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

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Lorsheijd the 14 girls have played at the highest of Dutch women football the Eredivisie (women).If anyone can find Dutch language sources the articles can saved from deletion. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• What does "not fully professional" even mean? Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Seems to be defined here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Just as a long shot here ... I wonder if Gerda Arendt has access to Dutch sourcing for something like this, or might be able to suggest another user who might have that kind of resources. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, no Dutch, no football, - Drmies? The Rambling Man? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Gamaliel: Fully professional is a purposefully biased notability requirement that means that a sports league is the only source of income for the players. It was set up so that many men's sports teams would make the requirement, but women's teams (which in general make less money) would not, allowing for the restriction and deletion of women's sports player articles. Of course, whether someone gets the entirety of their incomes from the sport or not is absolutely irrelevant to notability, but the sports Wikipedians made it up on purpose to crop up notability that doesn't exist for the players they care about (the male ones). That allows them to then force the keeping of articles for male players who literally played only a single game in said league and there is no real sourcing about, but can then argue for deletion of women articles that have tons of sourcing. The sports Wikipedians also often try to say that the Sports SNG's are more important than the GNG, so even if a female sports player meets GNG, they'll argue delete if it isn't "fully professional". The whole system is very obviously made and propped up for sexist reasons and for keeping in obviously non-notable male players. The entire sports SNGs should be gotten rid of entirely. Silverseren^C 22:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Couldn’t agree more about junking sports SNGs. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Well put Silver seren, thank you for explaining the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Truth.4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  While I agree that the sports SNGs permit way too many non-notable players to have their own articles, and that even minor efforts to reform them (such as this) have failed, your comments display an absolutely astonishing failure to assume good faith. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• OK, so that rule needs to be rewritten. I hope Mikehawk10 follows my suggestion: withdrawing the AfD, and helping us adjust that guideline. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  My ongoing question in regards to the sports SNGs, @Drmies:, is what does having a full income from playing have to do with notability? Where is the evidence that there is any sort of correlation between the two? I don't see why it would result in any difference in reliable source coverage. If it is because of some other factor relating to the teams/league themselves that is being claimed for a higher amount of reliable source coverage, then that needs to be specifically stated in the SNGs, rather than something related to money that has never been justified. Silverseren^C 00:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)@Drmies: I'm not withdrawing an AfD on what appears to amount to over a dozen non-GNG articles that were created by one individual in under 3 minutes which additionally fail to meet their relevant sport's guideline. Expanding it to include all tier-1 soccer players who have competed in a match is sure to guarantee an enormous number of permastubs of dubious notability—I don't think that including every single person who played in the American Soccer League (1933–1983) would be a benefit to the project; I can't see them being treated as notable on the basis that they played in that league. Removing the assumption of notability for all tier-1 soccer players would also not really solve the problem, since that would just result in a more stringent criteria that tends towards deletion for a whole large set of articles that have been already created. I'm not necessarily opposed to that sort of change, though I think WikiProject Football might take strong issue with it that would prevent a new consensus from forming. So, we're stuck trying to find some cutoff ground if we want community consensus on a guideline. If you'd like to propose an alternative cutoff, go for it at the relevant page, but I don't think that we should be so quick to adjust the guideline without putting a good bit of discussion into where that line should be. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  "since that would just result in a more stringent criteria that tends towards deletion for a whole large set of articles that have been already created."

  Isn't that just the WP:GNG, the only notability criteria that really matters in the end? My bigger issue is using these SNGs to bludgeon players that don't meet the criteria with no investigation of GNG notability being done and then, conversely, using the SNGs to prop up certain players despite exhaustive searching for reliable sourcing of the players that doesn't ultimately exist. Silverseren^C 01:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Again, I wouldn't object to tightening the guidelines generally. I think that the guidelines, as written, will ultimately presume notability for a good chunk of non-notable people; I can't see how a person who played for 18 minutes in a single game in the 1996 USISL Select League would reasonably be presumed to be notable, for example. Some of the fully professional leagues feel like the equivalent of AA baseball leagues, whose players are not presumed to be notable (even AAA isn't presumed to be notable). However, I also don't think that a proposal to strip WP:NFOOTBALL#2 entirely would be at all likely to succeed. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have suggested KEEP (preferred), or else WP:DRAFTIFY each article to give WIR a chance to make necessary editing before these go back to Main Space. — Maile (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• I would ask Edwininlondon for some thoughts on this matter. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Silver seren: I am all in favor of ditching the sports SNG, as people who follow discussions there will probably know: but the above claims that NFOOTY was deliberately made to be able to include men but exclude women is a very strong claim, and a strong personal attack against the people who made that guideline. Please provide some strong evidence for this (not simply "but that is the effect it has", but evidence that it was the purpose) or else withdraw such claims. Fram (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • You may disagree with Silver seren, Fram, but 'evidence of intent or else withdraw' stampy foot doesn't cut it. The policy was deliberately constructed by individuals who, presumably, considered the matter intently, and who designed a system that excludes women and includes thousands of, in all other respect, non-notable men. You seem to be suggesting that the outcome was not designed, was not deliberate. That's completely not credible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I think that's paranoid frankly. The system was designed to exclude tens of thousands of amateur or semi-pro players, the vast majority male, and that is a righteous cause. All the SNGs concern presumed notability, and if RS can be found, it doesn't matter what the SNG says. There are enough sports editors who know this. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Tagishsimon:: when something is challenged as a severe personal attack, it is rarely smart to simply double down on the original attack (or to describe calling out such an attack "stampy foot", which is rather childish). I'll invite the people at NSPORTS and the football project over to give their view on how the guideline came to be. I again invite you and Silver seren to remove such attacks unless you provide actual evidence. Simply calling out unnamed but identifiable people as deliberate misogynists because you can't see another reason for the current guideline (like e.g. people thinking "professional soccer" = "sufficient viewers" = "enough attention in the news" = "notable", "amateur soccer" = "less attention" = "not notable", without them thinking "heh, that will keep the men in and the women out!") is just not acceptable behaviour. Fram (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's out-and-out paranoia. I'd like to see the evidence that Fram has requested, or the accusation be removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
      • This from 2005 seems to be the original source of the 'fully-professional' requirement – which was then part of WP:BIO and across the board for team sports rather than just for football. Number 57 16:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Time to break out the fainting couch! Gamaliel (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - first of all, the AFD seems poorly judged to me - the initiator doesn't seem to have made a serious effort to look for sources and when I checked the first entry on the list, I immediately turned up [1] and [2]. Really the SNG should be used to show presumed notability but it should not be used in reverse to try to claim an automatic deletion where it's not met. On the other hand, however, the suggestion above that the NSPORTS policy was deliberately constructed to exclude women is absurd. I can well imagine it might be a good idea to expand the criteria to include women playing in the top women's leagues (however one might define that), but I agree with Fram that the assumption of bad faith here is unwarranted.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Like Fram, I'm in favor of ditching the sports SNG completely. It seems to me though, that the sports SNG is not really the issue here. It goes all the way back to WP:GNG which says that notability is based on coverage. You only have to look in newspapers, watch your sports TV channel or go in your local book shop to see that, by-and-large, coverage of male sport greatly exceeds that of female sport, and that diversity was perhaps even greater in the past. Given that situation, it seem to me that we're in a situation where the number of sportsmen passing WP:GNG will greatly exceed that of sportswomen. It we want to change the balance in this area, the only solution is to ditch GNG. Personally I'd be in favour of that too. Nigej (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do you assume that ditching all notability standards would somehow magically increase the number of sportswomen bios and not the number of sportsmen bios? Ravenswing 19:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I wasn't suggesting "ditching all notability standards", just suggesting getting rid of GNG and replacing it with something more suitable, eg a quota system. Nigej (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
      • A quota system is by no means a notability standard. It's a demographic ghetto, and can be infinitely parsed out to anyone's hobby horse. Oops, sorry, we can't make any new articles on male subjects until the female bios hit 51%? What's the percentage you plan to set aside for non-traditional genders? Hey, it's racist for your quota system to only fixate on gender -- what about nationality, religion, ethnicity, language? Nope, sorry, we can't create articles on women either ... unless they're Han Chinese, because we're far under the proper percentage there. Seriously? Ravenswing 15:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
        • On that basis GNG is not a notability standard either. Countless articles clearly fail GNG but nothing ever happens to them. GNG is well past its sell-by date and need replacing. I know that saying that is sacrilege but it still needs saying. No sane person would decide on the content of an encyclopedia using GNG or anything remotely similar to it. Nigej (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
          • And I'll say the same thing to you that I said to Silverseren: you cannot be unaware that AfD -- and the deletion process generally -- is wholly subject to the whims of individual editors, and to the shibboleths of claques entirely willing to give the finger to any guideline or policy that might serve to thwart their agendas. There is no policy or guideline conceivable, none at all, that would immunize Wikipedia against human nature ... except to have no rules at all. Ravenswing 00:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm with Fram, here, and agree with Amakuru's take on the SNG's construction. The sports SNGs and the GNG exclude far, far more men than women; loosening either of them with the intent of permitting more women bios would absolutely tank that 19.04% we're trying to raise. Just take a look at all the hundreds of male athlete bios deleted in the last few weeks -- is it really preferable that all those be kept just so a few more stubs on women can exist? That said, the sports SNGs definitely do suffer from people misinterpreting NSPORT (or refusing to acknowledge the FAQs at the top of the page that explicitly state the guideline is superseded by and ultimately requires GNG) and !voting to keep bios that meet NSPORT but fail GNG. If you want to change that, participate in AfDs or join the discussions on tightening the criteria -- we had a lengthy RfC closed as no consensus in August that was up for over 3 months, and currently there's a proposal that aims to restrict presumption of GNG to just Olympic medalists rather than all Olympians. (Note that this would only negatively affect Olympians who don't meet GNG.) JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Stampy foot," huh? Talk about doubling down ... I'm referring to, mind, those who are actually defending this petulant, bullshit slur. I realize that it's en vogue these days to claim that no one can oppose your POV without there being some sinister intent, but speaking from the standpoint of the author of one of the NSPORTS criteria, well ... bullshit is about right.

  Yes, we absolutely have a situation where the number of sportsmen who pass the GNG is far greater than the number of sportswomen who do, and none of you should require any education as to why that is; it's pretty much for the same reasons that the number of articles about male soldiers, male monarchs, male business magnates etc etc etc outnumber those of their female counterparts: several thousand years worth of a male-dominated world. And however much some of you mislike the GNG, there is no criterion -- none at all -- that can be written to enshrine "equal" treatment of all genders, nationalities and ethnicities and still maintain any objective standard satisfying WP:V -- y'know, one of Wikipedia's irreducible core content policies.

  Beyond that, I rather doubt that those of you advocating abolishing all standards (so you could, presumably, rewrite Wikipedia in your own image) have thought things through. Do you really think, for instance, that you could push the representation of female footballers to 50% of all footy articles? Seriously? With over a hundred fifty years of organized football -- overwhelmingly male-dominated? How many articles on male players could there be under those circumstances? I can't count that high, but I bet we get our seven millionth article before Christmas. Ravenswing 19:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh. It is well established that the SNG is secondary to the GNG. There is longstanding consensus at AFD that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed comprehensively. That applies equally to male and female. The SNg does not need to be re-written, scrapped, or anything else, and there is no misogyny. If a male player meets the SNG but fails GNG, the article should be deleted. If a male player fails the SNG but meets GNG, the article should be kept. If a female player meets the SNG but fails GNG, the article should be deleted. If a female player fails the SNG but meets GNG, the article should be kept. GiantSnowman 20:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Explain the ongoing AfD for Jones then. Absolutely fails the GNG and the article is massively padded out with coverage of the game. Actual mention of Jones himself boils down to a couple of sentences in the article all based around a single news article discussing the only game he was ever in as a whole. The SNG is specifically being used as a crutch in all of the Keep votes. Silverseren^C 21:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Take that up with the baseball fans. I was brought here by Fram's concerns about people's concerns about NFOOTBALL. All I know is that we frequently delete male footballers who meet the SNG but fail GNG (and I !vote as such accordingly) and I am sick to the teeth of people who don't like it accusing others of misogyny. GiantSnowman 21:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
      • User:GiantSnowman, if a rule excludes women in a way that seems unreasonable, then there is misogyny. Whether that's intentional or not is not really my concern here right now--but what could be wrong with replacing "professional" with "semi-professional"? Wouldn't that be a reasonable start? Drmies (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
        • No, this is a dangerous and slippery slope. The purpose of 'professional' or 'fully professional' is that that level of play is high enough that it is presumed there is enough media coverage for all players to meet GNG. If you take it down to 'semi professional' then you will include, from the UK at least, many part time players in lower leagues who get zero coverage at all beyond very routine match reports and are clearly non-notable. The argument that this discriminates against women because it excludes non-fully professional top level female leagues is the same argument that is discriminates against people of certain nationalities because it also excludes non-fully professional top level male leagues. Are you really telling me that players (male or female) in the top leagues in e.g. Guam or Tonga are notable and merit an article?! I have previously suggested, multiple times and multiple venues, that WP:FPL should be expanded to include semi-professional top leagues (male and female) where it can be demonstrated that the level of coverage is the same as a traditional 'fully professional' league, but that has been rejected by editors on both sides of the debate, although I'm not quite sure why...anyway, that is a discussion for a different time and place. GiantSnowman 21:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Or, in brief - there is no 'unreasonable' exclusion here, the way it is is like it is for a clear, valid, and sensible reason. GiantSnowman 21:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
          • User:GiantSnowman, the AfD shows that invoking that guideline to steer deletion discussion is unreasonable, yes, and your mention of "lower league" players bypasses the basic assumption in this discussion that we are talking about the highest level in a semi-professional league. And yes, a player in a top league in Guam should be considered just as notable, yes--and should have an article if there is coverage. Don't confuse the argument here--the AfD argued that these articles failed a guideline. And please do not tell me that sports and sports coverage is a level playing field for all genders--come on now. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

            Drmies, the AfD mentions not meeting NFOOTY as only one of several issues Mikehawk found with the bios; he also stated the bios didn't meet BASIC. Virtually every AfD on a football player I've seen includes whether they meet NFOOTY, so it's inappropriate to read into its invocation here as if that's the only reason the bios were nominated. A top player in Guam is notable if they meet GNG, obviously, but as Ravenswing said the presumption that they meet GNG should be accurate in 90+% of cases. And I don't see how loosening our criteria would be remotely beneficial to either the project as a whole or to women's representation specifically. The SNG already basically encourages making microstubs sourced only to stats databases that then linger unexpanded for a decade; the articles on subjects who don't meet NSPORT at least require sources future editors can actually use to add info beyond a table of caps. JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

            I guess it depends on what this project is aiming to achieve. It seems that percentage is an aim. If so, slackening the notability criteria to allow even more male footballers (from Guam's national league, for instance), probably doesn't work in favour of this project's goal (on percentage terms). What's the real aim here? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

    • Regarding the Jones AfD: Silverseren, are you just now figuring out (15 years and 30,000+ edits in) that there are a lot of bonehead decisions at AfD, and that AfD is and always has been subject to the whims of small claques? By and large I'm a staunch defender of NSPORTS, but I agree that an article based on nothing more than that someone with a surname played a single inning of top-flight ball 150 years ago is on the face of it absurd. We do not, however, threaten sweeping changes because there are cementheads out there. I rather doubt -- for instance -- that you would appreciate calls to police or shut down this WikiProject based on its own controversial outliers. Ravenswing 22:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

      Comment, it makes me genuinely uncomfortable to see all of this behavior on the project talk page. A minor change in wording, such as "highest national level of organization of the sport" would make the guideline still selective. One could add caveats as needed, i.e. does not include semi-professional leagues unless there is no fully professional league. SusunW (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

      Giant Snowman if what you say here is true then why do you repeatedly edit war the semi-pro Scottish Championship onto the "fully professional" list? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

      Except I don't. Stop lying. GiantSnowman 08:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

      SusunW, the guideline really needs to be tightened, not loosened. If we made the suggested change the immediate effect would be thousands more microstubs on non-notable male athletes that no one ever tries to delete or even expand. A subject who doesn't meet the SNG at least forces the article creator to find actual SIGCOV sources that could contribute to a real encyclopedic biography. JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

      +1 to JoelleJay. For those of you unfamiliar with the long, long history behind it all, the term "fully professional" has been bedeviling the sports projects ever since the original WP:ATHLETE. The tong war between those convinced it means "anyone who gets paid to play" and those convinced it's a euphemism for "top-flight" is a millstone around everyone's neck, and isn't going to be resolved here. The fallacy I see some people reveling in here, though, is that a change such as SusunW proposes will produce the results they want.

      How about this football thing, for instance? If NFOOTY's listing of "fully professional leagues" is overturned in favor of "highest national level?" Yes, indeed, that means a dozen or two women's leagues -- no matter how obscure or ephemeral -- get tapped. Meanwhile, there are over one hundred thirty more federations that belong to FIFA than are represented on NFOOTY's national league list, and you've just greenlighted a hundred thousand new stubs of male players. Oops. Ravenswing 02:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

      Agreed. 'Top level' is far too broad. NFOOTBALL might not be ideal, but it's the best anybody has come up with and AFD works a charm dealing with borderline cases. GiantSnowman 08:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

      Personally, I'm pleased to see this debate. I like to think that many of the editors here are keen to see more balance in Wikipedia. We are not going to find c.180,000 missing women footballers to balance the embarrassing number of male footballers on Wikipedia. However many would acknowledge the injustice of this fact. Deciding who created the embarrassing number of footballers (mostly male) and why, is not going to be productive. Knowing it was done on purpose by Prettboy456 and NursieLady789 in 2012 (I made this up) doesn't actually help. (It takes a very long time to create this level of bias). However given that historical injustice exists, then we should be trying to find a way to note that Wikipedia did not invent history and (most of) its current editors would prefer if it wasn't the way it is. However we do have a duty to report a good version of the (distasteful) truth. As evidence of this intent then we should be doing our utmost to ensure that we get rid of male footballers of dubious notability as a priority. While those articles exist then we can wring our hands and say "it's very tricky" but we expose ourselves to accusations that we created it this way on purpose ...and some will see those articles about dubiously-notable, male footballers as evidence of this. Of course we can claim it wasn't deliberate, its not our fault and it's just too tricky to address, but it's not very convincing. There are other examples in history where social injustice was continued because it was too tricky to address. I'm working with others to create more notable women... it would help the cause that Wikipedia is trying to be be Neutral if could amend the rules to reduce the NN footballers et al as well. We will still have more male footballers BUT our position would be defendable. At the moment ... it isn't.Victuallers (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

      • Ravenswing, you and I, to my recollection have never exchanged any conversation on WP. Please do not presume that you have the authority to speak for me or have knowledge of my intent. As you don't know, I am glad to tell you. I went to archive 1 on NFooty and read the discussion there. "fully professional" according to the page came when "we" asked "them" (those developing the guide asked Wikiprojects), you know those mythical all-powerful vague references people use to sound authoritative and appear to have backing. No diffs were provided and I do not have time to go to every sports wiki and verify if they were actually asked. Thus, like so many of our guidelines, there is no actual basis for that clause, just a handful of participants who decided. On the other hand, national/international recognition is widely accepted in the real world as an achievement, and is included in many of our guidelines as a bar of inclusion. Thus, my suggestion was meant to offer changes to wording which is perpetuating bias by an arbitrary measure and found it upon something more concrete and less biased. I absolutely couldn't care less if it also would increase the amount of notable males. We cannot fix the historical injustices that left the majority of people of the world out of history. We can however fix our guidelines so that if they are not equitable, they at least provide a level playing field for inclusion. I will not return to the conversation, I have far more work to do and have no desire to spend time devoted to policy that IMO will likely never change. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I presume, SusunW, that you spoke for yourself. "A minor change in wording, such as "highest national level of organization of the sport" would make the guideline still selective" were your words. If you didn't actually mean what you said, fair enough; we can take that into consideration for any future response you might make. Ravenswing 14:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I meant exactly what I said and even went to great lengths to explain to you why it was selective. Your attempts to change my words and meaning are unacceptable. I will no longer engage with you, please do not ping me or speak to/of me again. Thank you. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Far from "changing" your words, I quoted you, and your attempts to pick fights over doing so are -- well, not "unacceptable," but at the least bemusing. That being said, the only way you can insulate yourself against having editors discuss and respond to your public postings in a public discussion is to walk away. You are free to do so. Ravenswing 22:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
      • JoelleJay you and I have spoken on this subject before and you know my position. For the record, I am all about strengthening policy, but not in the way you would do it. Writing guidelines to exclude people or sources from the encyclopedia is the wrong approach. We need to define, very clearly what should be included. I daily find people who have literally changed the world, but there are insufficient sources available about them to write a detailed article under our guidelines. Unless there are sufficient sources, written and curated by reputable authors/publishers, to write a complete and detailed biography, no article should be written under our current policies. Why should a sports figure, or anyone else for that matter, be included as part of an encyclopedia based upon a lesser standard in an SNG? That is the problem, and my answer to the question is they shouldn't, unless that have truly impacted the world. As I said above, I won't return to discuss this, you are well aware of my thoughts on the matter. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

        I know you don't plan to respond, but I do want to note that the sports SNG is explicitly *supposed* to be subordinate to the GNG, and this has mostly been reflected in the recent trends at AfD. Unfortunately, this wasn't always the case, so we've been slowly working through these tens of thousands of athletes trying to filter out the non-notables that accumulated in the early 2000s-2010s.

        I completely agree with Unless there are sufficient sources, written and curated by reputable authors/publishers, to write a complete and detailed biography, no article should be written under our current policies. While I think it's ridiculous that an article on a SNG-meeting footballer can be written sourced solely to stats databases, with the expectation that future editors will come along and actually write a biography, the purpose of the SNG is not to provide an alternate avenue to notability, but rather to identify subjects who are 90%+ likely to have received GNG coverage. And according to NSPORT, such articles can only exist for as long as notability remains unchallenged: GNG must ultimately be met for all athlete bios just as it should for (most) other people. So at its most beneficent, this allows article creation of subjects who don't have easily-accessible RS (at least to the article creator), which should help reduce bias against pre-Internet, different-language, physical-media-only topics. In practice, it also encourages mass microstub creation by a handful of editors who rarely return, producing an unsustainable number of essentially unpatrolled BLPs that never have their notability questioned and never get expanded. Editors are also disincentivized to nominate SNG-meeting bios for deletion due to the cadre of AfD participants who reflexively !vote "Keep, meets NCRIC" or "Keep, subject has [N] caps, sources must exist" or "Keep, subject is from the 1800s, we should wait until someone with access to their local newspaper archives can do an exhaustive search" or "Keep, subject is from [non-Latin-alphabet/non-Western/non-English-speaking country], we should wait until an editor shows up who has access to/can translate sources from [country]" or "Keep, subject was just signed to [team], he will surely receive coverage in the near future" at every AfD.

        This means the ONLY two ways to reduce the proliferation of athlete stubs are to 1) enforce the requirement for GNG in AfDs and make sure candidate RS actually provide SIGCOV and not ROUTINE transfer/injury/signing/match/interview coverage; and 2) restrict the number of future stubs that can be created by tightening the SSG criteria. Athletes who actually made an impact should receive articles regardless of whether they meet the SNG -- in fact, those GNG-notable sportswomen and men who don't meet the SNG are automatically going to have a more encyclopedic bio written about them (due to the requirement for GNG sources from the get-go) than those that scrape by via an SSG (and so only need stats refs verifying this unless and until notability is challenged). JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I’ve added a comment down in the next section, pretty much encompassing my views of all here to date. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with Nigej, who said "If we want to change the balance in this area, the only solution is to ditch GNG." I also think that calling thousands of male footballers "non-notable men" is higly counter-productive. Yes, the Wikipedia policies have serial flaws and should be changed, but claiming other articles are not notable is clearly not a solution. In the end we will all lose our articles if that reasouning continues. I believe anyone with true encyclopedic intentions is better than that. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• I think that NFOOTY is pretty clear in the fact that it does not mention sex as a criteria. It's a gender-neutral policy. It doesn't say "male/female players are notable if...", it just says players. So if a female player does meet the criteria of playing in a professional league or playing internationally, then they meet the critera and are deemed notable. I cannot believe we are having to have this conversation when it is pretty clear that the policy applies to all footballers, regardless of sex. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren supposition

Was wondering where Fram was canvassing people from, since there's no link to here in the AfD in question. It's here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Accusations_of_deliberate_misogyny_in_writing_NSPORTS_/_NFOOTY_at_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red Silverseren^C 20:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." You've been on Wikipedia too long not to have read the guidelines you cite. Ravenswing 21:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant revelation, that. If only I had said something like "I'll invite the people at NSPORTS and the football project over to give their view on how the guideline came to be. "[3], then perhaps people wouldn't have felt the need to wonder how all these people arrived here to comment on the blatant personal attack you started (and which some here saw fit to ignore, and some to support). Fram (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's see: telling blatant lies about the reason behind a notability guideline while discussing an AfD about sportswomen on a project devoted to having as much articles on women as possible is NOT canvassing, but informing people that they are being attacked without their knowledge IS canvassing? That's about it? Fram (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Do tell then, Fram, what was the purpose of the "fully professional" requirement? Since I was honestly being too narrow in what I said above, as the subject here is about women so I focused on that. But the real purpose of that specific SNG is much broader. The very idea that a top level sports team and its members for an entire country would not have reliable source coverage in that country is laughable at best and yet this SNG is set up so that if it is a poorer country where they can't be "fully professional" the SNG excludes them. Which runs into the same question I already asked multiple times above, what does notability and even presumed coverage to fit the GNG have to do with this "fully professional" SNG?

There is no connection and certainly no evidence ever presented that the full income has anything to do with that. From it's inception, the only usage of that SNG has been to specifically exclude articles on sports players in less wealthy countries, both men and women, with women being more specifically affected in the actually wealthy ones. What conceivable other purpose would that SNG have, since again, being "fully professional" has no connection to notability? At best, you could say it is effective in being applied to countries that do have teams that meets said requirement so you can keep off the lower tier league players from having articles. But that only applies to the very narrow circumstances of countries that do meet that in the first place. Silverseren^C 20:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This has taken a weird turn. Fram posted a number of neutral messages to suitable venues, yet this ongoing hyperbolic accusatory tone continues? Perhaps that's why people are turned off from trying to help if, from the get-go, all we have is finger-pointing and false accusations. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I would not consider them neutral messages in the slightest. Also, no one has yet to respond to my questions about the "fully professional" SNG. Neither have you here in replying to my comment asking it once again. Silverseren^C 21:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Feels like you've lost the plot on this one. Fram wasn't canvassing, they were simply trying to garner more interested people. Perhaps a closed house discussion was more your flavour on this one, like "they hate us and they don't care" approach which sadly isn't the case in any sense at all. Good grief, your starting position on this debate is catastrophic and completely destructive, which perhaps was your aim, but who knows, it's got lost in the heat. Suggest you take a LONG step back and work out what you really want out of this and realise that most of us would be willing to help if you stopped making it a fucking massive fight. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, please stop with the "f" word. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, when the false accusations get redacted, we can all grow up a bit. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren, I don't know what you are trying to attain here. Can you please stop it? It is not useful. What we need here is a reasonable tweak to a guideline whose effects are sexist--your accusations might fit in an argumentative essay in an upper-level writing class, but they are counterproductive here. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Fine. In general, it needs to be tweaked so that the top level leagues for a country are included. Whether that means changing it to "semi-professional" or something else to be more explicit in that regard, that is the desired outcome from what I can see. Silverseren^C 21:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

What it needs to do is fit the reasonable presumption that there will be GNG-level coverage about someone. If, and only if, it can be demonstrated that the large majority of people who would be covered under such wording would have GNG-passing material available about them, that might be appropriate. If not, it's not, as we would be providing bad advice on selecting appropriate article subjects and many of those articles would ultimately need to be deleted. Given the number of permastubs, I'm more convinced that the current criteria are too loose than too tight, but if someone can convincingly demonstrate that passage of the GNG for such subjects is all but assured, I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh for pity's sake. Do we really need to spell this out in small enough words? The reason why "professional" was enshrined in the first place was nothing more than the basic (and rather accurate) presumption that professional sports engenders the bulk of the media coverage necessary to pass the GNG. This isn't monolithic, of course: there have been and are many competitions where amateur sport gets media coverage. But that being said, I've a standard response for those wishing to expand the scope of NSPORTS: demonstrate to me that the rules changes you advocate will result in 90%+ of those meeting them readily passing the GNG, and you have my support. The notion that "top level leagues in a country" will fly is absurd, unless anyone thinks it will do Wikipedia good to have sports bios on pickleball beer leagues in Upper Slobovia. Ravenswing 21:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree per Seraphim. Probably a significant number of professional male players have no coverage at all and / or their coverage exists solely in obscure newspaper archives in their home country or national paper (if we are lucky) that we do not have access to, so we are dependent on clubs, and other encyclopaedia type content to even verify they existed. The habit of creating articles just because a person exists and is a football player and a professional and therefore notable I find pretty problematic. Way too much coverage is just WP:ROUTINE but because they are on a team-sheet it's like a stamp of authority to gather statistical cruft. Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Long-time football editor here. The ridiculous "fully professional leagues" essay is in perennial dispute because it's both sexist and irrational (check the talk page archives). As an SNG it fails since, as others have noted, it's such a poor predictor of notability. There is also a double standard applied by its WP:OWNers, since demonstrably semi-pro men's leagues are frequently kept on via the most laughably spurious pretexts, but semi-pro women's leagues are deleted off. I'm glad to see this embarrassment to the wider project finally getting a bit more exposure here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

its professional players because for the most part only pro players are considered important enough. doesnt matter if its male or female. and honestly, just playing for your country gets you a page in the first place which i disagree with myself. so lots of woman players have pages as a result of playing for their country.Muur (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, a large number of these articles are going to be BLPs and if we overhaul the SNGs to an alternative like 'has played at least one game in the top national league' then we are going to be including tens of thousands of people who are not in the public eye and for whom no substantial WP:RS coverage exists. The serious, serious issue with that, and something that has come to light in a few recent AfDs, is that we have no idea on even the basic facts, we may not even have knowledge of their full name, DOB, history of clubs that they play for. Do such people really warrant an article in a global encyclopaedia in this case? Such people are likely comfortable and better off in their own anonymity rather than having a sub-stub on Wikipedia with no RS to even go off. We need to tighten criteria rather than loosen it to avoid more hoaxes and factually inaccurate nonsense like Nelson Larios to perpetuate and be a black mark on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, there are some women's leagues where, despite not being 'fully pro', players with more than a handful of games appear to have enough WP:GNG coverage such as Damallsvenskan, Frauen-Bundesliga, Division 1 Féminine and probably a couple of others. A-League Women and Úrvalsdeild kvenna also heading that way too in last couple of years. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Rather than being some concerted effort to exclude female footballers from Wikipedia, I suspect the original intention of the SNG was to exclude non-notable footballers (of all genders)... but the nature of football means that because women's leagues are less often professional than men's leagues (compare even top-flight competitions in a variety of countries where the men are paid and the women are expected to maintain part-time jobs as well) the participants are excluded here. Professional football has received significant coverage for years, in print, on television, and on radio. It would be bonkers to suggest that someone playing for Chelsea or Manchester United (even decades ago) had not been the subject of coverage because of the nature of the coverage of football. But its is absolutely the case that someone could have played multiple games in the W-League (top-flight women's football here in Australia) recently and have never appeared on television, even incidentally, because not all of those games are televised. The only coverage some of those games got (let alone the people playing them) was a routine score-report in the paper the next day. So, then, it makes perfect sense to presume that someone playing in the W-League isn't necessarily notable (per WP:GNG) while someone playing in the (comparatively well-covered) A-League (the top-flight men's equivalent here in Australia) is notable. As a practical example, one of our most talented Australian national team members, Sam Kerr, plays for Chelsea F.C. Women when she isn't playing for Australia. Many of our top-tier female footballers play in England where they are paid as professionals, receive the sort of coverage you'd expect for playing in the FA Women's Super League, and would also (easily) meet WP:GNG. Suggesting that those, by comparison, who play in non-professional, far-less-covered leagues (be they male or female) is not misogynistic, or even unfair. Changing guidelines to simply "top flight" or "highest level" means presumed notability for a very large number of people who haven't received any coverage, even routine coverage, and will finish games this weekend and return to their jobs as childcare workers, builders, police officers, and librarians, comfortable in their non-notability. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"Rather than being some concerted effort to exclude female footballers from Wikipedia, I suspect the original intention of the SNG was to exclude non-notable footballers (of all genders)... but the nature of football means that because women's leagues are less often professional than men's leagues (compare even top-flight competitions in a variety of countries where the men are paid and the women are expected to maintain part-time jobs as well) the participants are excluded here" - bingo. GiantSnowman 15:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment on all the above: First off, the SNGs are always an additional guileline for GNG, not an exclusionary one. And I am long over these false narratives that changing the standard outlined in an SNG in order to acknowledge the legitimate accomplishments of women is “lowering” a standard. That’s total nonsense, so let’s move on. I recall a similar nonsensical misuse of the SNG about “professionalism” in sports regarding some significant (male) steeplechase jockeys of the 19th century, in a time when “gentlemen” were never to “dirty their hands” by being paid for competition in a sport. It didn’t take long to decide that, oh yes, we do have to acknowledge amateur sportsMEN in some circumstances. And of course, we long ago established that virtually all Olympic athletes are notable even if they are “amateur” ones. So here, if the SNG excludes significant women, then the SNG needs to be changed. (Similarly, the education SNG that supposedly holds anyone not a full professor isn’t notable until they win the Nobel Prize is also problematic, but that’s a different battle). Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Firstly, never forget Hanlon's razor, secondly put the blame where it really belongs - "Study: News, Sports Shows Devote Just 5% of Airtime to Women Despite Pledges to Boost Coverage". Times of San Diego. 27 March 2021. Retrieved 5 November 2021., and finally, all those bewailing the lack of sources - why are you not writing the sources - books and magazine, news and journal articles? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Need for encyclopedic tool development

Sad story of all, Wikipedia is 20 years and Wikipedians are not open enough for introspection and genuine acknowledgement of limitations. Where there is discouragement to introspection and acknowledgement of limitations hoping for corrective actions becomes difficult. Not sure we can address all of systemic biases but if structural difficulties are acknowledged properly, one can think of developing tools which can help some balancing.

Many systemic biases exist in real human world itself, some systemic biases (read rules) accrue from open to edit form of Wikipedia, but some rules come from pressures built up out of international level of politics and behind the curtain vested interest – the same standards are applied even where there is no international level conflict. In most rule making there were no statement of purpose given, rational SWOT analysis taken place or proper justifications sans logical fallacies nor proper understanding of what article expanding researching editor–author goes through among curator community. Curator communities (I do respect most of their work) sit like Kangaroo court without any substantial content contribution for years together. Even logical rational voices are shutdown and silenced on basis of sheer majority in Kangaroo courts held every now and then. World almost does not exists here beyond English language. In 20 years people don't get inspiration to update article Encyclopedia itself. Then how would one understand what encyclopedia is supposed to do and not in real sense and how one will take real encyclopedic causes forward and seek to develop tools to improve.

After writing this I am bowing out so pl. don't ping me. I do not wish to elaborate on this on this platform when I get time I will express with academic researchers and or other platforms which happy to entertain and open minded for frank and logical analysis.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Reboot the discussion

Rather than the needless and baseless accusations of deliberate bias, can we reboot the discussion here to understand what the members of this project think would be useful? I have no dog in the fight by any means, and would happily welcome a reduction in the notability guidelines as written to include more individuals but also think this project's "percentage" aim would be blown away by doing so. I'm not clear on what this project is aiming for in practical terms so please, I'd like to hear it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm also interested to hear a concrete plan, although I would predict that increasing the scope of the SNG is going to result in more accusations of bias in the future rather than less, given the common complaint that bit-part players for fourth-tier English clubs get articles while miscellaneous borderline-notable female scientists do not. Adding more sportsmen from the Diadora League Second Division is not going to help with that!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of rebooting a discussion that's gone off the rails into something more productive, but if you want the people you are complaining about to participate it's quite counterproductive to start off with a broad sweeping complaint that is basically a summary of all your previous grousing, so I'd suggest you make a gesture of good faith and reword the above to demonstrate that a productive discussion is indeed your goal. Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If you're in favour, answer the question. Reframing the question as "grousing" isn't WP:AGF for an experienced editor. Koncorde (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I suggest you make a gesture of "helping the encyclopedia" and trying to solve the matter at hand rather than continue to attempt to digress from it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Gamaliel I note you've neither retracted your awkward accusation nor contributed positively to this discussion. I think we made some progress without you though. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I do have other responsibilities. But I'm grateful that you are still able to devote some time to think of me. Gamaliel (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Such a gallant apology. No problem, it's on record that you have miserably failed to behave as a reasonable editor, let alone admin. Do your "other responsibilities", we'll try to fix the issues you thought I was (for whatever personal reason) not addressing. Glad you've left it to those of us who want to make a real difference. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything okay with you? You seem upset. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Only for you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, Rambling Man, but it's not going to get anywhere. Without reiterating my own (obviously strong) stance, there are vast gulfs between the warring camps, and there is no compromise or consensus likely to bridge them. Ravenswing 00:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I appreciate your attempt to reboot the conversation, but (as has been repeatedly stated) we are NOT talking about “relaxing” or “lowering” the notability guidelines. We are talking about restructuring them to eliminate systemic bias…the “professional” sports SNG example is just one. There are biases not only against women and BIPOC individuals, but trying to establish notability on people from the global south is yet another problem. Of course the issue is fraught, as there are multiple sides and many people are passionate about their own views. I honestly think it is perhaps impossible to change our policies/guidelines without some kind of outside input, as the divide between the !ILIKEIT vs !IDON'TLIKEIT sides is vast. I wonder if the the best way to move forward and shed light as well as heat on this discussion is to get a group of neutral academics (representing both the Global North and Global South), who have no stake in Wikipedia, review our guidelines and point out where they can be improved to fill our knowledge gaps and reduce systemic biases. Thoughts.?Montanabw^(talk) 19:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Well this is a good start. I'm not trying to presume to tell anyone what this project is attempting to achieve, just a summary of what I can see above. This is clearly no longer a discussion for this project alone because what I'm reading now seems to indicate that the site-wide notability guidelines need a review, and that will require a substantial effort. I would agree that taking it away from here and handing it off to some independent body would be useful if such a thing could be achieved. I think what's particularly miserable is all the accusations and such which have gone before which naturally divides any kind of community attempt to even define the problem adequately, let alone suggest tenable solutions which impact the entire project, and certainly aren't confined to WIR. Thanks for your input, appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• I love that idea Montanabw. Many of these discussions have gone on for years with no changes and just end up with frustrations on all sides. I'd welcome neutral arbitration as it were. Perhaps Women in Red could secure some sort of grant to commission a study. Thanks for your input too The Rambling Man, I agree it is a much bigger issue than just this project. SusunW (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think tapping up the WMF for a grant for this kind of thing would be definitely a good approach. After all, if WMF refuses to do so, that wouldn't look so good.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  So perhaps here you could work on a proposal for WMF, and once you have it, create a petition to garner support from the overall Wikimedia community, and then you have a real chance of success. Per Montanabw though, this mustn't be just about the WIR project, taking a more circumspect view of issues with the notability guidelines will serve the project(s) better in the long term and would garner more support in general I think. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  No clue how to obtain a grant, but I am sure there are people here who know how to do that. Also no clue how to garner support from the general editors, but I think it needs to be done. There are English speakers on every continent and if we are going to represent all of those communities, our guidelines need to have a structure that works globally and includes people and topics which should be covered in an encyclopedia across a broad spectrum. Frankly, I appreciate that calm and thoughtful discussion is being had about focusing on potential ways to move forward. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks to me like the kind of thing some of the participants in WikiEdu might be interested in supporting. This recent initiative with AIGA seems to be on similar lines. But I have no idea how to obtain support.--Ipigott (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, has an independent review of wikipolicy, like the one proposed above, ever been done? Not a point in favour or opposed, but would seem momentous if it was the first one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Cool. Thanks Ipigott Yes, I agree that WikiEdu might be able to help us. Not sure how we put together a group of neutral academics but maybe they can help. I truly think it needs to include African, Caribbean, Indian, and Pacific voices as well as input from the Americas and Europe to give us a balance and better idea of the strengths and weaknesses in our policies for a global encyclopedia. I think that we must figure out how to get community support and commitment to actually make changes based on neutral review of our policies and guidelines first. Otherwise, we spend money and time doing a review and it goes no where. AleatoryPonderings, there was a review of policy on the Croatian WP, but that was different, it was about disinformation. Ours is not a problem of neutrality in the information, but rather neutrality in inclusion criteria. SusunW (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I guess what I see from having read that report was that topics could be presented on the WP, but how they were presented was skewed. Our issue is that topics are being excluded from even being included. And then there is the issue of documentation. I see it as a real problem that a host of material, rather than the reputation of the author and curator is weighed here and that size of circulation has anything to do with validity of a source. I'd like that to be evaluated by professionals. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I must say I'm dubious about a panel of academics, and if anything is to be achieved the community would certainly need to be won over first. Most academics know nothing about WP's internal workings, as their papers all too often show, and are most unlikely to take the time to do the necessary learning for an excercise like this. As a prediction, they are far more likely to be struck by our geographical disparities than gender ones. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  They don't have to know how Wikipedia works to tell us if our notability and documentation standards are problematic. We wouldn't be asking them how to implement their analysis, rather to complete a "review [of] our guidelines and point out where they can be improved to fill our knowledge gaps and reduce systemic biases". And as to pointing out the geographical gaps, I'm not sure how that could possibly be a bad thing, Johnbod. It is an issue that we have been unable to solve, just like changing the notability guidelines. But that's just my opinion. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I don't say it is a bad thing - it's what I've always said, and many others too. But, despite many good efforts devoted to the Global South here, I notice this isn't called WikiProject Global South people in Red, and as always a very high proportion of the individuals mentioned in the various sections are American (or sometimes British & from other Anglophone nations). If they do delve deep they may well have things to say about our severe (imo) over-emphasis on biographies of all sorts, as opposed to other types of article. This is almost our worst problem if you ask me. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I mostly agree with that Johnbod and honestly I would be happy to figure out how we arrive at better balance. I do think biographies help people understand broader issues, however, so they are really important. Having worked on nationality law all year, I get that the legalese is daunting. However, an example of how women lost their nationality in a biography makes the legal situation more personal and leads to understanding of the situation and its consequences, if that makes sense. One of the reasons we focus on women's works, and I personally write anchor articles, is that they allow explanation of institutions, social movements, or whatever, and link to people who were impacted and involved to aid in understanding. Ultimately that's our educational goal, IMO, graspng the inter-connectedness instead of things happening in isolation. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm speaking strictly based on my interpretation of Montanabw's proposal. She specifically stated that her suggestion had to do with our notability guidelines. Nothing to do with our inner-workings of consensus, AfD, AfC, administration, etc. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I feel that an external analysis would be highly profitable. Wikipedia is silo-driven, full of enclaves and historical inertia. To give it a purely independent kick in the backside from a properly objective perspective on this subject would be brilliant. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think any committee would have to have background knowledge of AfD, AfC, NOT, RGW, and our notability guideline discussions to assess how well our criteria work. Our approaches are nuanced, inconsistent, and subjective enough that simply reading the guidelines would produce radically different interpretations between people (as it does now, with actual editors). There are also strong trends in AfD that aren't explicitly codified anywhere (applications of ROUTINE, (justifiable) bias against purely local coverage), not to mention all the essays that are referenced. So evaluators would certainly need to be aware of how our PAGs are put into practice. And whose version of "significant coverage" will be used -- or will the committee also be determining this? I also suspect that if this committee is composed of academics they would have a very different standard for what and who we consider notable in sports and pop culture.

  I'm not saying a committee wouldn't work, but I do think it would involve a lot more familiarization with Wikipedia than just reading our PAGs. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I also think they'd need a good understanding of the subject the notability criteria was for – in this case, without understanding the different levels of popularity of different types of football in different countries (which ultimately is what drives notability of the players), it would be impossible to make an informed judgement on whether the notability criteria was an accurate reflection of real-life notability. Number 57 21:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  No, I think an independent and objective view would be perfect. Without influence from Wikipedians, projects, inertia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite supportive of the comments made here regarding a WMF grant request for an outside group of academics with an "independent and objective view" (nicely said, The Rambling Man) to review EN.WP notability policies/guidelines and point out where they can be improved to fill gender-based knowledge gaps and reduce gender-based systemic biases (paraphrasing earlier comments by @Montanabw and SusunW). There are certainly other knowledge gaps and systemic biases (e.g., geography-based, language-based, and so forth), but I think our discussion here focuses on gender-based. (Right?) Note, there is a new process for WMF grant requests and it appears that Marti Johnson (WMF staff) coordinates "gender thematic area". Perhaps someone could reach out to her for guidance on what's doable and what's outside the scope of WMF funding? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Rosiestep and agree with your view The Rambling Man. JoelleJay, in my opinion, which carries no weight whatsoever, that is exactly what we don't want. To obtain an objective view of whether the policies actually convey criteria to determine if a subject is encyclopedic, or notable or not notable, or whether our documentation standards assist or fail in actually supporting notability or lack thereof, they should not be distracted with our interpretations of what we think the policies say or trends that aren't "explicitly codified anywhere". That would mean that their objectivity has been compromised. I'm not sure that results which provide "different standard for what and who we consider notable in sports and pop culture" would be a bad thing, but as I said, we would not be asking them how to implement the results whatever they are. Number 57 agreed, not only do we need to make sure that the reviewers cover different geographical areas, but that their skill sets cover an encyclopedic range of topics, but as Rosie said, our focus would be gender-based. Definitely won't be easy. SusunW (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh well if we just want a committee to guide us on what they believe would be the most consistent, fair, and reasonable notability criteria then that's doable without understanding Wikipedia itself. I just meant if they wanted to assess how we define and implement notability they would need a lot of background knowledge. Looking at the PAGs alone could produce a very different consensus interpretation among the committee than what is actually practiced -- which could be great (I am all for an academic treatment of sports/pop culture/everything notability, but I realize now that that wouldn't be clear unless you've been following my athlete AfD participation, and you've said in the past you don't visit that area anymore) -- but it wouldn't be an accurate evaluation of the community's actual implementation, that's all. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur with those holding the view that we want outsiders. The problem we are having here is everyone flinging around our guidelines and policies without really looking at how the outside world assesses notability. When the average pornstar or some minor league pro football player (any version) can get a bio faster and with less pushback than a Nobel Prize winner, we have a big problem—and yes, we have a big problem. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC) Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A "panel of outsiders" would lead to other people appealing to outside "sources" of authority to try and win Wikipedia arguments...that would be bad. (Could you imagine? "Well Dr. Smith says that this AfD is discriminatory so it should be closed") I think we're better off looking at peer reviewed research on Wikipedia to see if there are problems (which we are unable to identify ourselves) than trying to have other people directly fix it for us. As for the various topics and solutions proposed above, firstly; quotas are a bad idea, all they do is enforce things as a statistic and not based off how notable they are. Second, the SNG in question about fully professional sports teams (making all your money off football) was probably not written with the intention of being racist/sexist. I imagine some Western-origin editors thought it would be a good way to keep people from writing articles on non-notable, probably small-time white male European soccer players. Yes, this means a lot of women and/or global south players aren't presumed notable. I do not think the solution should be to rewrite the SNGs for presumed notability, the solution should be to get rid of most of the SNGs and let every player be judged equally by the merits of the sources. For example, as was pointed out in the large sports notability SNG discussion about Olympians, there are many people who pass the threshold of the guideline even when there's next to nothing about them in sources. If the sources don't care, why should we? The basic litmus test for notability is significant coverage in RS. As far as Global South players go, my experience in writing about Central Africa is that the regional media cares a lot about football (many African news websites have dedicated sports tabs) and thus they write about the players who they actually do care about. As long as you know where to look, you can find sources on the actually notable Global South athletes. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

And ultimately ... it might be heretical to say so here, where the term "systemic bias" is being thrown around like a self-evident evil, but I freely predict that a Wikipedia that is completely "balanced" would be something that almost everyone here would hate. As I suggested uptopic, "balance" means more than having a certain percentage of biographical articles about women. It would mean a certain percentage of non-gender articles. People would demand, reasonably enough, similar divvying up based on ethnicity, religion, language and nationality. One in five humans is Han Chinese; one in four professes Islam. Are we willing to see indefinite holds on biographical articles that feature neither until the percentages catch up? (Come to that, I wager the percentage of bios of United States residents is far, far higher than the 4% of the world's population the United States accounts for.) Ravenswing 08:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

1. Has correction of this bias been put up as a proposal? I think decisions on proposals are based on anecdotal experience or intuition or appeal to tradition, rather than statistics or evidence or trying it. These all favor the powerful. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

1. Why can't there be a different rule for women's football - there are 60 plus male football of hockey sports who have been given different options. NHL ice hockey has a notability of 1 match. And Netball the largest sport in Australia is not notable. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
2. Change the AfD Tool to assign women related AfDs to a new Women's AfD list - the existing AfDers are actually very good and their votes are monitored. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Monitor whether different NPP patrollers treat Wikiwomen differently
4. This twinkle development which would alert associated WikiProjects needs comment so that
5. Tool Users now cause 50 % of our editors who have their first edit reverted to quit. Long term prolific content creators are most likely to leave after emotional abuse. Both of these mean that the people who build community and content are decreasing; many projects are empty. .cThis article is marvelous about how tool use and exclusion of newcomers from policy is great.
6. We have to get rid of the Ayn Rand culture that is at our roots. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

As I come across these, I'm just adding a redlink at the bottom of Template:United States Women's Halls of Fame. And the latest is USA Powerlifting Women’s Hall of Fame. This one started in 2004 and lists all of the inductees through 2021. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• If ever there was a work in progress, women's halls of fame would be it. In my browsing through category listings, I found a lot more and added them to the above lnked template. This now includes international listings. I'll figure out the details later, but I think it's handy to have all the known Wikipedia lists of women's halls of fame in one navbox. At least for the time being. Feel free to edit any of the lists. The navbox is not a protected template at this time, so feel free to edit that also. — Maile (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I just came across a unique website: US Army Women’s Foundation Hall of Fame Inductees Not sure if I want to tackle this, but am dropping the link here so others are aware of this source. Over at DYK, DrThneed mentioned March 8, International Women's Day on the horizon. A very interesting cross section of women, those who serve their countries in uniform. I'm just guessing, but if the Army women have their own site, maybe the other branches of the services in other countries do also. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe those working on wp:Military History, e.g. Peacemaker67, would be interested in this.--Ipigott (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Have cross-posted. Great resource! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag Maile, it would be great to have a variety (in as many ways as possible) of DYK nominations to choose from, including women from the armed forces. I'll do a post about the International Women's Day DYK here, just clarifying the timeline for article creation. DrThneed (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

DrThneed yes, I would love to have a couple of the US ARMY women at DYK for Women's Day. — Maile (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've started working on a page for Judy Irona, a cinematographer who died this year. I'd appreciate some help on finding an image we could use on it. The draft page is User:EEHalli/Judy Irola. There's some great photos of her on the ASC obituary. Film history I can work on. Image rights? Not so good! EEHalli (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing on Flickr. You can always fair-use an image? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have been a little more explicit in my ask! I don't know anything about how to source and upload an image so it can be used. I'd love someone to prep that part for me so I can include it in the page. It ties to the December editathon on 2021 deaths. EEHalli (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

EEHalli, Fair use images can't be uploaded for use in a draft. There has to be an article in the main space first. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks WomenArtistUpdates. I've got the article ready to go to mainspace so I'll post a request for a review below. Then it would be great if someone could load a fair use image for me. EEHalli (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

EEHalli, I'll be happy to grab the top photo from that obituary on the ASC site and upload it as fair use and put it in the article. Be aware, sometimes if it is very close to a celebrities death date the "fair use" is questioned, because it is conceivable that we could have obtained permission for an image. It's a whole thing, but we can sure try. Just ping me when the article is ready. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216 Online events: New: "Double the lede!" | Women who died in 2021 Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change and preparations for our 2022 Climate initiative Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May I suggest that a project member write up this person. Apparently an early "It" girl, a pioneer of performance art, a collaborator with Andy Warhol, and an important art collector through the Miller Company Collection of Abstract Art; she collaborated with her 3rd husband in selecting items (and was also a major advisor to MOMA. She got a New York Times obituary, a good indication of notability. Mrdnartdesign has been trying to get her covered in the encyclopedia but going about it the wrong way, with Easter egg links on her name to the article on the art collection and apparent promotion of a site called Art Design Cafe, but this reference to that site that they added to My Bed does indicate 1935 press coverage of a performance art/public relations stunt. A disputed edit at Montecito, California incorporated the following additional reference: "Pener, Degen. (December 2006). The original It Girl [Emily Hall - von Romberg - Spreckels - Tremaine]. Santa Barbara magazine, pp. 200-05, 258-62." This would be almost 20 years after her death, and the title suggests it covers her early life. I also find Kathleen L. Housley, "Emily Hall Tremaine: Collector on the Cusp" in Women's Art Journal (2000), JSTOR 1358746 and this article; Housley wrote a book on Tremaine with the same title. (There's also a foundation named for her, and her papers are held somewhere.) I disagree with Mrdnartdesign's strategy of Easter egg links and statement on their talk page; Tremaine appears to be notable in herself and not merely through the Miller collection. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. You could use the Miller Co page as a basis with lots of refs. I am not sure what Easter egg links are. In any event, I hope to get off wiki cleanly after today. It's not worth it. BTW she was the art / design director at the Miller Co., then after became an entrepreneurial collector. Also there are many articles; she bought Johns's Three Flags for 900 and sold it for 1m to the Whitney in 1980-- lots of press across US.Mrdnartdesign (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:EASTEREGG is a Wikipedia term for a piped link that requires the reader click on it before they understand what the link is pointing to. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI Emily was already on our Missing articles by occupation/Film crew, so she already has a Wikidata number Q76524183 — Maile (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Emily Hall Tremaine full page view sources at Hathi Trust

• "Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation". National Center for Family Philanthropy. 15 February 2019.

• "A Finding Aid to the Emily Hall Tremaine papers, circa 1890-2004 | Digitized Collection". Archives of American Art.

• "Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation". Inside Philanthropy.

• Book available at Internet Archive: Housley, Kathleen L. (2001). Emily Hall Tremaine : collector on the cusp. Meriden, CT : Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation. ISBN 978-0-9705011-0-3.

Thanks, Maile66; film crew is one I'd missed about her :-) Somebody please write her up. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I agree - somebody write this woman up. There are a lot more internet search finds out there, but the above ones should be a good starter. — Maile (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  Dibs! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, learning I am not a wiki person, and still smashing my guitar wanting out, but if you go to the dreaded artdesigncafe website, and scroll down, there are a few hundred articles mentioning uber-cool Emily with many online in various places and linked. Most coverage is offline, and proquest in good. It might be easiest to start with the Glueck obit. She wasn't a "performance artist" but in 1940 stood up to a man alleging extreme violence. THEN with Mondrian's VBW, it was transformative, she dove into art. It was shocking to find such great work so quickly buried.

If I can mention something else. There is an artist, Leonor Antunes and if you search her, she in her work actively unearths really cool female artist and designer histories. It's a bit shocking how really good work can get buried in history. There are 1-2 designers from California and others from Brazil that she has unearthed, and that research incorporated into her work. She's very passionate about this. So if anyone was doing research to some level, I'd think an email could be sent to one of her art galleries, and it would end up in her studio, and they might send some clippings collected, etc.

Best wishes with your efforts. (former mrdnartdesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.152.70 (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi WiR! I've been helping with a small project to write WP pages at the university where I'm based (Wikipedia:GLAM/La Trobe University/2021 editathon). I'd very much appreciate an outside eye on the current drafts and articles if anyone has a moment.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

moving drafts is not something I've done before, but Draft:Elizabeth Essex-Cohen seems fine for main. ~ cygnis insignis 11:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Jamila Gordon has been declined, it just needs a simple copyedit and ought to be live. I've hesitated from just doing that, although notability is not being disputed I'm not comfortable fixing it for my own silly reasons. ~ cygnis insignis 12:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I moved a few drafts to mainspace: Yves Rees, Erinna Lee, Elizabeth Essex-Cohen, Jamila Gordon. TJMSmith (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)