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.

Discussion (NSPORTS)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion on the main proposal[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support. NSPORTS is intended to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and in the process reduce the amount of time we spend determining whether these people or organizations are notable, but it does the opposite, through a bloated guideline that is not effective in determining whether someone or something is likely to meet GNG.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEFORERFC Discussion (NSPORT)[edit]

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

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

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

  So to address this we have at least these options:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subproposal 1 (NSPORT)[edit]

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

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

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

Comments[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What coverage is considered significant?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subproposal 2 (NSPORT)[edit]

Subproposal 3 (NSPORT)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subproposal 4[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subproposal 5[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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