User:SportingFlyer/GNG and NSPORT

There's been some debate recently with regards to the general notability guideline, WP:SNGs, and these apply to WP:NSPORT. Any article or topic falling under WP:NSPORT must ultimately meet the WP:GNG, unless a different WP:SNG applies, but arguments to the contrary exist. This essay is meant to discuss why NSPORT requires GNG, and the main arguments against are flawed.

Why NSPORT requires GNG
There are several reasons why NSPORT ultimately requires GNG:
 * 1) NSPORT itself contains several clues. The opening line reads This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.
 * 2) The second sentence under WP:NSPORT "applicable policies and guidelines" reads In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline.
 * 3) The first sentence under WP:SPORTCRIT reads A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject., which is more specific than the GNG.
 * 4) Sports SNGs must be written to predict that the GNG has been met. Most of the debate around sport SNG/GNGs comes from SNGs which are too inclusive, though not every player which passes a SNG will meet GNG. Some, such as WP:NFOOTY, include the GNG within the SNG.
 * 5) A 2017 RfC closed with a finding of consensus that any sports SNG does not override the GNG.

Arguments against this
Here are some of the popular arguments against NSPORT requiring the GNG ultimately being met.
 * 1. The second sentence of NSPORT says, in bold, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Therefore, it's clear that sports SNGs are different than the GNG.
 * That sentence specifically refers to the sources in the article. When creating a sports article, especially a biography, you must show either that the GNG is met, or that the SNG is met. The assumption, since all SNGs must be written to predict whether GNG is met, is that if you can show the SNG is met, the GNG should also be met. It does not provide an alternative means of notability.


 * 2. If the GNG is required, this means NSPORT has been deprecated.
 * Sports SNGs provide shortcuts to the GNG. Most topic-specific SNGs across the site actually predict when we will have enough secondary coverage to write a stand-alone article on a specific topic. NSPORT is no different. Also, per the article sourcing, it allows for articles on players who clearly have notability, but have under-developed articles. This is especially true for players playing in countries where English is not the primary language for sources. For instance, if there is a player who has only played in Japan, but a spot-check of similar players shows they all meet GNG through Japanese-language sources, we can easily assume that player is also notable.


 * 3. NSPORT says Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines). This means the SNGs are clearly distinct from GNG.
 * All this says is that a player or topic doesn't meet the SNG, they can still be notable through other ways. This does not exempt the player from needing to meet the GNG.


 * 4. WP:N says a topic can be notable if it meets the GNG or an SNG. Therefore, sports articles must only meet the sports SNG to be notable.
 * The first sentence is true, but the conclusion is incorrect. Any article falling under a sports SNG should meet the GNG, but we have explicitly required the GNG to be met for sports articles. This is not true in other topic areas, especially WP:NPROF, and should be treated as broad guidance.

Conflicts
As I see it, two primary conflicts exist between GNG, SNGs, and NSPORT:
 * Since we do not require 100% adherence between SNG guidelines and GNG, there may be some players who meet the SNG, but fail the GNG.
 * Some SNGs are not closely tailored enough to the GNG to accurately predict whether a player likely meets the GNG.


 * In the case of the first conflict, we will not have enough information to write a reliable article on the player or subject. However, the presumption of notability remains, especially for subjects who may only be written about in foreign sources, or where identified but un-accessible sources exist.
 * In the case of the second conflict, and the discrepancy between the GNG and the SNG is known, the presumption of notability should be down-weighted, since the SNG may not accurately predict when GNG is met.