point of the SNG is to indicate which subjects are highly likely to meet the GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Provisional but strong oppose due to issues with vagueness of language as identified above; and to the long nature of the list, which suggests that it would be more productive and simpler for everyone to just fall back on GNG, instead of having instruction creep. These issues could be resolved if an approach similar to NFOOTBALL was used (i.e. dropping the "various competitions" phrasing and having a full list in a sub-page somewhere; and maybe listing only the most obvious ones or those which limit themselves to very few entries on the guideline page itself). It might also be worthwhile considering if listing old competitions is really productive, and I am not sure whether all of the entries are really valid indicators of someone "nearly certainly meets GNG, with possibly a few exceptions"; for example Mille Miglia#Mille Miglia winners has a fair share of red links. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think that there is a general view that a WikiProject maintained list should be produced at some point, with a more general guideline providing pointers until such time that a list can be prepared. The current issue is that the existing guidelines set an extremely low bar for presumed notability (competing in Trans-Am or any motor race before the Second World War apparently mean a subject can be presumed notable, which simply isn't true) and seem to be somewhat US-centric. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  - @HumanBodyPiloter5: Iff a proper list of events which qualify for a reasonable presumption can be compiled in due time, or at least a draft of such a list (with the proposed guideline text amended to match, and ideally simplified to avoid instruction creep), that would likely address my concern here (on both points). There's no hurry here and I'd rather we have the final solution under discussion than a provisional one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your reasoning here. Motorsports is a very broad field and the listed criteria do a great job of covering them. While it may not be perfect, it would be difficult to simplify the proposal and still have it be useful. This is a vast improvement over the existing guidelines, and an exhaustive list is not necessary for this proposal to be usable. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Question There's a LOT of criteria there; is there evidence that people who meet any of those criteria have, out there in the universe, enough reliable source text that we can use to write decent biographical articles about them? --Jayron 32 15:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Support While I also echo some concerns from above, I think what's proposed is still a way better option than what the current WP:NMOTORSPORT is (in my opinion too vague yet inclusive at the same time). The revised guideline aligns more with the drivers that actually meet WP:GNG, which is a very positive thing. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To publish Football player article

There is player Omkar Landge who plays in FC Goa. I already created his draft but it didn't published due to I'm not verified user. Some says pass to you. What should I do ? Khelsport (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Submit it to Articles for Creation, where a qualified editor will review it for publication. Ravenswing 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixing an obvious mistake

CLOSED

There is a clear consensus that the proposed updated wording of WP:NSPORTSEVENT is better version and therefore wording changed as proposed should be implemented.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since some people are making this unexplainably difficult (hence why ditching the whole of this seems like a really good thing to do): Proposal: replace the following sentence of WP:NSPORTSEVENT

Some games or series are inherently notable, [...]

with the following

Some games or series are likely or almost certain to be considered notable, [no change to rest]

Rationale: simple enough, nothing is "inherently" notable and fixing this little poor choice of vocabulary (which gives a misleading impression) should never have required yet another RfC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support: Heck, the players are only "presumptively" notable. Ravenswing 14:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support. This seems like a reasonable change in the language, but I do believe that it needed to be discussed here before being implemented unilaterally, as it represents a material change. Cbl62 (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Material changes affect or significantly alter the fundamental meaning of something. This is a minor wording change which should never have required more than a bold edit to fix it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You really like to argue. I said "support" ... but procedure is important. Nobody is a czar here. Material changes to long-standing language should be discussed, and if reasonable, there will be little or no opposition. Cbl62 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Weak Support These are "almost certain" to be notable in the sense that it's "almost certain" the Sun will rise tomorrow, but it is technically correct. Smartyllama (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support. Obvious improvement; as stated, nothing is inherently notable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support. "Inherently" was a poor choice. Something is only notable because people take notice of it, not because of any "inherent" aspect of the event. Nigej (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support. A better description. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
weak support This get's a "who cares" from me. Functionally identical. Hipocrite (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
Support; avoids confusion with the relevant policy cited by the OP. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support the principle is that they're likely to be notable, but there could always be exceptions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support The principle is sound, though sources should always always always still need to be provided. Using the word "inherently" makes it seem like references aren't necessary for those articles. We should NEVER suggest that. --Jayron 32 16:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support This is an excellent tweak. valereee (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support as "inherently" is too vague. Aasim (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support as above. Giant Snowman 21:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Support- there is no such thing as inherent notability. Reyk _YO! 21:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment I've gone ahead and implemented the proposal; this is very clearly snowing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't make things "unexplainably difficult" after all. Cbl62 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No, but it was bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. I can't imagine myself reverting a pretty obvious change that I myself supported (especially when prior language is 180 degrees opposed to settled policy) just to acquire a cheering section. Ravenswing 22:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nutshell

The "This page in a nutshell" currently reads An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition, surely this should be amended to reflect the change of notability with regards to Olympic (which I am sure everyone would agree is a "major amateur competition") participation? FDW777 (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed the wording is a odd, since, generally speaking, notability in sport comes from winning things, which is not even mentioned. Nigej (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

To no surprise, an NSPORT proposal that's going nowhere. Yet we'll still have horrible AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cook (footballer, born 1885) that was just closed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Despite an impressive pre-season showing by the Unstoppable Force, my money is still on the Immovable Object. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's impossible. A previous RfC at VP arrived at the conclusion There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. It just lacked a clear proposal for what language should be added in the guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So under that prior RfC, GNC supersedes NACADEMIC as well? Cbl62 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Apparently subsequent discussions clarified a consensus that NPROF and GEOLAND were separate from GNG. The other SNGs never got any consensus for exemption. JoelleJay (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The actual discussion was almost entirely focused on the sports notability guideline. As I recall, Masem expressed the view that all subject notability guidelines are subservient to the general notability guideline. The closer may have keyed off that statement when writing the closing statement, but it was an inaccurate summation. isaacl (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That RfC simply affirmed what was already the consensus in multiple prior discussions regarding the sports notability guidelines, including the original discussion that approved the guidelines. (And the closing statement was inaccurate by referring to all subject-specific notability guidelines, thus triggering later discussions that were based on an incorrect view of consesnsus.) isaacl (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I rather like the closing statement. If all subjects (including Wyoming state legislators representing 7,000 people and chemistry profs that 99.99999% of the population have never heard of) were held to the same standard of GNG and SIGCOV compliance, there would be much less of a sense here that NSPORTS is being singled out for disparate treatment. Cbl62 (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So originally I was going to post a response to either this comment or the one in the main thread where you also mention NPROF, but it grew far too large to be appropriate in either discussion, and since it ended up consolidating thoughts I've had for a while on the utility of NPROF, I instead created a minimalist subpage for it here. It's rough and not directly derived from anything written in P&Gs, so it shouldn't be taken as remotely authoritative. But it's at least my personal justification for what NPROF accomplishes and why it exists the way it does, and might even be consistent with the interpretations of major editors in academia like DGG and David Eppstein. JoelleJay (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Another attempt to alert specific users (DGG and David) to the discussion? Cbl62 (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)\

In case it's relevant, I did already see the VPP discussion, not because of any pings. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but for the purposes of looking at my NPROF essay... Neither of those users regularly closes or participates in sports AfDs, although DGG left a very neutral, bordering on SNG-supporting comment in the Pete Vainowski DRV, and from our interactions I get the impression David actually has a pretty negative opinion of me. Any chance you could AGF here? JoelleJay (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

We're both Davids. And although we've had some prickly interactions, my overall opinion of you is not especially negative. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@JoelleJay: I apologize for failing to assume good faith. The attacks on NSPORTS has triggered a somewhat defensive reaction on my part, and I will try to do better in the future. Cbl62 (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem, I understand the feeling. JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I just wanted to note a more recent example of an RfC successfully finding consensus for functionally the exact same proposal I made. JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but it doesn't work as a counterexample to proposals that don't go anywhere, since consensus stayed the same as it had been, and so nothing changed. isaacl (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I participated in the original discussion re passage of NSPORTS, and there was no consensus there that "meeting [NSPORTS] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." Cbl62 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm interested in all general discussions of the notability guidelines, even in topic areas which do not otherwise greatly interest me. I consider we made a mistake when we gradually deprecated the SNGs. Putting everything in the GNG is an unrealistic reduction of the complexities of subjects in the different areas of human affairs. We find ways to evade the worst absurdities by adjusting what being substantial coverage, or, for individuals, used strained interpretations of BLP1E. Using notability based only of media coverage adopts the standards of the pr industry. Notability should mean importance or significance, and be based on the standards of the field being discussed. So JJ can scarcely have been trying to shift the discussion by trying to get me involved, because I think the question should first be, whether NSPORTS is an alternative to the GNG where passing either is sufficient, or a limitation on the GNG, where passing both are required, or my preferred choice, the only standard with the GNG being irrelevant in the field. The one position I would rule out is the direction we seem to be going, that the GNG is the only standard with the SNG existing merely as a guide to it. (And I would say just the same in every area where a rational SNG could be developed). The secondary problem is deciding on the place to draw the line in each specific topic.

Opposition to this in my opinion comes from the unspoken preference for a standard so meaningless by itself that one can construct an argument on the basis of it to include or exclude whatever one might wish to. Many of us think we are good at finding such arguments, and that's why AfD is a game. But it's a dangerously harmful game, for it focuses energies on whether we should have distinct articles instead of concentrating on improving articles. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRR violation

Two editors (User:Dlthewave and User:BilledMammal) keep trying tonight to make significant changes to NSPORTS intro without discussion and purportedly based on a five-year old RfC that nobody at that time thought justified the change. See here and here. The repeated reverting is a violation of WP:BRR, particularly when we have multiple new RfCs pending on these very issues. Cbl62 (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is long standing consensus, nothing has changed. Please read the first question of the FAQ. –dlthewave ☎ 05:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus that took five years to implement here??? Puullease. Cbl62 (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if consensus had an expiry date, the point about the FAQ, which is part of WP:NSPORT and not just the talk page, effectively rebuts it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been in the FAQ since 2013. –dlthewave ☎ 05:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The current RFC is on different questions, though if you wish you could open a new subsection proposing overturning the 2017 RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Improperly reverted yet again. See here. Also, as User:Masem noted at the RfC: "The problem is that 2017 RFC is superceded by the 2021 RFC at WT:N - see Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 72#Request for Comment on the Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG)." See here. This unilateral edit warring while discussion on these issues is pending is not right. It's disruptive and plainly intended to provoke. Cbl62 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Also the NSPORTS FAQ already address the relationship between NSPORTS and GNG at some length and with nuance. Adding one's own partial spin is not appropriate without discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Dlthewave now extending the edit war to the main Notability guideline. See here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I would note that I disagree with the edits to WP:N; there is a recent consensus for what wording to use there (although I would disagree with Masem's interpretation about what those words mean). BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
All I'm pointing out that the latest "relationship of SNG to GNG" discussion with actionable results was this 2021 RFC. --Masem (t) 05:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I've revised slightly the language inserted by dlthewave to render it consistent with the FAQ and to direct the reader to the existing discussion at FAQ for a fuller discussion. Any objections? Cbl62 (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Cbl62 Considering it is a major thing related to the guideline itself, I'd bold out that part, but otherwise I agree with the rewrite. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as there have been multiple recent attempts to change the content/context of this notability guideline, I think it's best to restore it to the version before these specific changes have been made. While they may well be for the best (and later accepted), it's probably not best to make a change, get one person to say it's fine, and then retain it. This should have at least seven days to run (per any other discussion area), and ideally an RfC. I know WP:NOTBUREAU may apply, but this one area has had a big spotlight on it of late. I'm going to boldly restore it in lieu of a more solid consensus. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Cbl62, your version looks good to me. I wasn't aware of the 2021 RfC when I made the changes to WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. –dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't often been on the same side as Lugnuts of late, but yeah, folks, slow your roll. With multiple bites at the apple over multiple venues, and vast numbers of bytes killed, this not only needs a RfC -- on ONE talk page, not spread all over the map -- but the net needs to be cast as widely as possible. There are obviously many editors all over Wikipedia very concerned for a long time about NSPORTS (I can't say I disagree with the widely held POV that one biographical article in seven on Wikipedia being about a soccer player is a travesty), and it'd be nice not to have a couple battles a month over this, one way or another. A proposal with less than several dozen votes just means it'll all be to do over again, all too soon. Ravenswing 17:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ravenswing and Lugnuts - lets do this properly.

I'm not quite sure what the purpose the the changes is anyway. Unlinking SNG and GNG seems a bad idea and I don't quite understand why the text needs to be moved down the page. I can understand making the link to the FAQ, sure, but this simply creates a logical circular reference doesn't it? Specifically: you can meet either the GNG or the SNG; but the SNG doesn't replace the GNG; so you have to meet the GNG. How does point 1 - which no one is suggesting removing from the page - fit with what the FAQ says? Resolve that and it's worth making a change. Otherwise moving the text down the page does nothing useful. Does it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not actually illogical. The 2nd sentence refers to what the minimum sourcing requirement is for an article, which only needs to verify a presumption of notability. The relationship to GNG as noted elsewhere in the guideline refers to what an article "eventually" needs to demonstrate notability-wise/if challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If others think that my tweaking of dlthewave's change is inappropriate, I have no objection to another person being bold and either revising or reverting. Cbl62 (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually think the best outcome is to start from scratch and decide what language, if any, is needed there. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

2021 in review

As evidenced by this week's series of RfCs seeking to abolish or quasi-abolish or gut NSPORTS, there appears to be both a growing anti-sports sentiment and a prevailing opinion that NSPORTS editors are stubborn inclusionists with no sense of what's really notable. My sense is quite different, that most active editors here take notability quite seriously. In order to demonstrate this seriousness, I prepared this "year in the review".

Successful efforts to narrow NSPORT's scope

An April 2021 proposal to remove Arena Football League players from NGRIDIRON's presumption was adopted.
An August 2021 proposal to drastically narrow WP:NOLYMPICS received extensive participation and passed. The old guideline presumed notability for all Olympic participants. The new guideline limits the presumption only to medal winners.
An August 2021 proposal to narrow the scope of WP:NTENNIS (by removing presumptive notability for participation in the Fed Cup and Davis Cup) was adopted.
A November 2021 RfC to establish stricter language for WP:NMOTORSPORTS was adopted.
A December 2021 proposal regarding WP:NARENA was adopted clarifying that there is no presumptive notability for such arenas, stadia, and sports arenas, as notability is not inherited.
In December 2021, an ANI discussion about concerns with mass creation of cricket and Olympic sub-stubs resulted in a community sanction against one editor T-banning the user from creating articles that comprise less than 500 words.
A January 2022 RfC to eliminate "inherently notable" language from NSPORTEVENT was unanimously adopted.

Unsuccessful efforts to narrow NSPORTs

A series of proposals starting in December 2020 (and continuing into January 2021) to eliminate or tighten NCRIC resulted in mountains of discussion, but it's unclear if anything changed. Maybe someone can clarify whether there was ultimately some reform.
An April 2021 proposal to increase NGRIDIRON's threshold from one game to two games did not reach consensus.
A June 2021 proposal to eliminate provisos creating a presumption of notability based on participation in one game/match (on WP:BIO1E grounds) was defeated.
An August 2021 proposal by Fram to add a requirement that there be "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source" was closed with a finding that there was not consensus.
A December 2021 RfC to increase NFOOTY's threshold from one game to three games was defeated.

Efforts to make NSPORTS even more inclusive defeated

A February 2021 discussion of presumed notability for assistant baseball coaches was rejected.
A February 2021 proposal to establish presumed notability for darts players was rejected.
A February 2021 proposal to add handball to NSPORTS was not adopted.
An April 2021 proposal to establish presumptive notability for competitors in sailing was rejected.
An April 2021 proposal to expand NCOLLATH to cover college athletes in Canada, the Philippines, the UK, and Japan was rejected.
A May 2021 to create a presumption of notability for Sambo athletes did not reach consensus.
In July 2021, a generalized proposal to establish new criteria for snowboarders went nowhere.
A July 2021 proposal to expand WP:NBASKETBALL's list of international leagues was not adopted.
An August 2021 to establish a presumption of notability for players in several "floorball" leagues failed to reach consensus.
An October 2021 proposal to add presumptive notability for bowlers did not reach consensus.
An October 2021 proposal to add presumptive notability for sports referees was rejected.
A January 2022 proposal to expand NBASKETBALL to include the Lithuanian and Adriatic Basketball Leagues was not adopted.

Additions to NSPORTS

A February 2021 proposal to modify WP:NMMA creating presumptive notability for fighters ranked in the world top 10 was adopted.

The record of 2021 belies the popular notion that NSPORTS editors are stubborn or reckless inclusionists. To the contrary, most sports editors take notability issues very seriously and have acted with considerable diligence in limiting the presumption of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There were substantial changes made to WP:NCRIC - after lots and discussion in a variety of places and a tonne of hard work. You can find the guts of what's important wrt this at WP:OFFCRIC I think. WP:CRIN probably has some bits as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Further proposals at Village Pump

Your input, one way or the other, on several additional proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:

Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Another day and three more subproposals:

Subproposal 11: "Rewrite the introductory paragraph to put this guideline on a similar footing to other SNGs, removing the dependence on the GNG, and making it clear that standalone articles should not be created for articles that can only be sourced to statistics databases."
Subproposal 12: "Should participation in the Olympics be removed as an indicator of presumed notability for each of the following? ... This discussion will have no impact on Olympic athletes who medalled, as they are presumed notable under NOLYMPIC."
Subproposal 13: "No more fucking subproposals. Let this thing run its course." Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Umpires Notability

Hi all. Can we create article for umpires who have umpired in ODI, T20I, WODI or notable domestic leagues or tournaments. Fade258 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the general guidance on determining if a person meets the standard for having an article. There has been no consensus support for special guidance regarding sports officials. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

And see also point #4 of WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:, If he/she fails to meet the #4 of WP:NCRIC then he/she is applicable to pass the notability criteria? In despite of stood as a umpire in international matches. Fade258 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question, but if they've only stood in domestic matches (and not played any matches themselves), then WP:GNG would be the default. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they stood in international matches but not played any international cricket matches because they are professionally a cricket umpire. Fade258 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a general thing that passing the GNG is good enough for an article, whether or not the subject meets a subordinate notability criterion; so yes, a cricket umpire who fails NCRIC but has enough significant coverage to pass the GNG all the same, that'd do. Ravenswing 10:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing a loophole in NFOOTBALL

"The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." should be removed, because

the text is currently redundant (with the usual formula "Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:"
and at odds with the rest of the guideline: as it incorrectly implies that people who meet this are automatically guaranteed an article (despite the lead saying that "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."; and further saying that the criteria only help determine whether it is likely that subjects will have received GNG)
and that there are multiple examples of practical exceptions where players who meet NFOOTBALL have not, actually, "received significant coverage".

Would anybody object? This wouldn't really change the fundamental meaning of the guideline (nor how it should be used in practice), just harmonise it with the rest, and avoid wikilawyering about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It's redundant with the first sentence of WP:NSPORTS, and implicit with any specific-sport guidance on that page.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, the second point of NFOOTY says "Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable." which contradicts the "presumed notable" language at the top of the section. I propose that we simply list the criteria that are needed to presume notability without further commentary. –dlthewave ☎ 13:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
it's not a loophole, but agree it can be confusing, so remove it. Giant Snowman 14:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)