Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 15

Notability for ski jumpers
Hi everyone. Just posting a notice here that I just nominated Christoph_Müller for deletion. Currently there are no specific criteria for ski jumpers (and I'm not really sure there needs to be), but please take a look at the AfD and give your two cents. Bjelleklang -  talk 11:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ice Hockey criteria
I'd like to see criteria 1 clarified/tightened. It's not clear what 'top professional league' is exactly referring to. Does it mean all 'top-level' leagues that are 'professional' (and is pro taken to mean 'fully pro' rather than 'semi-pro')? Or are only the most important top-level pro leagues intended to be covered by this criteria? I'm assuming this point is not meant to cover second level leagues because of the presence of criteria 3. Perhaps it would be better to actually list any other leagues that it is felt warrant inclusion under this criteria e.g. should Czech Extraliga, National League A, Ligue Magnus, Elite Ice Hockey League be listed? However, before any new leagues are added to the list there should be some discussion that all players making one appearance in that league are likely to meet GNG. Any thoughts? Eldumpo (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We specifically don't list all leagues to make the criteria flexible (and because it would be a very long list). This was discussed awhile back, I believe you were in that discussion. Criteria #1 refers to the top professional league in any given country. Semi-pro doesn't happen alot in hockey, and is covered by criteria 4. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually looking at the discussion it was you that started it. It was fairly clear in the discussion things were good as they were. Not sure why you would bring this up yet again only a few months later. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I'd mentioned it before, can't recall starting a thread, but anyway, are there really that many additional top-level pro leagues that would confer automatic player notability by playing one game? Do you consider all four of the leagues I mention would be included? Also I note that the AL-Bank Ligaen and Latvian Hockey League are referred to as being semi-pro. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'flexible'. If a league generates enough referencing that all competing players would meet GNG then list it, if not let player notability be solely based on GNG. Hockey seems to be one of relatively few sports in the list that is not explicit with its inclusion criteria. Also, if 'top' is supposed to be meaning the top-level then that should be made explicit in the criteria. Eldumpo (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned every time this same old notion is raised, the reason there is not an explicit list is that leagues change. The KHL, universally recognized as the second-best hockey league in the world, didn't exist at this time five years ago.  We are not rigidly explicit in each and every one of our criteria (as, it happens, is likewise the case with numerous other notability criteria) because we trust that we can come up with a case-by-case consensus where it's necessary.  You're seeking a solution for which there isn't a problem.   Ravenswing   00:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If leagues get formed/disbanded/undergo major changes in status then add or remove them from the list as necessary. Surely the purpose of the guidance is in part to advise editors which leagues are likely to confer notability, so it would be really useful to list them. I had a genuine query as to whether the Elite (UK) league confers notability. If you feel certain leagues need to be considered on a case by case basis then it suggests to me that they should not be on the criteria 1 list. I'm unconvinced that there really is this long list of extra leagues that could reasonably sit in the first criteria. Would anyone care to answer whether they think the 6 leagues I list above should be included in the criteria? Eldumpo (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (blinks in perplexity) "Add and remove from the list as necessary?" Err ... you do understand that changing a notability criterion is not a simple or a blithe matter?  It requires a broad consensus, and not of WikiProject editors presumably familiar with the leagues in question, but here, and requiring consensus of all editors who follow this talk page. Beyond that, there is a simple way to receive such guidance; to ask on the talk page of the appropriate WikiProject, the way any editor should when he or she has a question about notability criteria.   Ravenswing   13:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not meaning to imply that leagues would be added/removed without discussion, but only if there was consensus for such a change, but presumably major changes affecting the notability of a league would not be that frequent. I've asked a few times above about the view on the notability of certain leagues.Eldumpo (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One earlier discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_12. I'm wouldn't support any new additions to NSPORTS with the open-ended "top professional league" or "other such league".  However, I wasnt around for the original discussions for hockey, so I'm willing to grandfather it in until someone can point out specific article(s) that are having a problem because of the present wording.—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst I understand the stance you're taking I think it represents a very reverential view of the original wording that was produced. We should be aiming to help editors as much as possible as to what is notable. If there is doubt as to whether a league is notable for player articles on the basis of one game played then don't include it and fall back on GNG, which is the basis of NSPORT anyway. Eldumpo (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a "reverential" view. It is a conservative view.  This is entirely proper, as we should be conservative about changes to any notability criterion.  As to aiming to help editors understand what is notable, we already do that, by having active, veteran editors willing to answer questions.  It may not be the way you want us to be helping editors, but your insinuation that we're not doing so because things are not arranged in the fashion you prefer is scarcely civil.   Ravenswing   13:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

BASE/N #2 and Winter leagues
This can be interpreted as including winter leagues, including the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League, Dominican Professional Baseball League, Liga de Béisbol Profesional Roberto Clemente, etc. We need to specify explicitly that winter leagues do not count for this guideline. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well are those leagues the highest level that exist in those countries? If they are then they should be considered ok no matter when the leagues play. Or are there summer leagues in those countries that are considered the higher league. If so then of course it wouldn't count the winter leagues as those leagues aren't the highest level. I don't think it needs to be specifically mentioned. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends on what we consider to be national leagues... The Dominican, Venezuela etc. leagues are essentially comparable with the American minor leagues...with various minor leaguers (and some major leaguers) getting in work during the offseason. So yea these leagues may technically be the top leagues in their countries, but the level of play if much lower than the other leagues mentioned above so conferring automatic notability to them is questionable. Spanneraol (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the whole idea was that they just had to be the top league in their country regardless of quality of play because coverage would be the same for the highest level league. (in that country atleast). This guideline is all about level of news coverage after all, not level of play. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does being the highest level league in any country virtually guarantee sufficient coverage? For example, what are typical sources that would provide extensive coverage of a player in Dominican Professional Baseball League?—Bagumba (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Local Dominican papers, television, and other media etc. Baseball is religion there. Anyone in their top league is likely to be covered. But I don't pretend to be an expert. I was just stating that I believed that was what the intent of that point was. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert either, and what you say may very well be the case. However, these discussions would be moot if typical sources (e.g. website urls) were noted somewhere for reference;  it would also help editors for article expansion.—Bagumba (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Newspapers of the Dominican Republic: http://www.abyznewslinks.com/domir.htm Most of them are, of course, in Spanish. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And all those newspapers would cover baseball? For example, in the US, we could list ESPN, NY Times, and Los Angeles Times, and you could pretty much find enough sources to cover any MLB player.—Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. That's what newspapers do. Picking three at random, here are the sports pages for Diario Libre, El Nuevo Diario, and Barriga Verde. As you can see, all three have baseball stories on them. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with DJSasso. Notability is not just a function of how the quality of play compares to US Major Leagues or US minor leagues.  If US Major Leagues was the standard, no other country's top baseball league would qualify.  Notability, or in this case presumed notability, is a function of the coverage a player is likely to get, and playing in a top league in a particularly country that cares about the sport is likely to generate significant coverage.  Of course, since most baseball editors of English Wikipedia are likely to be most fluent in the English language and most familiar with US or Canadian sources, it may not be as easy to demonstrate such notability for a particular given player in a non-US league via finding the sources.  But there is no reason to think that a player in the top Venezuelan baseball league will not receive coverage in Venezuelan sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody implied that the only notable leagues are in the US; however, the top league of any given country is not automatically notable either. The players must have significant coverage, and an SNG should only exist if there is evidence of that.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If they had coverage they'd meet the WP:GNG and wouldn't need to meet the subject specific guideline. You have to meet one or the other, not both.  Says so at the top of WP:NOTABILITY.  And being in the major league of any nation makes you notable.  You can't just say America has major leagues, and everyone else is just minor and insignificant since you don't hear about them in your nation.   D r e a m Focus  20:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually that isn't true. It specifically mentions at the top of this page, that subjects are still expected to meet GNG and that this SNG is just to help you determine if a subject is likely to meet GNG but the sources might just be hard to find. -DJSasso (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just nonsense none of the other subject specific guidelines have. Not sure when someone slipped that in there or not.  Probably start an edit war if I tried to remove it.   D r e a m Focus  20:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually that is true for every SNG except one exception. The purpose of SNGs are just to give a reprieve to likely notable articles until sources can be found. -DJSasso (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. There is more than one way to determine if someone or something is notable, than being mentioned in popular news media.  Otherwise we'd not have a lot of notable scientists and other educational content, and just be filled with pop culture items instead.   D r e a m Focus  21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And WP:PROF would be the one exception I was talking about. Coverage in reliable sources does not just mean popular media. It means books, journals etc as well. Which is where education topics would come in. GNG isn't just about pop media. -DJSasso (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even WP:PROF says notability is required "as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources."—Bagumba (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what it says. Read the entire nutshell. "Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources.  Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.  This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work." So just having notable work makes you notable.  Same way with artists and entertainers.  Your accomplishments alone make you notable.   D r e a m Focus  21:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this relevant to NPSORTS, which specifically require GNG? If a player is allegedly notable but no sources cover her, there is not much content that can be objectively written.—Bagumba (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually if you read what you quoted it still says the impact of their work has to be the subject of reliable sources. So in a round about way it still comes down to GNG, except in that case it is the impact of their work that has to be the subject of multiple reliable sources instead of them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make it any different, most of those sports also have similar criteria which has worked quite well. And yes some countries do have English still, but the AfD that triggered this discussion was a league from a Spanish speaking country. -DJSasso (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just get rid of "any other top-level national league" and limit it to those four leagues, and add additional leagues of equal importance as need be. If you're really notable in another country's league, you'll either a) pass GNG, or b) get drafted into one of those four big leagues  p  b  p  00:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support removing it too. "top-level" is too ambiguous and there is anyways GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't do that because it causes the other problem, that NSPORT is used often as a reason to delete (even when it says it shouldn't be). I would just leave it as is. If there is a specific issue at a specific article it can be dealt with on a case by case basis. This seems to me to just be trying to find a solution for a problem that hasn't actually popped up yet. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I ran across this AfD that appears to have started this thread, so it's more than a theoretical issue. On the flip side, the guideline is being used to keep the article and half of the discussion debates on a league's quality of play or whether it is considered professional;  the current wording of "top-level national league" misguided the AfD from concentrating on the level of coverage, which is unrelated to its level of play.—Bagumba (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The AfD was closed and the article was deleted. Consensus rejected that the player who was in the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League was presumed notable.—Bagumba (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I support removing "any other top-level national league" from the specific notability guideline for baseball players. Any truly notable player supported by meaningful coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources will still satisfy the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG.  I recently participated in an AfD for a run-of-the-mill Australian baseball player for whom the meaningful coverage was slight, and the "keep" voters were all quoting WP:NBASEBALL because the subject played in Australia's "top-level national league."  It was a real forehead slapper.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that for most of these leagues is that they are in countries that are not English, thus making the references harder for English editors to find/access. That part of the guideline is pretty much exactly what this guideline is for, to protect articles in cases where they are likely notable but the references are hard to find/access. Removing it would be a mistake. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As the participants on English Wikipedia mostly deal with English sources (and likely mostly only fluent in English), I am skeptical that we are qualified to objectively judge the coverage in other languages. I am wary that this was instead written basing notability on level of play, not coverage. Moreover, "top-level" is extremely subjective, and what is a "national league" as opposed to a "non-national league"? I would have less issue if this was borrowed from a notability guideline in another language's Wikipedia. Also, if there was a notable article in another language, one could click on the interlanguage link and look at the foreign-language sources used in the article to argue "keep" during an AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That would however create a big issue here, as it would lead to a US/English centric topic base. Which is a bad bad thing. Could be be reworded better, sure come up with better wording. But to kill it outright isn't a good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt there is systemic bias on Wikipedia. However, if specific leagues around the world are notable, their notability should be first proven and then specifically listed, and not rely on the free ticket that "top-level national league" provides. Otherwise, GNG is always an option.—Bagumba (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And, how does the fact that our principal language is English make baseball any different from basketball, soccer, swimming, tennis or any other sport covered by Wikipedia and played in locations where a language other than English is spoken? At the end of the day, "notability" as a Wikipedia criterion for inclusion is always supposed to be based on the depth of coverage in independent reliable sources, not on some concept of inherent importance based on level of competition.  The baseball SNG standard works for MLB players because the overwhelming majority receive enough coverage to satisfy the GNG guidelines.  We simply can't say the same thing about Australian national league baseball players (and I'm pretty sure they speak English there), as well as most other locations where baseball is played professionally or semi-professionally.  The one play, one inning, one game standard should not be applied in most other places.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem, to be blunt, is that most people looking at these articles in AFD are too lazy to check foreign-language sources. Your citation of Australia as a country whose players don't receive significant independent coverage pretty much demonstrates the point, since you apparently haven't bothered to investigate that situation even though that country has numerous web-accessible English-language sources covering their games. If the ABL were such a minor thing there, why would a major paper like the Canberra Times write a substantial piece about an injury to an 18-year-old ABL player, to pull just one example from this morning's news? The one-game standard for leagues exists as a shortcut, to save people from having to drag out the sources (which can pretty much always be found, if you bother to look) at each and every friggin' AFD. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A "top-level" league is the primary professional league in the nation in question. The guideline was written that way in order to easily handle countries that have more than one professional league. For example, in Mexico players in the LMB would be considered to be playing at the top level, while players in the LMP or LNM would not. "National league" is just a way of separating leagues from each other, since nearly all leagues are organized along national lines - leagues that straddle Cananda and the US are really the only current exception. That way, people who aren't all that familiar with baseball wouldn't try to directly compare fully professional leagues in closely proximate countries (e.g. Japan's NPB, Taiwan's CPBL, Korea's KBO, etc.). It's true that we could simply list every past and current league that qualifies, but if we did that the list would be extremely long and significantly more difficult to maintain. Creating a rule that covers all possible cases is a much more useful way to handle things. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For my part, I also see no reason to change the criterion. There is nothing about playing in the winter that automatically puts a baseball league beyond the pale -- indeed, when the heck else would Southern Hemisphere leagues play?  Nor am I impressed by the premise that these leagues are not on a par with Major League Baseball ... as if any other league on Earth is either.  (I hope no one's under the illusion, for instance that the Pawtucket Red Sox or the Durham Bulls couldn't whip the stuffing out of any team in the Korean or Chinese national leagues.)   Ravenswing   03:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Boxing Changes
The current standard states with point 6 "[h]as appeared in a professional fight on a premium network (e.g., HBO or Showtime in the United States)." When this was written, fights were only shown on the flagship networks of HBO and Showtime or on pay-per-view. Recently, Showtime has been showing lesser fights of their Showtime cards on Showtime Extreme. For example, the last 3 fights of a card are shown on Showtime as part of Showtime Championship Boxing, while the first 5 fights may be shown on Showtime Extreme. These 5 fights are typically minor fights that do not receive much coverage and as such the fighters would not be presumed to meet WP:GNG. Therefore, I suggest changing point 6 to "[h]as appeared in a professional fight on pay-per-view or a flagship channel of a premium network (e.g., HBO or Showtime in the United States)."

In addition, I think the Note "[a] boxer who has fought for or held a non-major sanctioning body title (e.g., WBF, IBO, etc.) is not considered notable if winning said title is the only reason for notability." should be removed. Since GNG is the actual standard and these are guidelines, seems like the note goes against the goal. For example, meeting point 1 does not make someone notable, but winning a major world title gives a presumption of notability do to the media coverage of title fights, the fan following of title fights, etc. Likewise, winning a non-major world title does not make someone notable or not notable, so the Note seems like it would just lead to confusion.RonSigPi (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding expanding the criteria to include pay-per-view, is there any consensus at AfD for articles being kept about people who have only been in a pay-per-view fight and not in a fight on a premium network? --Odie5533 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this quite answers what you are asking, but may provide some helpful information. Different organizations run pay-per-view (PPV) fights.  HBO and Showtime have historically run the major PPVs.  Sometimes promoters run PPVs, such as when Top Rank put on a card that included Kelly Pavlik and Miguel Cotto and smaller PPVs, such as those titled Latin Fury.  In addition, there are smaller companies that run PPVs, such as Integrated Sports (http://www.integratedsportsnet.com/).  The current criteria includes HBO and Showtime PPV fights (therefore, this is not an expanding of the criteria), but do not include a fighter who fought on a Latin Fury or Pinoy Power card.  The reformed criteria keep fighters who have been on HBO and Showtime PPVs, but eliminate those who have only fought on Showtime Extreme.  I know that does not answer your question about AfD for articles, but I think it gives useful information.  While I don't know of articles in question, I think clarifying now is better than waiting for a bunch of non-noteworthy articles to be written and then change the criteria.RonSigPi (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I am misunderstanding the proposed change. I read it as "on pay-per-view or a premium network's flagship channel" which I thought expanded it to include any pay-per-view. Do you mean it as "on a premium network's pay-per-view or flagship channel", thus restricting it to only e.g. Showtime's pay-per-views or Showtime's flagship channel? --Odie5533 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was intending for the second ("on a premium network's pay-per-view or flagship channel", thus restricting it to only e.g. Showtime's pay-per-views or Showtime's flagship channel).RonSigPi (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case I would support the change, but you should probably reword it to avoid confusion. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability
Hello, i am wondering if anyone interested could please take a look at a proposal to change MMA Event Notability over at WT:MMA. Any input is greatly appreciated! Thanks, Kevlar (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Fighter notability requirements
I was hoping some of you could look at the essay I have wrote on my userpage. It relates to TUF fights being considered when it comes to a fighter being considered notable. I was also wondering if anyone could offer their opinion on TUF fights as it relates to WP:GNG because I think they are not being given due weight when it comes to an Ultimate fighter competitors notability. Now I can understand if they fought to get on the show then lost and wasn't on the show past the first episode. They are on tv for a couple of months straight, and if refs can be found for every tuf fighter while they were on the show then shouldn't that count on a different level than WP:NMMA as it pertains to notability?

I was also wondering why the bar for boxers is just one primetime fight? The current UFC requirements do not take into account that UFC on fuel ratings have been lower than 100k at times, and that TUF shows draw around 600k-1million views. I don't know what kind of numbers boxers on HBO gets, but a fighter who has 3 fights on a TV show that gets at least 600k views 3 times should get generate at least some added notability outside of their normal Bellator/UFC fights. Thanks PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding TUF, it seems that would fall more under Notability (Reality Television participants) (note that it is not guidelines, but provides a useful test) and thus is not an issue for WP:NSPORT. While I understand the fights are sanctioned under the NSAC, with the exception of The Ultimate Fighter: Live, the show has been tape-delayed and as such the fights are not official.  I don't think this is a WP:NSPORT issue, but instead a WP:BIO/WP:ENT issue.  Regarding one HBO or Showtime fight for boxers, that has to do with the amount of media coverage that goes well beyond WP:ROUTINE produced for those fights.  The criteria for one sport is independent of the criteria for another. -RonSigPi (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for the thoguhtful responses. The problem is that we aren't just talking fighters who have appeared on TUF and were never heard from again. We are talking fighters who had exhibition fight/s on TUF, then had at least 1 other notable fight. I would argue that those inconjunction with decent outside coverage would satisfy the WP:GNG. Would anyone care to tell me why being on TUF for (8 weeks) or however long it is plus having normal UFC/Bellator fights and having 3rd party refs to substantiate notability would result in a fighter failing the WP:GNG? I just feel that the requirements for MMA fighters is too rigid and doesn't take variables other than notable fights on their record. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking one could argue that TUF fighter's notability could be met through WP:ENT as per point 1. Any input on my reasoning would be swell. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Aerobic gymnastics criteria
WP:NGYMNASTICS is pretty clear about criteria for artistic gymnastics, but doesn't seem to specify criteria for aerobic gymnastics. I'm trying to work out notability for Kieran Gorman, for whom I can see WP:RS online to show he won gold in the FIG World Series, but according to Sport aerobics the top-level competition for this sport is the World Championships. Was the competition renamed? Any pointers on determining notability for this sport equivalent to the criteria used for artistic gymnastics? Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

ITU Paratriathlon World Champions?
WP:NTRIATHLON criteria do not currently cover ITU Paratriathlon World Champions. Many recent Paratri World Champions meet WP:ATHLETE and/or WP:BIO for other reasons (eg Melissa Stockwell, Karen Darke, Melanie Easter, Sarah Reinertsen, Clare Cunningham - but how about people like eg 3x TRI-1 World Champion Bill Chaffey or 4x TRI-4 champion, Winter Paralympian and former elite able-bod triathlete Yannick Bourseaux? (best senior elite finish: 12th. U23 podium)

Previously small paratri field sizes been steadily growing, but can vary considerably between classifications; women's fields smaller then men's. Following the inclusion of paratriathlon in the 2016 Summer Paralympics, things are fast getting more competitive.

It has been pointed out to me that we do not yet have an article for Paratri Worlds (held as part of the ITU Triathlon World Championships each year). And yes, the main paratriathlon article is still a stub. As far as I know, I'm the only active editor with specific interest/expertise in paratri (and I'm a newbie!). I'm one of relatively few editing para-sport more broadly, and many many related articles are badly in need of work (see Category:World record holders in Paralympic athletics as an indication). Can't do everything at once, so trying to recruit more paratriathlon/para-sport people to help. Sportygeek (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please revisit association football guidelines
The notion of excluding players who have signed with a club but not yet played is nonsensical. When a player is signed, that's exactly the time people want to know who he or she is. We're seeing strict (some would say overbearing) enforcement that would mean we all need to wait to create five new pages when a team debuts five new players in the first game of a season. Bdure (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that Wikipedia is not a news service. We're not looking to memorialize ephemeral figures, but to ensure that people meet certain standards indicating genuine, enduring notability.  We deem (pretty much across all sports) people who actually play in top-level competitions to be notable.  We deem those who don't not to be.  Wikipedia is also not wastepaper, and we don't need hundreds of thousands of articles created for the likes of that prospect - what was his name, again? - who signed with St. Austell-in-the-Moor five years ago, and whom no one remembers because he never played.   Ravenswing   23:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, there are tons of players who sign and for whatever reason - injury, form, attitude - never end up making the first team despite originally expecting to. A page can be created in a user space if you are enthused at the moment, and then moved to the main space once he makes his professional debut. Mattlore (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also nothing to prevent creation and defense of such articles directly on WP:GNG grounds. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're looking at hundreds of thousands of useless articles here. I came here specifically after a discussion about a first-round Major League Soccer draft pick. The likelihood of a first-round draft pick playing in MLS or another top-flight pro league is roughly 95%, maybe higher. In the rare cases that a first-round pick does NOT play, something noteworthy has happened. So that person will qualify for inclusion either under WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. That's not a prediction -- it's an inevitability. For European leagues, maybe some threshold for transfers would work? If Manchester United pays 10 million Euros for a player who never plays for the club, that player is noteworthy. Bdure (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that high-profile signings are likely to satisfy the GNG, but there are many low-profile signings that never make appearances for their club and simply never receive significant coverage for their exploits (or lack thereof). Jared Jeffrey is a player that was a fairly high-profile signing a number of years ago, yet we couldn't find significant enough coverage of him to pass the GNG (although it was close). Jogurney (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If your position is that anyone who's signed by a top-level club is notable, whether or no ... then yes, we're talking hundreds of thousands of articles. The footy WikiProject recognizes a couple hundred leagues as being "fully professional," never mind leagues in other sports -- shall we, for instance, recognize every player signed by the Boston Red Sox or the Boston Bruins as article-worthy?  The Bruins, for example, have over sixty players under contract, a couple of dozen of which will never, ever see the NHL. If your position isn't that every such player is notable, then you agree that there's a standard by which notability should be established.  We just seem to set the bar higher than you like.   Ravenswing   07:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not my position, and we're talking soccer here, not every round of the NHL or MLB draft. I'd think first-round draft picks in any sport should qualify under GNG -- they're either going to play or be a high-profile flop. In soccer, again, perhaps you don't list every player from Ghana who joins a Ligue 1 club, but I'd think players who transfer for multiple millions would qualify. Again -- they're either going to play a professional game or raise a lot of questions about why the club spent so much money. (Or suffer a terrible injury, again wasting the club's money.) So yes, the bar is higher than I'd like, and I have to say frankly that my experiences in talking about it here and on the Kyle Dekker page have been rather frustrating. I love Wikipedia, and I hate to see it turn into the rote application of rules without thinking or listening to what users need. Bdure (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For sporting figures who qualify under the general notability guideline, all this set of topic-specific notability guidelines really does is give editors a bit of buffer time to find independent, reliable, third-party, non-promotional sources that satisfy the general notability guideline. So for recent persons, a higher bar isn't a big issue, since appropriate sources can generally be readily found, and although the exact placement of the standard can be debated at length, the resulting benefit is relatively small in comparison with the cost. Any closer of deletion discussions who tries to supplant the general notability guideline in favour of just the stricter standards set by the topic-specific notability guidelines should be reminded of the consensus described in bold in the opening paragraph: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below," as well as the sentence in the following paragraph, "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." isaacl (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Having located the deletion discussion you were alluding to (for Kyle Bekker), I see that the issue is not one of ignoring the general notability guideline in that case. I understand that the general notability guideline may seem unduly pedantic; for better or worse, Wikipedia does not look to the expertise of individual editors to evaluate the notability of a subject, but on the expertise of third-party, independent sources, and so this can lead to decisions that experts in the field will find less than ideal. The problem is there isn't an easy way for editors unfamiliar with the topic to determine which editors are truly experts in the matter at hand. Unfortunately, I don't have any good suggestions for resolving this, with Wikipedia's current guiding philosophies. isaacl (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm a soccer writer -- so if I do a blog post arguing that Wikipedia should include MLS first-round draft picks, would that suffice as a third-party source? I'm kidding, but perhaps it would be possible to survey interested parties? We could ask the North American Soccer Reporters (I'm past president) or some supporters groups. Alternately, is it possible to look back at page views for past MLS draft picks to see how much demand is out there? Bdure (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit unclear: are you wondering if third-party sources can be used to change Wikipedia policies? In that case, no, consensus on Wikipedia policies is generated from within the Wikipedia community (of course, anyone can join in and offer an opinion), in alignment with Wikipedia's general philosophies. However, going back to the general case you stated above, regarding players who will eventually meet the general notability guideline: since there's no fixed schedule for updating Wikipedia, there's no harm in waiting until there are sources that meet the general notability guideline, and writing an article then. Sure, it might be nice if it could happen sooner, but no big deal if it happens later. isaacl (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It kind of amuses me that someone is arguing that we are too strict for a sport rather than not strict enough. We are constantly bombarded at this page about being too lenient. Especially soccer, its considered the worst offender of being too lenient. So to suggest soccer should be even more lenient is pretty amazing. As for your example of a guy who signs for lots and lots of money and then flops...well chances are there is going to be news stories about that. And when there are you can created an article for him. We don't create articles prior to being notable, we only create them once they actually are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that overall the football guideline is too lenient, it may be that being picked in the 1st round MLS Draft is more notable than playing a single match in either the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Honduras, Slovenian PrvaLiga or Ukrainian Second League. Eldumpo (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Rugby league
Hi guys, I have just updated the notes for WP:RLN to include new members that have joined the two recognised organisations since the guideline was written. However, due to the growth of the RLEF, I think that it is now too broad. Therefore I'd like to propose that affiliate members of the RLEF are removed from the notability guidelines. I think we all agree that players in a Czech Republic vs Germany game should not be presumed notable. Not to mention it is a bit of a double standard when World Cup nations like the USA don't have that status. Mattlore (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so we are clear my proposal would read: Have appeared in at least one competitive international match between Full members of the RLIF and/or Full Members of the RLEF.
 * Whilst I agree with the general thrust of your change I think for clarity the overall wording should be changed to something like: Have appeared in at least one competitive international match between Full Members of the RLIF/Full Members of the RLEF. Eldumpo (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's for the best. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Eldumpo, the RLEF is pretty much on a par with the RLIF.GordyB (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Similar leagues text in NBASKETBALL
WP:NBASKETBALL lists specific leagues whose players are presumed notable, but ends with the open-ended "or a similar major professional sports league." Articles for deletion/Petr Bohacik is open for a player in the Czech Republic. Not being familiar with the level of coverage of basketball in this league, I don't see where the verbage for being a similar league is of any help. What is the criteria for a similar league? I am proposing that this be clarified, or have it be removed and only list specific leagues agreed to be notable. Other basketball players can still use GNG to establish notability.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, the open-ended wording should be removed, and there should only be a list of named leagues that are regarded as notable. Eldumpo (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

—Notification of this discussion was left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I also agree. I think the "similar sports league" language within WP:NBASKETBALL is an invitation for the automatic inclusion of more non-notable and marginally notable international basketball players.  I think we should only extend a presumption of notability to those specifically identified top-level leagues, such as the NBA, where an overwhelming majority of the players would satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG.  Alternatively, many international hoops players may also establish their notability as college players per WP:NCOLLATH, or as Olympians per WP:NOLYMPICS.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that the line should be stricken (struck?). I think the leagues listed are the top leagues - The NBA, the various US leagues that became the NBA (though we need to be clear that only the ORIGINAL ABA qualifies as the new ABA is incredibly low-level), WNBA, Italy, Spain, the Euroleague and Australia - are the right ones.  One change that should be made ("again" actually, because it used to read this way before) is that Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto should be changed to Liga ACB, which is more clearly the top tier of the Spanish League.  What I don't know is if other countries' leagues have the same level of coverage/stature/etc.  For example, the Israeli Super League is a strong league, as are the Turkish Basketball Association and the Greek Super League.  Not sure if there is some standard to use here.  It's probably safest just to strike the statement - though we may want to make it clear that pro players from other leagues may be notable if they meet one of the other basketball guidelines listed by dirtlawyer or GNG.  Otherwise I will bet you we see a rash of AfDs for Slovenian, Russian, Chinese league players who really are notable.  You'd be surprised how many truly notable basketball players get put up for AfD because people misread the standard. Rikster2 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * GNG is already mention in top of NSPORTS. The only way to make it more obvious would be to repeat it in every specific sports section again.—Bagumba (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on a review of the AfD that started this, I have many other opinions on the notability standards. I do not have time to note these now, but will return later to spell them out. Rikster2 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't do a lot of international players, but I do a lot of college and high school players. I assume that they pass GNG. Where are we trying to move the line in regards to players like Matt Howard, John Shurna, Demetri McCamey?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)
 * In general, individual players should meet GNG. As a convenience, NSPORTS identifies athletes in individual sports with a common trait that presumes that they are notable e.g. they played in the NBA, they were Pac-12 player of the year, etc.  Is there any common trait about the players you mentioned that makes that group presumably notable?—Bagumba (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal After a thorough review, I still think the ambiguous statement ("or a similar major professional sports league") should be removed. However, upon reviewing the AfD debate for Petr Bohacik above I have concerns about removing the statement without adding language that presumes notability for top players from fully professional leagues not listed in the first section. As it reads right now, an All-Star level player from the Greek Basket League would come into question while an All-League player from the CBA or a second round NBA Draft pick who never played in the league would not. Establishing GNG can be difficult for leagues in non-English speaking countries - especially those that do not use a Roman alphabet. We have access to maybe 20% of their on-line books and resources and virtually no access to their off line print resources. Having been involved with many, many AfDs for college players (for whom GNG is often the standard used), I can say that this standard isn't all that hard to meet (see the discussion around Leslie McDonald for an example). I would be willing to bet that a significant award winner from most countries would meet GNG using sources in their native tounge.

So I propose we amend the standards to the following:
 * 1) Have appeared in one game in the National Basketball Association or its predecessors (defined as the National Basketball League (United States), the Basketball Association of America, and the original American Basketball Association), Euroleague, National Basketball League (Australia), Liga ACB (or its predecessors as Spain's top league), Serie A, or the Women's National Basketball Association.
 * 2) Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft.
 * 3) Have won a significant award in a fully professional league ("significant" defined as Season Most Valuable Player, Defensive Player of the Year, Coach of the Year, Rookie of the Year, First or second team All-League, or selection to play in the league's All-Star game).

I have removed the ambiguous statement in #1, but broadened statement #3 to include what I think is a reasonable assumption of notability for professional leagues. For comparison's sake, the wording for WP:NFOOTBALL is "2.Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." I don't claim that basketball enjoys the same level of popularity that football holds worldwide, so every professional player should not be notable, but I think that it is reasonable to assume that top players get the requisite coverage to meet GNG. Important to note that I removed the CBA and NBDL from #3 because they would be included as "fully professional." I removed the statement about being a stat leader, because in and of itself I'm not sure the steals leader for the Estonian League (or the D-League for that matter) is necessarily notable. I also think a statement about international competition is needed, but that discussion has its own section, so I will post my thoughts on that matter there. Rikster2 (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK with #1 but not #3. I think its going to be pretty subjective to determine what is a "professional" league. Does American Basketball Association (2000–present) qualify?  Unless there is rampant time being spent defending players in other leagues, I'd leave as is and add leagues on a per-case basis once coverage of these types of players is demonstrated for that league.—Bagumba (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * if #3 is struck then a LOT more leagues need to be added to #1 in my opinion. For starters, the Greek, Turkish, Israeli and Philippine leagues enjoy tremendous coverage.  France has three separate print magazines devoted to basketball and Germany has at least 2.  I'm not sure ALL players from those leagues are notable, but I am quite sure the stars are.  We can create a list of acceptable leagues just like FOOTY does. Rikster2 (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would rather argue about specific leagues now, and add specific leagues later as needed. The current baseball SNG uses "other top level league" language and it has become a point of endless contention in AfDs for players who cannot otherwise satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG.  I would suggest inserting vague, open-ended language into the basketball SNG would be a mistake.  If there are other fully professional leagues where 85+% of the current players can satisfy GNG with substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, let's talk about them now.  At the end of the day, that should be the standard for including another league.
 * As for the other proposed qualifications, I would suggest #2 is redundant. After all, how many players get drafted in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft and never play a single regular season game in the NBA?  In the unlikely event that happens, they probably had more than enough coverage of their college career to satisfy either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to have that conversation, but would invite suggestions on what criteria leagues should be added. I would also argue that while some leagues (like the NBA) enjoy such coverage that its safe to assume notability for those who play at all in it, the larger list is of leagues where top players get independent coverage regularly but benchwarmers don't.  This is definitely true of France's top league, which is the one I follow most closely.  Agree on #2 because I am confident the vast majority of draft picks in the first 2 rounds would meet GNG easily. Rikster2 (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd only keep #2 because it already exists, I wasn't involved in the original wording but trust it was warranted, and I'd prefer not spending time proving they are not notable. As a data point, 2010 NBA Draft and 2011 NBA Draft has a few 2nd rounders who haven't played in the NBA yet.  Presumably, once a player is drafted, they would get enough post-draft coverage that combined with any earlier coverage (e.g. college), should make them notable.—Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There appeared to be broad consensus to remove the open-worded comment so I have made that change to the article. If anyone thinks particular leagues justify addition to the list they should make the case at talk. Eldumpo (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I re-inserted the original language - eldumpo, my support of removing the statement came with an assumption that we would clarify the standard by adding additional verbiage concerning other leagues (see my proposal above and subsequent suggestion by Dirtlawyer). If we remove the caveat without clarifying, I think it invites cases where clearly notable players are AfD'd - or worse PRODded - because they don't meet the letter of the standard.  For example, the Greek League is very similar to the Spanish, Italian and Australian leagues in terms of both quality and home country media coverage.  I could easily see top players for that league being AfD'd and English speaking editors having difficulty accessing Greek language sources that establish GNG.  The language was written in the first place because there is a recognition that more than just the handful of leagues listed are clearly notable.  I would suggest we have the discussion now to determine what the standard should be before removing anything.  Additionally, I think removing the language now takes away the incentive for editors who come from a "deletionist" POV to engage in a conversation about what leagues should be added. Rikster2 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have listed four leagues that I think should be considered and have suggested that there are many other leagues for whom star players should be considered notable. I find it interesting that folks who were so passionate about this issue when it was about contracting the standard all of a sudden won't comment about expanding it (with much tighter standards than some other world sports like football and cricket, I might add). Rikster2 (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rikster: I'll speak for myself:  you might perceive me as a deletionist, but the reality is I dont claim to be very knowledgeable about these league.  As a volunteer, I'm admittedly leaving the burden on you or others who want to add criteria to prove that they coverage.  What would help is listing multiple independent online sources (for ease of discussion only, offline if no alternative) for each league that people can go and do some research on random players and see if they in fact do get significant coverage.  For example, if a non-American, who knows nothing about basketball was skeptical of the coverage for the NBA, I would point to ESPN.com, CBSSports.com, SI.com and NewYorkTimes.com and they would be able to find signifcant coverage on pretty much every player.  Add in the local newspaper of their college and pro team and its a cinch.  For those like me who aren't knowledgeable on the leagues you are proposing, and find it difficult to find the right search engine and  the constant English translations to find these sources, this info would help for research.—Bagumba (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I thought there was a consensus, and the conversation had halted, and no leagues had been agreed. I'm OK with the principle of adding something like your #3, whereby players who have won particular awards are granted notability, but I think we need to agree a sub-set of leagues, rather than allowing 'all other professional leagues'. Alternatively, if we don't go with something like #3, then any leagues to be added to the main list need to have suitable evidence. So far, there's been little evidence that people meeting the proposed criteria would likely hit GNG. Perhaps Dirtlawyer could confirm whether or not he was happy with the wording change I made. Eldumpo (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right now a grand total of 5 editors have responded. One gave no opinion (Tony the Tiger) so that leaves 4.  That's a very small number to change a major guideline if there is not agreement among those 4.  I asked what criteria should be used to determine specific leagues and nobody responded.  Bagumba's latest response (posted after I reverted the change) was the first time anyone proposed even loose guidance about how we should look at which leagues to include.  My recommendation is NOT to add any leagues to #1 but to add a "secondary list" of leagues where notability for stars (can use my wording above or some different specific criteria) is presumed.  I'll propose a short list with sources such as what Bagumba names tomorrow and we can start from there. Rikster2 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because someone doesn't agree to a wording change it doesn't mean the change can't happen. We don't know how many people contributed to that piece of wording at the start, but discussion on wording can only be based on the present anyway. However, happy for you to put forward some wording (hopefully in the short term) regarding your proposed point about major league awards, with a list of leagues where such awards are likely to be notable, which should include evidence that it would meet GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * please feel free to offer suggestions for what sort of proof you think is important to establish notability for these leagues. I'll work on it in the short term, don't worry. Rikster2 (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Leagues discussion (break)
First suggestion - In researching this, I wanted to suggest using the Euroleague ULEB League Rankings as a starting point for European clubs. They are used to detemine the strength of various European countries' top leagues based on 70 percent basketball game competition results, and 30 percent TV revenues/ratings, attendance figures, and arena capacities. I think the second criteria gets at what sort of coverage the league enjoys in country and their standing in the world. In addition to the 2007-12 results linked above, here are the 2012-13 rankings from the Euroleague site (see "B License Teams"). One approach might be to add any leagues that are top 5 for all three rankings to criteria #1 - this would show strength over time. Those teams are Spain and Italy (already present), Greece and Russia. Leagues like Turkey, France, Germany and Lithuania might be prime candidates for proposed criteria #3 (stars notable, non-stars not). Just a suggested starting point for Europe - which is where the majority of the leagues we debate are. Outside of Europe the only leagues I really think might be candidates for #3 would be China and the Phillipines. All of this would need verification and further research, but what do others think as a start? Rikster2 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are going to suggest some leagues should be added to #1 (i.e. notability on the basis of one match played) then you would need to demonstrate at least a few instances from each league where someone who only just meets the criteria can be shown to meet GNG. It would then be a similar process for #3 (awards), except the test would be on some of the players who have won those awards deemed as notable. Eldumpo (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy to do this but would ask that you give me a model of what I should be presenting for each league that would satisfy you that GNG is met in both scenarios. I would prefer this to my doing what I think is the right research and having it picked apart on the back end.  Perhaps someone else can look at one of the non-NBA leagues already in guideline #1 (Australia, Italy, Spain) and lay out a model I should follow. Rikster2 (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My preference would be firstly to investigate if other leagues should be added to #3, and as part of that process the notable awards of each league should be listed. Secondly, criteria #1 would be amended so the open-ended wording goes. Thirdly, a further discussion as to whether certain leagues should be added to #1.
 * Comment - While certainly research would need to back it up, I want to investigate the Greek Basket League for inclusion in #1. Anecdotally my sense is that the coverage level/prestige/etc. is about the same as Spain and Italy - and the Euroleague ratings back that up.  There is a reason Josh Childress and Dominique Wilkins chose to play there when they didn't like their NBA options - it pays about the best, which usually means it makes the most money, which usually means there is a lot of general interest.  I guess I'd like to hear what the standard should be for inclusion there and for #3. Rikster2 (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, from what year do you seek to demonstrate player notability should apply from for GBL: 1963-64, 1986-87, 1992-93? Eldumpo (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think for the sake of ease of use all of these in #1 and proposed #3 need to be "top league" - the current version or their predecessors. For the Greek League that would be the current version and its predecessors back to 1927-28.  I must point out, I just re-reviewed the standards for Association football, ice hockey, baseball and cirkcet and all of those standards are much looser than what I am proposing for basketball - which has further worldwide reach than most of those other than footy.  If we remove the open ended "other leagues language and replace it with one additional league to #1 then add a realistic guideline about top players (like my #3) for less than 10 other leagues, it would easily be the highest bar of the group - I just went to the archives and read unsuccessful debates to remove "other leagues" language for baseball and ice hockey.  I really think I am being quite reasonable in my proposals to try and capture the leagues that really do get coverage and would appreciate some openness to this. Rikster2 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your proposal here has some merit, and I understand the point you make about other sport guidelines. But in terms of proving the case, is it likely you can prove playing one match in the league all the way back to 1927-28 can make you notable? Eldumpo (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What case was proven to show that all players in over 60 footy leagues are notable for having appeared in one game? Tell me a realistic way to figure it out and I am happy to try. Rikster2 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If by 'figure it out' you mean how do you prove that x criteria is a reasonable one to adopt for basketball, then as I said above, it would be proving that a few minor GBL players can actually meet GNG. By minor I would suggest you concentrate on those before the war who made only a few appearances. However, I see from your below post that perhaps you are not inclined to do this. Eldumpo (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Turning to the detail of #3, I looked quickly at the Greek Basket League, and its awards page. Under the MVP list (which only starts in 1987-88, and thus another issue is that we may need to list since when the awards have been held), Giorgos Sigalas’s page does not currently appear to meet GNG, in part due to the lack of direct citations, and a lot of the external links may just be stats type entries. It may be appropriate for some of the detail/evidence for this process to be placed at a sub-page at WP:Basketball? Eldumpo (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, I think the article doesn't demonstrate that the subject meets GNG well. I don't really have a concern that the subject fails GNG.  After all, he meets the existing NBASKETBALL standard three different ways - played in the Olympics, Euroleague (on a championship team no less) and in the top Italian League.  There are actually many NBA articles/stubs that don't use sources other than NBA.com or basketball-reference.  I agree there should be better guidance on WP:BASKETBALL on how to create a basketball article - maybe I will tackle that once this is settled. Rikster2 (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * David Rivers' article does not actually meet GNG, although I see he has played in NBA. It may be that there's no need/point in trying to add this Greek MVP award, if most winners would meet NBASKETBALL by other means. Eldumpo (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * another way to look at it is that it validates that a presumption of notability should exist for these players. The league attracts top players and the top players from that group win awards. Rikster2 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The point has been brought up in the past whenever we try to add/remove something from NSPORTS: "What real-life problem are we solving, or is this a theoretical one?" We have seen AfDs where "other league" has been problematic, so I think there is no disagreement that it needs improvement. As for Greek League or any other league, do we really think that a floodgate of AfDs will be opened if it's not there anymore?  With all the discussions for describing all the leagues that might have some notable award winners, I think it's a guessing game and inefficient use of our time to anticipate which players from which leagues need special exceptions, and will all that time be justified as opposed to just arguing GNG on a per-case basis.  For example, in college basketball, we could argue which programs' starters are likely to meet GNg and deserve a line item in NSPORTS, but it hasnt become enough of a problem where we can't just rely on GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then lets leave the wording exactly as it is - including the "other leagues" line. I see no reason why a change should be made to make basketball's guideline more restrictive than similar sports.  If there is no problem, then there needs to be no change. Rikster2 (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bagumba doesn't say there is no problem. He says '...so I think there is no disagreement that it needs improvement.' Eldumpo (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But I disagree that the improvement would be removing the "other leagues" statement with no other changes to the standard. The issue with the statement is that it is open ended and can be interpreted different ways.  The issue if you remove it is that whatever the standard is here (NOT GNG) is what people will generally use to nominate AfDs.  The rest of the statement makes it sound like only a handful of leagues get coverage enough to support GNG - which is absurd.  I see no reason to remove the ambiguous language in the absence of any real attempt to put a satisfactory objective standard in place.  Again, Ice Hockey and baseball have recently rejected the removal of similar statements - basketball should do the same.  The idea that some one-game, third division "fully professional" player in soccer can be presumed notable while a star in the Greek Basketball League can not is patently absurd.  I say keep the standard where it is. Rikster2 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps understandably you have sought to turn to what other sports say, and this issue of vague, open-ended wording is really a wider issue. I see no benefit in keeping the vague criteria. If you don't have certainty that a particular league can confer notability then it shouldn't be listed at all, or at least, maybe there ought to be a higher games threshold e.g. played 50 games. Eldumpo (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Greek Basket League is one of the biggest and most famous basketball leagues in the world. It is at the same relevance and importance as the Spanish league and the Italian league, and really in historical context it is more important. There is absolutely no reason why players from the Greek league should not be considered fully professional and notable. If they are not, then Euroleague players are not and Spanish league and Italian league players are not either. I really see no way that you could claim Greek league as anything but a top league. It's widely considered the third best national league in the world. As for medias that cover it, there are many.                        [] - there are so many sites actually that I cannot even think of all of them. There are many more sports sites in Greece for example that cover Greek league basketball extensively. It would take hours just to list them.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I should also say that many basketball leagues in Europe that are not listed there are far more important, famous, historic, and a much higher level of competition than the league in Australia. Eurocup, United League, Greek league, German league, Turkish league, Russian league, Adriatic league, French league, I mean I can absolutely guarantee these leagues are much more important and higher level than the league in Australia. In fact, the absolute best players Australia has play in European leagues and not in Australia's league. For example, to have it so that the league in Australia is more important than say the Eurocup, well it's absolutely ridiculous and absurd to be quite frankly honest about it.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sportspeople who aren't notable
This is a heads up, I'm planning on nominating lots (hundreds, if not thousands) of sports BLPs for deletion at AFD. Many of these meet this guideline however they do not meet the general notability guideline, therefore they have no potential to progress beyond one or two sentences unless new third party sources are created or discovered.

For example the article Fahriansyah contains the information:
 * He exists
 * He's Indonesian
 * He competed in Beach volleyball at the 2012 Asian Beach Games

There is more information about him in the Asian Beach Games article linked to (it gives his results) and having searched for more sources, there is no more information that could be added to the article beyond his birthday. There are so many articles like this that cannot simply be PRODed due to this guideline (I'd consider the Asian Beach Games to be a top-level event based on what I've read of the article). I'll be nominating them in groups so that there isn't a sudden nom of 100 articles. I will search for sources myself before nominating each group of articles and of course if "significant coverage in reliable third party sources" the articles won't be deleted. I'll list all of the AFDs in this box and in each AFD, link back here for reference. James086 Talk 18:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * With regards to this NSPORT guideline, I would not think he qualifies (I will not look re: GNG). There are no specific volleyball guidelines here. Out of curiosity, did you think  that he might qualify under "major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympic"? Would like to clear up any potential confusion.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking it's "highest level" because the Asian Beach Games are international and organised by a group of National Olympic Committees. I think it's one step below the Olympics only because it doesn't include as many countries, the competition would probably be of the highest standard. James086 Talk  19:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that this question goes very much to what we are discussing above, at "Vague" tag. In my opinion, it might be a good reason to delete the material that we are considering deleting. After all, if someone fails GNG, and the only reason to keep is a debated interpretation of "competing at the highest level", then it really might be better to keep that phrase out of the decision, and look either to GNG or to the applicable sport section here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And if, for example, we find that participants in an event such as the Asian Beach Games are presumably notable, the event would explicitly be mentioned here.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be also worthwhile to further underscore that this guidance is not intended to supplant the general notability guideline, and to give greater prominence to this section of text in the third paragraph: "... the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article..." isaacl (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Clear GNG failures are routinely kept in AfD's because they were once was subbed in for five minutes in a bottom-level "fully professional" soccer match, or were only ever given an organizer's-choice entry into a bottom-level, supposedly-notable tennis event, etc. We should wake up to the reality that a significant percentage of voters and, more unfortunately, closers of Afd's view meeting NFOOTY or whatever as a free pass, rather than a rule of thumb. If it is a free pass, then we should tighten the requirements to reflect that fact. If it is not a free pass, then it should be made much more clear that it is not a free pass. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the first sentence in the article says, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." That's pretty explicit and straightforward. isaacl (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Indonesian breach volleyball player, how many Indonesian newspapers were consulted? This tends to be a rather consistent problem that I have noticed at AfD with marginally notable players from non-English language speaking countries. The most recent one I can recall was a top level female Norwegian soccer player. There were at least 10 references in Norwegian language newspapers, including at least one article that focused primarily on her... but the nominator never bothered to consult Norwegian sources and language bias appeared to suggest if they were not in English speaking newspapers from anglo-dominant countries, they were inherently less notable. Also, was Crisco 1492 asked about the Indonesian? Often country specialists are able to clear up the notability in their region better than those not familiar with the sources. --LauraHale (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is that most editors here at en-WP are likely not fluent in other languages, nor that familiar with search techniques for other countries/languages. The nomination reason at Articles for deletion/Petr Bohacik was "It must have an article in the Czech Wikipedia to expand the text using translation." Certainly it doesn't mean the subject is not notable for not having an article already in their native language WP, but it underscores the difficulty that each language-specific Wikipedia must have in establishing notability for stubs whose primary sources, if they exist, are in a different laguage.—Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I consulted no Indonesian newspapers as I do not speak Indonesian. Why is the onus on me to prove a negative (that there are no sources)? This article could be written (and has been) from the data that could be gleaned from a table of results, there is nothing lost by deletion. I have taken reasonable steps to find sources and have not been able to do so, the possibility of sources existing is not an assertion of notability. If the article had meaningful content then I could see the objection. If you can find sources then you will have grounds to object to the deletion of the article (which hasn't yet been nominated, I'll update this section when it has). James086 Talk  08:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are going to assert a person is not notable, then yes, the burden is on you to prove that you have looked at appropriate sources that do exist to show you have done due diligence before nominating. I've seen people say "Not notable and article contains BLP violations" in their AfD.  As a nominator at AfD asserting notability is not met, they should have gone to say Google or Google News and put their name in before nominating on those grounds. In that case, the person was dead and the article was dated.  The first page of Google search results included five newspaper references specifically about them.  So yes, the onus is on the nominator and the person asserting lack of notability to do the research to have a valid reason for deleting.  Indonesian guy should first involve an AfD nominator looking at Indonesian language sources to make sure he isn't notable before asserting he isn't. --LauraHale (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did search for sources, but I did not read any Indonesian newspapers. I searched for sources before nominating it for deletion: oldid from Jan 19 demonstrating that I have been searching for sources before nominating. I think it is unreasonable to put this much effort into deleting an article that took between 20 and 30 seconds to write (the original author created 21 articles with near identical content in 8 minutes). Not that it's the reason I want to delete it, but it does demonstrate how bureaucratic Wikipedia is. James086 Talk  10:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a very easy answer to your question. This is exactly why we have notability guidelines. "Presumed notability" means these sort of foreign-language sources. StAnselm (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I created the first group nom and added it to the collapsable box. James086 Talk  08:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I have just come here from the shambles that is Articles for deletion/Louise Allen (tennis). I almost laughed when I saw the suggestion of nomination "hundreds, if not thousands" of articles. What has happened already is that a clearly notable person (Louise Allen) has been lumped together with people of a totally different sport. I suggest (a) nominating one article as a test case, (b) if that is deleted, then nominate people playing the same sport at the same level via WP:PROD, (c) repeat as needed. StAnselm (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The assertion that the articles "cannot simply be PRODed due to this guideline" is very revealing. If they can't be PRODed, then they should be nominated via AfD. If you don't like this guideline, then I suggest you propose changes to it. But if you nominate articles that pass this guideline, they will be speedily kept. Of course, people may well disagree that the Asian Beach Games constitute the highest level - I don't think it does, and I would suggest that a medal rather than participation would be needed to reach notability. StAnselm (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything can be PRODed but I expect people to remove the PROD template because they don't understand this guideline. I have no problem with the guideline, it's the misapplication to say that it proves notability that I have a problem with. People seem to think that just because a person passes WP:ATHLETE they are notable, that is not what this guideline says. James086 Talk  09:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just this guideline. The main notability guideline, Notability says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." That box includes, of course, WP:ATHLETE. StAnselm (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, you won't just have problems with people removing PRODs, but also with people speedily closing your AfDs. StAnselm (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If the same info exists in a list, I would suggest proposing a merge/redirect or just be bold and do it. If it is contested and cannot be resolved, only then go the  more resource-intensive AfD route.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's an implausible redirect, but pending the outcome of this current AFD I may do so for all articles that have the entirety of their content available in a list/directory article. James086 Talk  10:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the consensus at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Allen (tennis) was not to delete. I'll leave this until I can ascertain consensus one way or the other at this page. James086 Talk  12:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Paralympic as Generally acceptable standards
In Notability (sports) is participating in Paralympic the same as Olympics in "1.have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics."?--Taranet (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about this recently and that answer is no because Paralympics aren't covered in the media to the same extent. I believe the consensus was that you have to win a medal in the case of Paralympics. -DJSasso (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The other point that came out was that Paralympic competitors are eligible to compete in the Olympics, meaning that the Paralympic are not the highest level. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but that is utter bollocks! - there is no such determination. The IOC and IPC both explicitly recognise each other as full equals. Qualifying for Paralympics and Olympics are completely unrelated processes. Roger (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That also only applies to a few select events. Goalball players cannot compete at the Olympics.  Ditto for wheelchair basketball, sitting volleyball, a number of swimmers (because the form is not correct because of issues with their bodies.), athletics competitors (wheelchair marathon runners would beat their able bodied peers), seven-a-side and five-a-side footballers, wheelchair curling, sledge hocket, etc.  The Paralympics are the highest level (to the extent that thing we're ignoring World Champions).  --LauraHale (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is another example that "highest level" is completely misleading, as discussed at "Vague" tag below. It's the coverage received by the athletes that needs to be considered, irregardless of the level of competition.—Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That takes us straight back to GNG, in which case we may as well abolish SNGs. The presumption that Paralympians don't get media coverage equivalent to other athletes at comparable levels is a specifically American POV. Just take a look at the 2012 Paralympic Games article and talk page to see how badly out of step with the rest of the (at least 1st) world the lack of media interest in the US is. The US was the only 1st world country that gave the Paralympics no live tv coverage. Roger (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The media coverage was highly critical of the United States for their treatment of the Paralympics. The British journalists and the IPC were happy to take digs at the USA.  A TeamGB person I talked to was happy to tell me Haiti had more live coverage of the Paralympics than the USA.  I think the USA might be one of the few western countries that remains where television rights are bought by the national Paralympic committee and GIVEN to a media organisation. This is another situation where notability is again tied into geography.  Discussing notability for sports without discussing geography is inherently problematic. --LauraHale (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Roger: The WP:BURDEN is on the proposal to convince others that significant coverage can be presumed to exist. WP:BIAS does exists on WP, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS even within NSPORTS.  At the same time WP is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS such as American coverage or lack thereof.  Unfortunately, these are all the factors at play.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

International Paralympic Committee (IPC) World Records?
One of the NP:TRACK criteria is "Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body". I tried to add IPC world records to that list, and got reversed. Was Richard Whitehead (athlete) notable as a record breaking distance runner? When he switched to sprinting and broke the 200 meter record? Or only after he won Paralympic gold? Sportygeek (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be from the world record if they are including every bloody age group record for athletics. GAtechnical (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Vague" tag
The general guideline for sports persons has long referred to "competition at the highest level, such as the Olympics". Some editors have tagged it as "", so we really ought to discuss it. Anyone who takes the time to go back through the talk archives will find that the language has been discussed a lot in the past, and my personal opinion is that, although it's true that "highest level" is intentionally imprecise, it's appropriate to leave the language as it is. But it's not good to leave the vague tag on the guideline page, because it becomes an invitation to argue the point, and that makes the guideline less helpful instead of more helpful. Should we word that passage differently? If so, how? If not, should we remove the tag? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . I tend to agree. And hell, it isn't even that confusing. "Competition at the highest level" will vary from sport to sport, therefore that specific part of the SNG can't be more specific.  The Olympics is used as an example.  We could add more examples, such as a World Championship, or "appeared in a top professional league for its sport", but what is the point?  Resolute 22:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is vague, and I think the text should ideally be removed. Multiple discussions in the past year or two held that it's the coverage in sources that is important and not the level of competition. There is already a specific entry for the Olympics at Notability_(sports). Most sports already have their own individual guidelines. If there are other Olympic-like events that are presumed notable, let's spell them out specifically.  Otherwise, GNG will suffice if it is truly notable.  That being said, the practice has been to not change existing text unless there are actual (not theoretical) discussions where the existing wording is causing confusion.—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thinking about both of your replies here, two ideas occur to me. One would be to add the words "...such as the Olympics." The other would be to remove the text. However, a problem with removing it would be that it would pretty much gut that section of the page (which see). Also, I would worry that, maybe, there are some examples where this competition has been used as a demonstration of notability, in spite of the trend towards emphasizing source coverage. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need to spell it out any further. The general guideline is there so that we cover something that is not covered in the specific sections below it. Having a reference to the Olympics is great, so that editors have a reference point about what the "highest level" means. Having "...or as defined in the sports specific sections below" won't help because it will be a duplication. When we look down to the next bullet point (#2), it already suggests to go to the specific sections. I think we just need to remove the vague tag and move on. If some editors have some ideas in mind on the notability guideline for a specific sport which is not yet listed, just add that as a new section then. Don't pollute the general guideline section. Z22 (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the language in question ("competition at the highest level, such as the Olympics") sets a general standard applicable to all sports, many of which do not yet have a specific notability guideline, and may never have one. Unfortunately, too many of the sports SNGs appear to be attempts to dilute the GNG guidelines rather than create something merely more specific.  I see no reason to encourage further dilution; reference to the Olympics as "competition at the highest level" sets a default standard that we should keep.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is already a specific section for Olympic criteria, so I don't see the need for a general one. Moreover, the "highest level" obscures the fact that the highest levels of some sports might not have sufficient coverage to meet GNG, while some lower levels like college sports or Arena football or minor league hockey easily pass and are included in NSPORTS.—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In its brief, intentionally vague formulation, it seems to me that this is a meta-guideline, meant to suggest when to add specific competitions to notability guidelines for specific sports. Or is it meant to allow defenders of obscure AfD subjects a way to distract attention away from the harsh demands of WP:GNG? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's misleading as a meta-guideline. For example, there have been countless arguments to keep articles on players from American football leagues in Europe simply because its the highest level in Europe, even though there is little coverage local or in the world on those leagues.—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To address this specific concern, maybe something like this? "have participated a notable international amateur or professional competition and it is the highest level competition for such sport. An example of such competition is the Olympics." Z22 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Participating in a notable event doesn't make all the participants notable. WP:NOLYMPICS currently requires Paralympic Games participants to have won a medal.—Bagumba (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do agree with this. Just participating in the Olympics does not make you be notable. Putting additional condition to win a medal makes sense to me. If for some reasons people think certain participants should be notable even without winning any medal, they can always go back to defense using WP:GNG. Z22 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My point was for Paralympics specifically, not to make Olympics require medals (on which I have no opinion).—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, guys? I think you need to stop and seriously reconsider for a moment before you radically rewrite the sports SNGs.  In this same thread we have advanced the idea that all players of American football in the European leagues are to be presumed notable, but only Olympic medalists are to be presumed notable to the exclusion of all other Olympic finalists.  One of these examples represents "competition at the highest level," but it is certainly not the European leagues for American football.  If the underlying premise of sports SNGs is to extend a presumption of notability to certain categories of athletes by sport, the majority of whom would satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, I would suggest we have begun an illogical and grossly inconsistent detour into the notability wilderness.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Players of American football in European leagues should not be presumed notable. It was used as an example of how people have sometimes misapplied "highest level". If one looks at the nutshell at the top of NSPORTS, it makes no mention of "highest level" for good reason.—Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In light of the most recent comments, let me ask this. Are there any specific sports sections here that define "highest level" in a manner that tends to undermine the concept of the Olympics as representing the highest level? If so, should we revise those sections, as opposed to revising the general statement about the Olympics? And if not, do we really need to retain the general statement about participation, if in fact participation at the highest level does not always prove to match up with recognition in sources? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When there is already a specific section for Olympics qualification, why do we need general "such as the Olympics" text? If "highest level" has worked for particular sports (do a search to see the ones that specifically mention it), have them grandfathered in, but there is no need to leave the general "highest level" door open for other sports that specifically mention levels or leagues where presumption of notability is granted.—Bagumba (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess my answer to your question depends upon the answers to my questions, immediately above. Looking at the section where the phrase occurs, if we delete that part of it, the only thing of substance that would be left are some caveats about pro wrestling etc., and those could easily enough be moved up to the end of the section above. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK with removing Notability_(sports) and moving the wrestling, esports note.—Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, I propose the following:
 * 1) Take the last paragraph of WP:NSPORTS, where pro wrestling etc. is discussed, and move it up to become the last paragraph of WP:NSPORTS.
 * 2) Delete what then remains of WP:NSPORTS.

Thoughts? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Having heard no objection, ✅. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gentle objection duly registered. I believe that the "highest level of competition" general standard should be clarified, not deleted.  It serves a purpose as the general standard for sports that do not have, do not need, and probably will never have a specific notability guideline.  The problem arises from editors who have misconstrued "highest level" of competition to mean the highest level of a particular sport within a specific country or geographic area.  This misinterpretation yields strange results in actual AfDs like a presumption of notability for Australian professional baseball players (minor sport down under), Italian semi-pro baseball players (ditto), Austrian amateur players of American football (who knew it existed?), and the like.  What is required regarding the generalized standard is clarification, not deletion, gentlemen.  When we say the "highest level of competition, such as the Olympics," we are talking about a handful of the greatest athletes in the world in their particular sport or event.  This is not only a general standard for sports without SNGs, it should be a touchstone for the adoption and interpretation of other sports SNGs.  Athletes at that level of international competition are worthy of a presumption of notability.  If we require an extra sentence or two to clarify the meaning of the general standard, let's add the required clarification.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since each sport has different levels of popularity and engagement with the general public, it's hard to tell if "highest level of competition" is a sufficient indicator for meeting the general notability guideline in general for all sports. Accordingly, it might be best to just leave unspecified cases to the general notability guideline, and to emphasize that anyone seeking to develop a topic-specific notability guideline should look for criteria that results in near 100% compliance with the general notability guideline, to cover the most cut-and-dried scenarios. isaacl (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Isaac, your point is well taken. If, however, we are going to rely solely on GNG for sports without SNGs, we need to make that explicitly part of WP:NSPORTS.  We should also consider a GNG-based standard for the adoption of new sports SNGs.  Looking over some of the more expansively defined sports SNGs, I can see that there is simply no way that the overwhelming majority of the athletes who are granted a presumption of notability by the particular SNG would ever satisfy a full-blown GNG analysis.  It is apparent to me that we cannot rely on individual sports wikiprojects to define their own SNG.  In a sport with which I am intimately familiar, American football, we have a reasonably workable league-based SNG, but an IP later banned for sock puppetry inserted the Arena Football League.  That's just nuts to put Arena football players on the same level of presumed notability with NFL, AFL, AAFC and CFL players.  Without getting into the fine points, the track and field SNG has also been diluted to the point where it is unlikely that a large percentage of the athletes presumed notable would satisfy a rigorous GNG analysis.  These are the problems I see.  We not only need a general standard applicable to sports without SNGs, but we need a standard for the adoption of the individual SNGs.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to make the relationship to the general notability guideline explicit right in the nutshell summary, but my proposal did not gain consensus. Nonetheless, the first sentence says, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia," which I think is quite clear. Any further suggestions of how to drive this point home would be appreciated.
 * The individual projects have the expertise to properly evaluate sources to determine the best set of criteria that can indicate a near 100% compliance with the general notability guideline, and so the ideal approach would make use of this expertise when creating a new topic-specific notability guideline or revisiting an existing one. Unfortunately, most people use the everyday meaning of notability when crafting their proposals for topic-specific notability guidelines, rather than the question of "does meeting these criteria mean that the subject is almost certain to have independent, non-promotional, non-routine, third-party coverage in reliable sources". I don't know how to address this in light of Wikipedia's consensus-based model, where all expertise on a topic is supposed to be taken from secondary sources rather than the personal knowledge of the editors, which runs counter to most people's instincts, but is necessary for a resource that anyone can edit. isaacl (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that I have no objection at all to Dirtlawyer1's reversion of my edit. I really don't care, and however we decide to resolve this is likely to be fine with me. By way of explanation, the reason I went ahead with the deletion was simply that there had been a lot of activity on this talk page over the past few days, but nobody had responded here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is already a general statement that GNG is used if NSPORTS is not met: "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." This is reflected in the nutshell.  If there are any concerns with a specific sport that its current guidelines are not reflective of the general presumptions of NSPORTS, that sport should be dealt with individually.—Bagumba (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to take a moment here to note that in contrast to Dirtlawyer's assertion, the "presumption of notability for Australian professional baseball players" is not a "misinterpretation" of the guideline. Baseball is a fully professional sport in Australia, and it receives extensive newspaper coverage in that country. The sport-specific guideline for baseball was formulated in the explicit understanding that players in leagues like that one would be covered. His line about semi-pro ball in Italy is presumably a back-handed shot at the fully-professional Italian Baseball League, which is also covered, for similar reasons. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * HBWS, in several of the most recent AfDs involving a Mexican league player and a Turkish league player, there was a consensus to delete and a consensus not to extend presumption of notability to players in those leagues. In the most recent case of a Dominican league baseball player, the AfD was closed with no consensus at all.  Clearly, there exists no overwhelming consensus of editors that agrees with your interpretation of the baseball SNG, i.e., that the players of the highest professional baseball league in any given country are entitled to an automatic presumption of notability.  That's the danger inherent in a poorly drafted, inherently ambiguous specific notability guideline such as WP:NBASEBALL.  To put it bluntly, the idea that the vast majority of Italian league baseball players could satisfy the general notability guidelines of GNG is without rational justification.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Mexican League example cuts against numerous past precedents, and was largely a result of non-baseball people in that thread not understanding the distinction between the Mexican League and real "minor league" teams. The Turkish example is not really relevant, since Turkey does not have a fully professional league, and no one was ever able to verify that the player in question was part of the national team - as such, he does not qualify for inherent notability under the guideline. Your skepticism about the ability to properly source articles on players in the Italian Baseball League is unwarranted, particularly given the recent example of Articles for deletion/Henry Bonilla (baseball) (2nd nomination), where numerous reliable sources were located without difficulty. In my experience, most people who claim that sources for articles on these players do not exist are either unwilling or unable to do the proper research, which for foreign players necessarily includes an examination of foreign-language sources (in both the country of play and the player's country of origin). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For the Bonilla AfD, essentially the "or any other top-level national league" verbage in NBASEBALL was useless, since GNG needed to be demonstrated anyways as very few people, even baseball-knowledgable ones, have a strong grasp on which other non-US leagues are considered "top-level". I would recommend to remove the ambiguous wording and add the specific leagues as warranted. Also, I wouldn't recommend spending time adding leagues that are not frequently argued in WP, as I'm against creating more rules just for the sake of having them.—Bagumba (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The guideline is written the way that it is so that it's scalable. That way, we don't need to have a constant series of discussions on whether or not to add any new leagues that will be created in the future as they form, and we don't have to deal with any well-intentioned editors with minimal knowledge of the subject creating long chains of inappropriate AFD nominations because an old and defunct (but notable) league like the National Colored Base Ball League happened to be left off of a supposedly exhaustive list of leagues covered by the guideline. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for convenience
I'm trying to think of ways to accommodate what everyone is saying, and one thing that occurs to me is that the "highest level of competition" is being understood not so much as a test of notability, but as a statement of what the tests that are spelled out in the individual sport sections aspire to accomplish. In that regard, let me suggest this:
 * 1) Delete what now remains of WP:NSPORTS.
 * 2) Revise WP:NSPORTS, first paragraph, to reflect the language about highest level:
 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] "

Please take a look at how that reads in the full context of WP:NSPORTS, especially with the bullet points that would come after. Does that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Tryptofish, I think your approach holds some promise. I am not wedded to the Olympics example, but I do believe we need to provide overall top-down guidance for the subsidiary sports SNGs, several of which have either become too expansive in their express language or in their "liberal" interpretation during the AfD process.  I'm going to ruminate on your suggestions for a bit.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Highest level" would be better explained in an essay perhaps, and not in this guideline. This guideline relies on coverage, independent of the level of play e.g. college sports, minor league hockey, etc.  We dont include Parlympians who have not medaled because coverage has not been demonstrated.—Bagumba (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The thread below at "Sportspeople who aren't notable" is a real-life example of confusion and time wasted at an AfD due to "highest level".—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing how discussion throughout this talk page has been going, I increasingly think that we should, indeed, go ahead with this. I'll wait another day or two, so if anyone disagrees, please say so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the wording "...sports figures are likely to be notable if they have participated..." would be clearer as "...sports figures are likely to meet those criteria if they have participated..." to prevent confusion. Either way, I support the change. James086 Talk  19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence is taken straight from WP:BASIC, the basic criteria from Wikipedia's guidance on notability for people. Because each sport will have different rules of thumb for meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, I'm not sure the proposed addition would be beneficial, as it may perpetuate the confusion between the everyday meaning of notability, and Wikipedia's use of this term as a shorthand for "meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion". isaacl (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Isaac, I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "the proposed addition". Do you mean the part I have in green, above? If so, are you advocating just doing part 1 of what I said, without part 2? And, everybody, would it make better sense to do part 1 without part 2? (That would be fine with me.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the text in green that you proposed adding. Earlier I suggested that it may be better to leave other sports to the general notability guideline and so not include any general statement on them (which would correspond to your part 1). I think your part 2 may continue to lead editors to think of Wikipedia standards for inclusion as being based solely on rules of thumb, rather than being based on the existence of appropriate sources, and so might not be in the best interest of this article. isaacl (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I can definitely agree with that. I guess the question becomes whether any of the editors who object to deleting what is now in WP:NSPORTS and which I modified for the language in green, will object to just doing part 1 without also doing part 2. Myself, I'm fine with it either way, but with a mild preference for just doing part 1, without part 2, as you are saying. But if there is resistance to that, I'd rather do all of what I propose above, than leave things as they are now, because that leaves the "green" language in an even more confusing form. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with part 1 without part 2. "Highest level" is too ambiguous.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think highest level needs to stay there. The whole purpose of this page is to explain what that highest level is in each sport and to otherwise use the generic ie Olympics for those sports not listed. -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is to agree with Bagumba, in the topic branch below, but I think that there is sufficient opposition to removing the long-standing language about "highest level" that I'd be reluctant to remove it at this time. But, as when Djsasso (and others) say that it "needs to stay there", there's a decision we need to make about where "there" is. Right now, it's in WP:NSPORTS, which has otherwise been so shortened that I don't really think it really accomplishes very much. Above, I've suggested moving it, to the language that I've shown . In my opinion, that makes better sense. So – should we (A) leave the language in WP:NSPORTS, or, should we (B) delete WP:NSPORTS and replace it with the language in green? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is to agree with Bagumba, in the topic branch below, but I think that there is sufficient opposition to removing the long-standing language about "highest level" that I'd be reluctant to remove it at this time. But, as when Djsasso (and others) say that it "needs to stay there", there's a decision we need to make about where "there" is. Right now, it's in WP:NSPORTS, which has otherwise been so shortened that I don't really think it really accomplishes very much. Above, I've suggested moving it, to the language that I've shown . In my opinion, that makes better sense. So – should we (A) leave the language in WP:NSPORTS, or, should we (B) delete WP:NSPORTS and replace it with the language in green? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest making the following change to the second sentence in the section "Applicable polices and guidelines":
 * The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline(for example, for some sports, participating in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level, such as the Olympics, is a good indicator).
 * isaacl (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Would that be accompanied by deleting WP:NSPORTS? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as discussed above, the general notability guideline can handle unspecified cases. isaacl (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. That works for me, about equally with what I suggested at the top. I'm pretty much neutral between those two options. I just think that we now need to delete that near-empty section, so wherever we move the language is fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a fan of removing that whole section. That section was this guideline. The rest of the sections were just providing more detail on that section. You essentially completely removed the entire WP:ATHLETE section of WP:NSPORTS. Athletes in sports not listed below should fall to what was in the section that was removed, before they fall all the way to GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood, but I'd like to see some discussion of the alternatives. And I don't buy the argument that it was the guideline. It had already been pared down to (a) the contested language, and (b) an instruction to read below. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As you know, the approval of this set of guidelines as a more detailed version of WP:ATHLETE resulted from recognizing that more specific guidance was needed, and it was best handled on a per sport basis, rather than trying to stretch one guideline to fit all and thus requiring everyone to agree upon it. I believe it's too difficult to defend one guideline as a catchall, and so it's better to rely on the interested parties for a given sport to come up with appropriate guidelines. isaacl (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, however it was with the idea that those sports that didn't have a specific criteria didn't need one and could easily fall to the highest level criteria which is why it was left. Without a full out RfC that part of this page should not be removed as it is central to this whole guideline. Essentially removing it wipes out the whole guideline and in doing so you would need an RfC that was advertised to the level that the one that created it was. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on my quick refresh of what was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2010, the support expressed was on the basis of the greater detail in WP:NSPORT, and a number of opinions (plus the genesis of the entire discussion to begin with) expressed dissatisfaction with the general guidance provided by WP:ATHLETE. I did not see any views expressing a desire to keep a catchall guideline (including those expressed by you), and some said that a catchall was not feasible. So while I disagree that removing it wipes out the entire guideline, I do appreciate the point that it would be a significant change to WP:NSPORT, and so an RfC may be warranted. isaacl (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also reviewed Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4 and not found any support statements based on the existence of a catchall guideline. Going through the early archives for this talk page has confirmed my memory that right from the start, WP:NSPORTS was not intended to replace the general notability guideline (and the closing statement says this). isaacl (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said it was intended to replace the GNG. NSPORTS was intended to be an expansion of ATHLETE not a replacement. Removing this section would mean we were wiping out ATHLETE completely which was not what those discussions were about. They were about expanding it to have more specifics. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I should have put that last sentence in parentheses and prefixed with "On a sidenote," as it was not related to your statement. Regarding the RfC that adopted WP:NSPORTS, a number of people in fact stated the desire to replace WP:ATHLETE and the "fully professional" rule of thumb. The discussion that led to WP:NSPORT being developed into a guideline explicitly started with "ATH is broken. ... We should create bright-line tests on a sport-by-sport basis that will ensure that we are meeting the GNG for these sports bio articles." So at least in part, the approval of WP:NSPORT as a guideline was related to replacing the general guidance provided by WP:ATHLETE. isaacl (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Applaud latest changes
Glad that we are boldly moving forward on this. I'm all for discussion—and there has been plenty—but there is such a thing as paralysis by analysis. Let's try to improve and fix new problems as needed (we got smart people here), rather than stick with an acknowledged flawed status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And I'm really very receptive to doing either of the "green font" versions of putting some of the language back, but putting it back in a better way. I just feel that there should be more discussion about how, precisely, to do that, and I made the bold edit in hopes of getting that discussion moving. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm ok if some wants to add discuss to the article in the interim as long as a discussion is started.—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's long-past started, and needs to be completed! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not everyone acknowledges that it is flawed. Could it be better perhaps. But removing it is an even bigger flaw. Until we have a way to reinsert the same language back in as proposed we should not be removing it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Highest level
(continuation of this subject) The highest level of a sport is not necessarily notable. NSPORTS should provide guidance to someone who wonders if all athletes in World Games is covered, or why only medalists in Paralympics are covered when all Olympians are covered. We need to clarify "highest level" to avoid the appearance or bias or discrimination. Can't we just repeat or expand on the nutshell in the body, which makes no mention of "highest level".—Bagumba (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, presumably the Olympics are at a higher level than the Paralympics, since it is possible to compete in both, as Oscar Pistorius has demonstrated. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * College sports is not the highest level, as many players bypass it altogether and go pro. However, college athletes can be notable.  Let's eliminate this notion of "highest level" which is only confusing the main point:  it's only the coverage that matters.—Bagumba (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * isaacl at 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC) wrote that his research through Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2010 and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4 did not find any past mention of needing a catchall of "highest levels" for sports that did not have there own specific criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Djsaaso: as the (currently) lone dissenter to removing the general "highest levels" criteria, can you elaborate on the benefits of keeping. The reasons for removing seem to be 1) highest level dont necessarily correlate with coverage of all athletes (see  Asian Beach Games discussion at  or imagine international dodgeball competitions like these) 2) non-followers of a given sport cannot easily determine objectively the "highest level" of a sport 3) Avoid the appearance of bias or discrimination as discussed at .—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I am the lone dissenter. There were a number above who dissented. And the majority of commenters agreed but only if it was added back in elsewhere in another manner. I merely say it shouldn't be removed until we decide how it is to be placed back in. Well as for #1, I highly doubt the Asian Beach Games are the highest level. (ie they aren't the Olympics or World Championships) Generally its always been said highest level means either of those two for amateur sports. Which covers #2 as pretty much anyone understands the Olympics and World Championships are the highest. As for #3 I don't see that as a problem at all. As for your building of strawman like your dodgeball example, that is already very clearly explained on the page that meeting this page doesn't mean it automatically gets kept. I highly doubt a dodgeball player would be kept at Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually looking at the discussion above I see more people that outright disagree than agree. (Resolute, Z22, Hobbes, Hit Bull). Tryptofish talks about removing it in that format and rewriting it in sentence form so doesn't agree with removing it completely. The only ones who seem to have done that is you and Issacl and maybe Dirtlawyer. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SILENCE is a tricky thing. In any event, as we already have WP:NOLYMPICS, let's just add WP:NWORLDCHAMPIONSHIPS (if it really is notable) and be done with ambiguous statements.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First, for my part in filling the "silence", let me explain exactly where I'm coming from. Djsasso, actually, I personally would be perfectly fine with removing it completely! But the reason I've talked about rewriting it is out of respect for consensus with other editors, including but not limited to you, who would prefer not to remove it entirely. I earlier objected to tagging the phrase as "vague", but I've more recently been persuaded by discussion that there actually are problems with the phrase. Higher up in the discussion, you made the comment that the removal represents such a large alteration of the guideline that a major RfC would be required. Actually, the section of the guideline has been shortened by a successive series of edits to where all it said was two things: (1) that guidance on this page is given sport-by-sport in the sections below, which is so obvious that it really does not need anyone to say it, and (2) that notability is related in some way to "competition at the highest level", although editors in this talk do not seem to be able to agree as to whether that means that each of the sport-by-sport sections is written to reflect highest-level performance, or whether a source describing competition at the "highest level" is an alternative way to pass NSPORTS, if failing the sport-specific criteria.


 * I said before that I hoped to have discussion of how to put the language back in, but we really don't seem to be doing that, unfortunately. So, instead of getting stuck in a discussion of how much we need to put the language back, I'm going to try again to move things forward. I'll pick the version suggested above by Isaac (purely because it's not the version suggested by me), and put it on the page. Then, it's no longer removed from the page! The only thing still removed will be a sentence telling people to read the sections that follow. They don't need to be told that. In the mean time, if anyone wants to modify the restored language, or move it somewhere else, or whatever, that's fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I did that, and then self-reverted because I had somehow missed seeing that the section had in fact already been put back. I've been thinking for a while about what to say now. It seems to me that, either, editors have to settle on a way to put the language back in after deleting the section (something like what I attempted to do), or, editors have to demonstrate that the restored section is actually accomplishing something. Although it's pretty clear to me that we don't have consensus to simply remove the section (without putting the "highest level" language somewhere, in some form), it's not enough to just insist on the status quo, because, in its present form, WP:NSPORTS comes awfully close to saying nothing at all. Alternatively, let's have that large-scale RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * An RFC would be more effective if we at least have some options to start with. We've laid out some reasons to remove. I'd like to be clearer on the argument to keep or have some mention of "higher levels", and I hope it can be more detailed than because it's status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm beginning to think that's right. First, let me ask you: do you want to flesh out what you said above about WP:NWORLDCHAMPIONSHIPS? If so, that could be a specific proposal for an RfC (but I'm not sure how much you really were supporting that idea). Aside from that, we have this and this as options in lieu of the status quo. We should select one of those (or another option), and then start an RfC, asking whether what we have now should be changed to the selected option. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont know enough about World Championships to drive it. What I liked is that it was more objective than "highest level", but the devil is in the details if all "World Championships" are notable, and is it just any event with "world championship" in the name, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I figured I should ask first. Here is what I suggest for the RfC. The RfC question should be whether or not to implement this, with the modification proposed by James086, and the RfC should be listed under both Policy, and Society, Sports etc. If anyone wants to do it another way, please say so. I'll wait a few days for those replies, and then start the RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The wording is more open-ended than I prefer, implying that "highest level" is a catchall criterion. I would rather see a statement where "highest level" is given as one example of the type of rule of thumb used in crafting sports-specific notability guidelines. isaacl (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes good sense to me. How about this: change "if they have participated..." to "if, for example, they have participated..."? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in case it wasn't obvious, I prefer my proposal ;-). I'll see if I can think of any alternate proposals that modify the basic criteria section, but it isn't my first choice. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think that it makes better sense to put it in the Basic Criteria section, and I'd like to avoid wording it with too many subordinate phrases. Also, it's been a little awkward in that you and I are pretty much the only editors who have expressed opinions about those two versions, which is why I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get other editors to offer opinions. But, sure, please suggest more ideas, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's ready for an RFC. However, I'm happy to wait if Isaac has any other improvements to make to the wording before we start. :) James086 Talk  10:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest adding a fourth bullet to the end of the "Notability (sports)" section, with the following text:
 * One rule of thumb used by some sports is that persons who have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level, such as the Olympics, are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion.
 * In addition, I propose adding at the top of the section, below the pointer to Notability. isaacl (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the second part of what you said should be entirely non-controversial (watch me be proven wrong), and I also think that the real question of the planned RfC does not in any way hinge upon it. It's really just a helpful link, one that makes sense whether or not the RfC proposal passes. So I just put it on the page, and it's presumably done with.


 * As for the difference between the two suggestions for the text about "highest level", we are probably looking at angels on pinheads at this point, but let me try to parse out the differences, so that we get things as right as we can. One difference is purely one of format: whether the language goes in the introductory paragraph of the section, or into a fourth bullet point. Another is the extent to which we choose wording that describes the concept of "highest level" as an example of one of the ways the sport-specific sections are devised, as opposed to, in addition, a sort of "aspirational statement" that applies across the board, saying in effect that we are trying not to include athletes who have not performed at the highest level. It seems to me that your version underplays that latter aspect, making it a bigger change from what we have now, and my reading of the editors who oppose changing the status quo is that the latter aspect may be something that they care about. Perhaps we ought to consider trying to get as much support for the RfC proposal as we can. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The location of the inserted text is part of de-emphasizing the "highest level" rule of thumb as not being a general catchall criterion across all sports. It is one that has often been used as a rule of thumb for many sports, but should be examined for its applicability to other sports before codifying it as a guideline for those sports. If the proposed changes don't shift the focus in this way, then I'm not sure there is enough difference with the status quo to warrant a long discussion on this matter. isaacl (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the link to WP:BASIC, it's more than a helpful link: the text in the "Basic criteria" section is taken from it. Linking to the original text emphasizes that this section is not replacing Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion for persons. isaacl (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right about the BASIC link. What I was talking about above was the hatnote. I hadn't adequately noticed the link within the text, but now that you point it out to me, I agree with you about that specific point.


 * As for the de-emphasizing, I'm glad that you described it the way that you did, because it makes explicit the concern that I had raised. As I see it, getting the emphasis versus de-emphasis balance correct is going to be key to the success or failure of the RfC. You and I both agree that there should be at least some change in emphasis, but you are advocating a significant deprecation, whereas I am advocating a more incremental change that does not really deprecate the concept, but merely makes it clearer that the concept does not exist separately from the sport-specific criteria. In my opinion, it's an improvement, and it stands a good chance of being accepted by the community, whereas your approach strikes me as likely to be contentious and end up as a failed RfC. But I'm about to make another edit, in which I'll try to meet you part way, and we can see where we ought to go from there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on what we just discussed, I'd like to revise my earlier proposal. This would be the opening paragraph of the "Basic criteria" section:
 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] "

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The nutshell uses the subjective term "major" already. I'd prefer to not introduce another subjective term in "highest level", while also keeping the emphasis on the coverage. How about:
 * "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] "
 * —Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it comes down to the same sort of issues I raised in my reply to Isaac. To what extent do we want to deprecate the phrase "highest level"? Your suggestion would actually remove it. As much as I see the logic to it, I am concerned that other editors will see it as a reason to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're only proposing to move the existing language to a new spot in the page, then I don't believe this is a substantial change to the existing guideline, and I think a Request for Comments is unnecessary: just get an agreement on this page and go ahead with whatever is agreed upon. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get a sense of the consensus here, and most of the responses I'm getting are from Bagumba and Isaacl, who clearly favor a less incremental change. I tried removing the language before, and I was reverted before we really had a chance to put the language anywhere else. I really have no way of knowing what would happen if we were to make this "non-substantial" change now, but the editors who seem to me to be likely to object to it have been quiet lately. Given that Bagumba, Isaacl, and I are doing most of the discussion here, and I really agree with Bagumba and Isaacl on the merits, I'm going to test the hypothesis. I'm going to make what you consider a "non-substantial" change now, and see what happens. If you are correct, it will be non-controversial, and anyone who wants to can start an RfC for a more ambitious change. On the other hand, if someone reverts me, then we'll have feedback about how receptive or unreceptive other editors really are to the change. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish, I applaud your attempt to get this back on track. Every single editor who has contributed seems to have had a sincere point to make, but the discussion as a whole has been a crazy quilt. I agree your edit (for now), but can we lose the "for example" clause? It seems unnecessary. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, much appreciated! My personal opinion is to agree with you about "for example", but I put it there to accommodate Isaacl, who I think wants it there (at a minimum). In fairness, I admit that there is a case that it really is just an example, in that not every sport-specific item was designed with it in mind, but I'm curious what other editors think. If there is no objection to deleting it, in the next day or so, I'll delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Leave "for example" in. As long as "highest level" stays in, "for example" should stay as it coveys that playing at the highest level can be one example of where sufficient coverage exists.  There are mid-levels that receive plenty of coverage, and sports with minimal coverage where highest level may not make an athlete notable.—Bagumba (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)