Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

FAQ numbering

BI noticed here that the FAQ numbering skips 5. I'm thinking we should probably renumber the questions, but I wanted to check and make sure 5 wasn't being excluded deliberately before BOLDly making the change myself. If we're keeping the same numbering for historical reasons, we ought to make a note to that effect rather than just not having a Q5 at all. Hamtechperson 00:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. I forgot to renumber the questions when I deleted one that was no longer relevant. I've renumbered them now. isaacl (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Motorcycle Speedway

Hi all, not sure if I am in the right place but would like to nominate some standards of notability for motorcyle speedway, maybe in the Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Motorsports section, which I cannot seem to find existing at present. The sport is worldwide and extremely popular, in Poland for example it is the national sport (ahead of association football) and was once the most watched sport in the United Kingdom behind football. A simple Google search shows how popular the sport is. The two main competitions suggested for notability are the Speedway Grand Prix (previously called the individual world championship) and the Speedway World Cup/Speedway of Nations (the team world championship). Any help about how I go about this would be appreciated, many thanks Pyeongchang (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's essential that you understand that special notability guidelines do not confer notability, they are guidelines for editors to understand when a subject will likely meet notability. While a speedway criteria could be implemented, and would require a discussion between editors familiar with the area to decide on criteria, based on the recent events at AfD I am extremely doubtful that the criteria you nominate would be fit for purpose. It appears that even at the pinnacle of the sport, many riders receive very little coverage which could be used to pass the GNG. Although they may be important to fans of speedway, that does not necessarily mean they are of encyclopaedic significance. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes I understand that special notability guidelines do not confer notability but is this the right area to nominate to start a discussion? Looking at the list of sports in the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) there are many that are clearly below the level of motorcycle speedway. Rodeo for example is pretty much restricted to North America and yet has countless guidelines. Surely motorcycle speedway which is pretty much worldwide merits at least one guideline!. At least if I can nominate then other editors can give an opinion on the subject. Please advise, many thanks Pyeongchang (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    • It would probably be best to start the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycle racing to get input and draft a proposal. Then come back here with the proposal for an RfC to endorse. That would be my approach. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
    • The current criteria, like rodeo, are essentially only here for legacy reasons since they were created before NSPORTS2022. None of them were actually tested to demonstrate positive predictive power toward meeting GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• One sidebar thought, wp:NGeo can also affect wp:notability decisions on facilities like this. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • The proposal is not about speedways, as in racetracks, it's about a particular discipline of motorcycle racing called motorcycle speedway. oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, any attempt to add anything here is just going to be a waste of time. The editors who dislike sport will never allow any additions to this criteria. See e.g. proposals with 100% GNG compliance being shot down. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  We should just mark this page as historical and get it over with. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm an active NPP'er. I was a strong advocate of getting rid of the "did it for a living for 1 day" criteria for athletes because IMO it set the bar too low. But overall I would WELCOME expansion of the special notability guideline to provide more clarity on sports-related articles. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I put together what could be a draft of a replacement guideline and I welcome feedback. - Enos733 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

What an effort....that's quite a bit of work! It would be a few days before I have the wiki-time to review. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I still think the same of the draft as I did in archive 56: that won't work. An American football player must be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (i.e. one of the greatest 300 figures ever, when there's probably 50,000 notable figures) to be considered as "likely" to have significant coverage? That is only going to result in nominations for deletion like "isn't in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not notable" or "only was a starter in the NFL for six full seasons, not notable" – which are plainly ridiculous. The players in the Big Four leagues having presumed notability for playing a game is the only thing that made sense (especially post-1930, that criteria really worked); and although I know the anti-sports editors will never let this page return to sense like that, restricting it to only the greatest ever would only encourage silly time-wasting deletion nominations. Not to mention the biggest issue with NSPORT that isn't changed: the value of meeting the criteria suddenly becomes wholly worthless and irrelevant solely by one typing the two words "fails GNG" – no matter what the circumstances are. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but the community discussion that nearly led to the deletion of NSPORTS went the other direction - namely that participation is not sufficient for a stand-alone article. My goal is similar to yours - a desire for more clarity than this existing text and also to give guidance on how to evaluate sources based on the circumstances of the subject (prep athletes have the highest bar to clear, second-tier professionals a higher bar to clear, and professionals in a top-tier league the lowest bar to clear). Ultimately I see the sport specific text as useful outcomes for sports people, rather than a pass/fail bar. But at the same time, I also do not share your fear that an editor would attempt to nominate an NFL player post 1930 or an Olympic medalist. - Enos733 (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We have an Olympic medalist likely to be deleted at an AFD right now – and several others who've already been deleted. My main issue with the current NSPORTS which seems to stay the same with the draft is this: every single person meeting it can have their accomplishments / satisfaction of the criteria made wholly irrelevant and useless solely by someone typing the two words "fails GNG" with no real effort to find sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that is an expectation that can be made. I don't think we can expect that an editor won't bring any article to AFD and claim there are not sources or who will not do an adequate before search. I do agree with you that very few athletes that play in a top-tier league would fail GNG. That said, I can't think of a standard that is not participation-based that would meet the community's guidance. - Enos733 (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Eh, after twenty years' worth of sports articles at AfD passing solely by someone typing the two words "meets NSPORTS," with no real effort to find sources, I'm unmoved by the inclusionists' dismay. 2022 never would've happened without the unreasonableness of the one-game-equals-notability clergy, spearheaded by the likes of the cricket and footy projects, and if they now feel hard done by, they need only look into mirrors for the culprits. Ravenswing 13:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

For reference, a comparison with Wikipedia:Notability (sports). isaacl (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I have an unusual view of the sports SNG. Most view it (being a way to bypass GNG) only as a way to make the criteria more lenient. But in the fuzzy world of GNG on sports, it could cut both ways. Another gorilla in the living room on sports is that "coverage" is usually itself a form of entertainment rather than than "just getting it/them covered" and so can be less indicative. The current defacto "GNG only" criteria can result is somewhat arbitrary decisions in both directions. On some where included coverage is very weak, certain advocates just say "of course coverage exists, it just hasn't been found yet" (including in some presumed search of non-english sources, and no addressing on whether it is GNG coverage ) In the other direction, an extremely thorough / strict reading of GNG is applied, which is stricter than the norm. IMO more clarity and guidance along the "middle ground" in this SNG would be helpful. Not only would it affect the SNG "route in" but it would also influence edge case GNG decisions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that most view the sports-specific guidelines on having an article as a way to bypass the general notability guideline. Many discussions have found a consensus that they are used to help predict if the general notability guideline is likely to be satisfied. I agree that there is a promotional dimension to a lot of sports journalism, and so this has to be considered when evaluating the suitability of a source in demonstrating that the general notability guideline has been met. isaacl (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

there is a promotional dimension to a lot of sports journalism, and so this has to be considered when evaluating the suitability of a source We already have WP:INDY that precludes use of sources written by or affiliated with the athlete or the team. We also exclude fan blogs and such that do not qualify as WP:RELIABLE. Those are reasonable safeguards. However, we do not and should not exclude sports journalism in reliable, independent sources on grounds that sports journalism has a "promotional dimension". Cbl62 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that sports journalism does have a promotional dimension, the same can be said elsewhere. Does not arts journalism -- book reviews, movie reviews -- have not only a promotional dimension, but that's even more of a primary focus of the coverage? Ravenswing 19:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, promotional journalism is not only limited to sports (restaurant reviews and travel journalism being other prominent examples). This does not mean that all articles in this genre are promotional. Nonetheless, it's a consideration that must be evaluated for each specific citation when determining its suitability for demonstrating that the standards for having an article have been met. isaacl (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I'd use the word "promotional". I'd say that to some extent it's writing to entertain in addition to writing to inform, and more so than in most other fields. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers often cover local sports teams and restaurants in a promotional manner (though not exclusively) because that's what its readers want to read. The New York Times travel section has many (though not all) articles that have a very promotional tone. isaacl (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think that I again failed to adequately communicate my point. Since it's sort of a sidebar item, I think I'll just leave it at that. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I didn't mean that sentence the way that it sounded. My "bypass" statement was just about the flowchart/structural aspect, and about SNG's in general. And while I'm a bit skeptical about the "predictor of GNG" capability, I accept such wording (which is universal in SNG's) and that it is a good thing in the big picture of wP:Notability. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

To restate the point which I intended to make, despite the common "flowchart" view that expanding a SNG makes entry more lenient, I am of the view that expanding the sports SNG would provide more guidance which would tend to work in BOTH directions. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment of how SNGs like this play out. Without the SNG, borderline cases come down to a subjective evaluation of whether the GNG criteria are met. With clear criteria, borderline cases that don't meet the SNG will be more likely to get declined/deleted than they otherwise would be, while other articles with weaker citation work but a clear claim to the SNG will be approved. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. And it also provides more guidance to us NPP'ers on those cases. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

And this is why I feel it is desirable to have a full revision of the guideline - to clarify existing consensus around the need to prove reliable sourcing and also give guidance for editors about which athletes are likely to be notable. - Enos733 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

How would an article with weaker citation work have a clear claim to the SNG? The SNG requires all articles actively cite an IRS source of SIGCOV and ultimately requires GNG be met. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

NSPORT has always been quite clear that GNG is ultimately necessary for notability, and after the RfC the understanding that NSPORT subcriteria should predict GNG is essentially universal. Certainly out of the hundreds of post-2022 AfDs I've been in there is broad recognition that GNG is needed and that NSPORT itself does not confer notability directly. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Local sources must be independent

This SNG currently says:

Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be independent of the subject...

I've got no objection to this, but it's kind of silly. By specifying that local sources have to be independent (to count towards notability), we're implying here that means national and international ones don't. This is nonsense; only independent sources count towards notability, full stop.

I'd try to WP:PGBOLDly fix this, but I'm not sure what problem is trying to be solved. Which of these sounds most like the problem?

• A bona fide newspaper in a small town runs an article about a local athlete, possibly because there isn't much other news to report this week.
• A newspaper writes a puffy human interest story gushing about an athlete's positive qualities, because civic boosterism sells papers.
• A newspaper writes a positive article about a local athlete, who also happens to be the newspaper owner's nephew (or next-door neighbor).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• One problem that I am seeing more and more of in the US (and, I don't see it going away anytime soon, considering the sad state of local journalism in the US today), is that many local US papers post-COVID no longer employ actual reporters anymore to cover local sports teams. But they still want to provide some coverage, to check a box, I guess, and be able to say that they're still covering them. So, they resort to re-printing press releases directly from the team, written by team employees, and using that as their "local coverage" of the team. That, I do have a problem with, as the material is originating from the team themselves and is generated by people who are paid directly by the team to provide PR for the team. But, like I said, in some geographical areas of the US, in terms of print media, that's literally all that there is available anymore. I'm not sure exactly how we want to deal with the issue moving forward, but, like I said, I don't see it going away anytime soon. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Is that really a "local" problem? I assume that regional and national newspapers also don't send reporters to the games. In fact, I'd assume that regional and national newspapers are less likely to do direct reporting than the local media. The cost is lower: they can both get free tickets/entrance, but the local reporter just has to go down the street, or perhaps across town, and the further away places would have to pay for flights, hotels, meals, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Time for an incremental start on a "big fix" here?

Well, the removal of the "did it for a living for one day" criteria stemmed the torrent but we still have quite a mess. (I'm an active NPP'er) In essence, for GNG dependent articles, GNG is not being implemented at AFD. And folks that lament the narrowing of the SNG criteria are probably falsely imagining that the GNG standard is what now applies.

Here are two very common situations:

• "Stats only" articles. E.G for a team's season. With zero sources other than for the stats, much less GNG sources or anything even near one GNG source.
• Basic article on a less-notable professional with no sources anywhere near GNG sources. With a few of the basics put into sentences like "played for the xyz team starting in 2012"

There are LOTS of these new articles.

When I AFD one of these, it inevitably goes like this:

• "Of course they are notable" "They are obviously notable" "The NPP'er is stupid not to know they are notable" (with no support for that statement, or just saying that many people know them)
• The NPP'er didn't look hard enough for coverage (the coverage that nobody else found and is not in the article or AFD discussion) And note the use of the term "coverage" instead of "GNG coverage"
• "Coverage exists" but doesn't find any and again note excluding "GNG" from the term when discussing coverage.

I get so tired of this (including getting beat up at AFD) that I just pass the slightly better than normal sports articles and just leave the other non-notable ones in the 13,000 article NPP backlog disaster for someone else to deal with.

One idea would be to create another section in the SNG, another "way in" that roughly says:

• Professional athletes with a larger than typical amount of included sources which provide published independent in-depth coverage of the athlete
• For "seasons" and other articles which are heavy with stats, inclusion of sources which provide published independent in-depth coverage where the coverage is about the season (or topic) as a whole, and substantial prose text developed from those sources.

This wording is structurally a different approach (especially with the emphasis on included sources.) And also while it prima facie / structurally makes it more lenient by offering a different "way in" I think that it will be influential is seeing that GNG (or something close to it) is being followed for GNG dependent articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I think this is as good a place as any for me to raise again the point that the relevant standard for Sports bios, post-2017 NSPORTS RfC, ought to be WP:NBASIC rather than WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, the reason the 2017 discussion didn't reach this conclusion was (1) very many participants in that discussion, both inclusionists and exclusionists concerning sports biographies, had at best only a very approximate underanding of WP:NBIO, and (2) some number of editors participating seemed to be under the misapprehension that NBASIC is more lax than GNG, when (as far as I can determine) it is slightly more restrictive. Without the perception that NBASIC would somehow be a loophole, perhaps there would no longer be a motivation to circumvent the logic of NBIO by asserting that there is one category of humans to which the otherwise universal standard of NBASIC does not apply but instead a marginally more permissive standard (GNG) does? If we are going to change anything, could we please fix this? I don't think there was a clear consensus to override NBASIC for sports biographies, but the (difficult) close has a number of "approximate" conclusions (or apparent conclusions) of which this is the one I personally find most irritating. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

As I've stated previously, Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Basic criteria is a summary of Wikipedia:Notability § General notability guideline, placed in the context of biographies. Each of the bolded words in the first sentence of the "Basic criteria" section has a corresponding bullet point in the "General notability guideline" section. The basic criteria section derives from the general notability guideline section and is not a replacement for it. isaacl (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I 99% agree with Isaacl's, response, the other 1% being to note that it includes a provision allowing combining non-GNG sources when GNG sources do not exist. (IMO a bad idea) I'll also note that in the common cases noted above, the respondents aren't even taking the trouble to quote guidelines (including using this provision). With just vague unsupported claims that they/it us "notable" or "sources probably exist". Hence my emphasis on included sources. I realize that this does not fit the classic prima facie reasoning (that notability is about whether the sources exist, not whether anybody has actually provided them) but IMO something is needed to solve a pretty common problem. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

In my view, that's just an additional description of the significant coverage portion of the general notability guideline and so doesn't amount to a replacement of its guidance. isaacl (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

North8K, I understand that some editors understand NBASIC as allowing combining non-GNG sources when GNG sources do not exist, but I think this is a misconception. There is, in fact, nothing in the GNG - at least not that I've seen - that would require editors to insist that the significant coverage element of GNG ought to be assessed per source rather than of the set of available sources as a whole.

Also, while some editors might assume that it does, GNG does not itself contain any "depth" requirement. Therefore, it is equally true under GNG as in NBASIC that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - that isn't a difference between the two.

What is different is that under NBASIC multiple published secondary sources are required, and are required to be intellectually independent of each other. While the GNG encourages multiple, intellectually independent sources, it does necessarily require them for a topic to achieve GNG notability, which is why I regard NBASIC as (slightly) more strict. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem is twofold, and any "fix" done on this end won't be worth a tinker's damn. There is no rule, regulation, tweak or guideline that will prevent lazy, indifferent AfD voters from being lazy, indifferent, and/or downright stupid. Nor is there any rule, regulation, tweak or guideline that will compel closers to hold by valid policy rather than by headcount. Ravenswing 14:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

If I'm understanding North8000's original post correctly, they're proposing that guidance should be modified to follow what is being done in practice by the evaluators of consensus for deletion discussions, which would bring the two into alignment. Of course, I agree that nothing compels deletion discussion participants to follow previously-established guidance, though doing so may be more persuasive for some, and the guidance on determining rough consensus does not compel evaluators to discount viewpoints that are contrary to guidelines (only views contrary to policy are mentioned). This essentially reduces guidelines to prepackaged sets of arguments that can be used in deletion discussions. (I understand why the editors who like to discuss these matters prefer a grassroots approach to the creation of guidance, but it works best when everyone is willing to go along with a general approach. When there is dissension, it leads to wasted time trying to get people to show up at every discussion so that consensus can be re-established over and over again, and inconsistent results when turnout varies.) isaacl (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I feared that one of the benefits of SNGs was for non-domain experts at NPP to be able to quickly assess popular topics . WP:BEFORE sometimes requires expertise to know where to look, that a basic Google search from those not in the know will miss. With everyone's experience now, I wonder if we can reasonably recreate some SNGs on perennial topics for NPPers, while avoiding non-objective criteria this time.—Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  The main issue with wp:before is that, at any given time, the 15 people who do 90% of NPP's, and a 13,000 article backlog there's only so much wp:before a NPP'er can do. And folks amongst the zillion editors who didn't bother to / instead of looking for sources, just beat up the NPP'er for not finding the sources that the complainer never bother to look for or find. I've had sports fans beat me up for not also searching through non-english sources and analyzing them with respect to GNG, at the same time they didn't and don't look for sources. North8000 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's hard enough trying to sift through unreliable sources in English search results. Most en.WP editors are ill equipped to use non-English sources and judge reliability or weed out trivial mentions and routine coverage. The problem that was the demise of NSPORTS is that some people assumed without basis that the "top" league(s) of any country of any sport must be notable and have coverage, and the fact that Google came back with any results proved it for them. —Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two main goals of my proposal are:

• Emphasize included sources, i.e. demonstrated wp:notability.
• Additional emphasis which would weigh in a bit against "stat's only" articles...most as a reminder that they typically don't demonstrate compliance with GNG. There are a lot of people generating lots of stats-only articles.

I guess you could call my proposal to be to add something on the order of an nsports version of WP:NBASIC to nsports, albeit with details a little different, along the lines of my idea above. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

So this remains my idea. Add a version of WP:NBASIC to nsports, which includes requirement of inclusion of GNG or near-GNG sourcing. So this discourages mere unsupported "it exists" claims. Structurally, since it is just another "way in", it doesn't tighten up the requirements. But it would probably be influential towards emphasizing included sources. Technically, by including "near-GNG sourcing, it loosens the requirement, but the current defacto requirement is even looser than that. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, including a reference to a source suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline is already part of this guideline. It's the second sentence in the lead paragraph, set in bold. The need for such a reference is also described in the "Basic criteria" section. isaacl (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The existence of guidelines do not preclude !voters ignoring the guideline. Is this post looking to avoid false-positive AfD nomintations (i.e. pages that don't demonstrate notability but are ultimately notable topics) or to improve quality of Afd !votes by participants? —Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The main goals are what I described above, but expanding on the first one, it is to shift things a bit, that the creators/keepers should include and identify GNG sources and the onus is a bit more on them to do so. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Although personally I think the best way to keep Wikipedia viable with its large number of articles is to spread the workload by giving more responsibility to an article creator for including appropriate citations at the start, for better or worse, the consensus of English Wikipedia editors who have discussed this matter in the past still supports stub creation. (I appreciate why those editors feel that way; I just weigh the tradeoffs differently than they.) isaacl (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO the issue isn't stub creation. It's lack of GNG sources in GNG-dependent articles. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, I agree with you, but so far, that viewpoint has not gained consensus support amongst those who have discussed the matter. isaacl (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The first point is already covered in this guideline page. The second is a content issue, which the current consensus of English Wikipedia editors who like to discuss these matters considers to be separate from the standards of having an article. Tweaks about these is just going to give those who like to repeat these points different text to link to. If the evaluators of consensus aren't discounting views contrary to the existing guidelines, I don't think shifts in emphasis is going to alter their deliberations. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think that an incremental path forward will work (and nor will deleting the SNG). The community is clear that at least one GNG source is required for all sportspeople. Any sport-specific wording will inevitably be a guideline, rather than a presumption of notability. That said, we can (and I think we should) suggest that a professional in a top league is more likely to meet GNG than someone who plays for a second- or third- division team. All of that said, I did start a draft of a replacement guideline. I appreciate feedback. Also isaacl did put together a comparison with Wikipedia:Notability (sports). --Enos733 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have incorporated feedback encouraging more prose in my draft. I don't think it will necessarily help editors who want to ignore the SNG, but it could help at NPP or at AFD. - Enos733 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  At least for the top US sports (Am football, basketball, baseball), at this advanced stage of Wikipedia, the players' articles would have been created (and already be notable) long before hitting those criteria. So not much help for NPP. —Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  Since the community rejected a "played in a top-tier professional league" standard, the recourse to needing at least one GNG source is sensible even as it doesn't help much at NPP. - Enos733 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Requiring that all sports articles contain substantial content in order to exist – something that not a single other subject is held to – is something that I could not support and contradicts the notability page itself: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't review that proposal, but there is a problem that is unique to sports.....massive amounts of "stats only" articles. And the above-described problems with these at AFD. WP:Not is also relevant to these. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is it unique to sports though? I've seen the same issue with aviation articles and there is currently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability about several thousand articles about train stations with questionable sourcing. Alvaldi (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  I agree - I don't think it is unique to sports, but I think that it is easier for editors to make changes in a table than to take the next step to find (for sports) season previews or recaps (for stations) information about their construction and include that in the lede sections. - Enos733 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  In this case my comment that you are responding to was about large amounts of 'stats-only articles and I think that that issue is unique to sports. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  NOTSTATS is a content issue. The content can be boldly deleted. The topic's notability and existing policy is the bigger dilemma. Per WP:NEXIST:

  The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article.

  Without SNGs, that task required more due-diligence and domain expertise. —Bagumba (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• In order to define the problem more clearly, it would be helpful if someone could provide some examples of what they consider to be "stats only" articles. Sports coverage naturally and properly includes statistical information. Stats are how we measure performance and importance of athletes and sport teams. What WP:NOTSTATS says is that we shouldn't have articles that simply recite a load of statistics and offer no context or explanation. Here is the precise language of NOTSTATS: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Cbl62 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty widespread for sports. I'd hate to put any individual editor on the spot by making their article an example here. Typicall the only prose is a few sentences derived from the stats, and there are not GNG sources. Maybe if I find several it wouldn't be so bad. I've even asked for guidance on these at project sports (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#"Stats only" sports articles on non-SNG topics) and feedback sees to be that they should not exist. But large amounts of them are routinely being produced. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

OK I'll start adding some random ones currently in the NPP que: North8000 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 2014 Bhayangkara F.C. season
• 2024–25 in Indian football
• ÍBV (men's handball)
• 1969–70 Northampton Town F.C. season
• 1981–82 Northampton Town F.C. season
• 1982–83 Northampton Town F.C. season
• 1983–84 Northampton Town F.C. season
• 2022–23 Dhaka Second Division Cricket League
• 2024 Liga Dominicana de Fútbol This one has more prose but it's just a statement derived from the stats plus a restatement of the general rules

Thanks. The examples help. I see this as more of a GNG problem that a STATS problem. I'm more familiar with the American football area, and, there too, we have many season articles stubs sourced only to comprehensive databases like Sports Reference, the now-defunct College Football Data Warehouse, or a team's self-published media guide. A decade or so ago, there was a tendency to create season articles sourced only to such databases. I was guilty of that myself, and I've been going back to add better sourcing to those articles over the last couple years. I've also seen a growing tendency to create season articles for very minor, lower tier teams where SIGCOV is unlikely to exist. One possible solution would be to extend prong 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC to season articles. Prong 5 states: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." If consensus supports it, we could change "sports biographies" to "sports biographies and season articles". I would have no problem with such an amendment. Cbl62 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: "I see this as more of a GNG problem that a STATS problem." Those are sort of saying the same thing; the stats just kind of obscure and enable the problem..no GNG sources and thus no real article content.North8000 (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Some examples from the college football context include 1880 CCNY Lavender football team, 1884 Amherst football team, 1915 Cal Poly Mustangs football team, 1916 Tusculum Pioneers football team, and 2013 Rhodes Lynx football team. Extending SPORTBASIC, prong 5, would help the problem however it is characterized. Cbl62 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that that would be a good albeit small move. It doesn't make a major shift because that clause/requirement is not implemented even for the articles (bios) that are currently included.North8000 (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of those above seasons, e.g. 1969–70 Northampton Town F.C. season, list offline books that discuss everything included. 2024–25 in Indian football is a broad article on a concept absolutely notable: Indian football receives extensive coverage each year. Remember that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article – just because the shape of the article may be poor, absolutely does not mean the topic does not warrant an article. A good number of them have GA / FA potential if there's an interested editor; see e.g. this FA on a fifth-tier English football team's season. Giving the greenlight to remove any season article not with a SIGCOV source (which, for season articles, can have very different interpretations – I once remember a season article with decent prose and over 70 long newspaper sources as well as a half-dozen books, etc., being advocated for deletion because 'none of them are sigcov as we don't have academic journals from 50 years afterwards examining this particular season in-depth') would result in the removal of many thousands of notable topics. It feels like we'd be moving backwards. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The difficulty is how can NPP reasonably determine a notable season page from a crufty one? —Bagumba (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it such an issue that requiring the mass removal of thousands of notable articles is the only solution? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not think any mass removal would be appropriate either, but extending prong 5 to season articles puts the onus on article creators to come up with at least one piece of SIGCOV in the article -- which is not difficult for a notable team season. I, too, recall the AfD where someone argued that academic journals were needed to pass GNG - the argument was ridiculous and did not prevail. Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I had to take it to deletion review myself to prevent that argument from prevailing, and without my intervention, it would have. You know that many of the editors who created these season articles are no longer active, and know that any requirement of significant coverage in the article for a particularly disliked type of article is going to result in attempts to mass remove them. Yes, it is not difficult for me to add a source for e.g. 1937 Philadelphia Eagles season, but times that number by 2,000, and suddenly it is not so easy any more. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, maybe take that article as an example, could you find a GNG (or even near-GNG) source for the season? North8000 (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The articles in question are 1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season and 1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season (130+ refs total with well-sourced prose), if you'd like to take a look. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My post was under your 1937 Philadelphia Eagles season post. Those other two would not even be in question. North8000 (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, my copy of Ray Didinger's Eagles Encyclopedia devotes a page to it, not to mention there's a good chance one of the 3,000 newspaper stories on the Eagles from a three-month span in 1937 is significant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is sort of a microcosm of the discussions that occur. Instead of settling it by providing one GNG or near-GNG source, you are in essence saying "go look at thousands of search engine hits, there must be one in there somewhere." North8000 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I did provide a GNG source: the Eagles Encyclopedia. I also thought it worth mentioning that for some of these, there is so much coverage. E.g. I could easily develop something of GA-length or better if I tried for it. That may not be possible for all of them (all the 'stats' articles), but will be for a large percentage if someone puts in the effort (see e.g. the fifth-tier season that became an FA I mentioned above). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I respectfully disagree with you on several levels:

• First you are talking about undeveloped articles whereas what is being discussed is articles where wp:notability has not been established.
• Second, I was responding to a request for some "stats-only" articles, you are implying that I said that all of these should be deleted. You also cherrypicked the 1 of the 9 that I provided that has the most likelyhood of expansion.
• Third, structurally, the small change discussed is just a tweak in the SNG. While it might (hopefully) have a bit of a psychological effect that people should actually provide at least one such source, it doesn't structurally affect the GNG route which is the route claimed on these. And even withing that limited scope, it merely says "find one source of the type that it is already required to have instead of just claiming that they exist without finding one.
• Even if there were an impactful structural change of requirements, equating it to a deletionfest of existing articles vs. something that the community would want applied on new articles and the two are not automatically linked and community consensus is usually to not automatically consider them to be one and the same.
• Anything in notability guidelines does not simply greenlight removal. The folks weighing it at AFD do that.
• This subthread is about "stats only" being mere a flag of no suitable sources and thus no content (other than stats). So we're talking about those rather than the type of article which you are describing.
• Removal of thousands of notable articles based on wp:notability is sort of an oxymoron.  :-)
• You are in essence saying that a "lots of suitable coverage probably exists" argument should be sufficient. This tiny proposed change just leans a bit towards saying "OK, find just one"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While the article is very undersourced, the ÍBV (men's handball) team was the runner-up for the national handball championship last season, one of the most popular sport in the country. Every aspect of that team and other teams under the ÍBV umbrella get pretty well covered in the national media.[1]. Alvaldi (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I just wish the articles people made weren't so incredibly trashy. I see the Northampton ones up above are all using Weebly extensively as a source, which is just some person's blog. I honestly have no idea why Weebly and Blogspot aren't on the banned sources to even use list. Silverseren^C 17:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, I was responding to a request for "stats-only" articles and just quickly came up with 9. It was NOT me saying that I think that every one of them should be deleted/merged. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

In case anybody is wondering, my own opinions come from two completely different places:

• As a Wikipedian, I think that Wikipedia is about creating useful-to-the-public enclyclopedia articles and a nothing-but-stats "article" is not that or even a contribution towards that. An article on a somewhat prominent team or player which has substantial article-type content from published sources, I'd like to be in/kept, even if it falls a bit short on not 100% meeting GNG. Which is sort of the norm anyway.
• As a NPP'er I'd like the dilemma resolved one way or the other. By even a slightly relaxed version of GNG we should be AFD'ing about 75% of new sports articles. But when taking even the weakest of them to AFD all of the above stuff and grief happens.....hand waving and complaints, but no sources found that are even near-GNG.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• A couple points:

1. There was worry that prong 5 of SPORTBASIC would lead to mass deletion of notable articles, and it has not. I think it has had a beneficial effect of telling article creators to do some due diligence before creating sports biographies. The "substub" problem has greatly reduced with biographies, as we no longer see mass creation of such substubs sourced only to a database. I think extending that standard to seasons would have a similar positive impact on new article creation.

2. I reject the notion that feature stories about each of a team's games do not consitute SIGCOV of the team. The nature of sports coverage is that teams are covered in pre-season articles, in pre-game stories, in post-game stories, and occasionally in post-season awards and wrap-up coverage. As between these, SIGCOV is SIGCOV IMO. They all represent coverage of the team. Otherwise, we would have folks trying to argue that articles on major seasons like 1961 Texas Longhorns football team aren't notable because the coverage arises in the context of each of the games played by the team. The real inquiry and debate IMO should focus on whether the coverage (be it pre-season, during season, or post-season) is truly "significant".

Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

There was worry that prong 5 of SPORTBASIC would lead to mass deletion of notable articles, and it has not. – you may not agree with the characterization, but WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:LUGSTUBS2 have absolutely resulted in the removal of many notable articles. Not to mention that many other likely notable articles have been removed gradually by that criterion, due to it meaning absolutely no WP:BEFORE is necessary – one can simply claim 'fails GNG' without any effort whatsoever and that's the end of it (e.g. does anyone seriously think arguably Niger's greatest athlete and coach from the offline era has zero coverage?). Why should sports season be held to a standard literally no other class of article – with the exception of sports biographies – is held to? You may personally reject the notion that feature stories about each of a team's games do not consitute SIGCOV of the team but that doesn't mean the anti-sport editors are going to agree with it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding to a few subthreads, while many topics have promise for development into an article, IMO a "nothing but stats" article is not a real start on such. IMO it's sort of like saying I provided a can of car wax called it "partially finished Ferrari, which could become a really good car". North8000 (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NTEAM and WP:NORG

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#This_guideline_and_WP:NTEAM, if you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)