Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 56

What do we do when...
...we have an accomplished athlete from the pre-internet era who meets a criterion at WP:NSPORT, but we have no access to sources that would have covered said athlete, thus making us unable to add SIGCOV? Say "oh well" and get rid of it? That's effectively what we've done a few times, e.g. Olympic medalist Karl Schwegler. I'm not sure that makes sense however; as then what would be the purpose of this whole notability page in the first place if meeting it has absolutely no meaning? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * NSPORT was basically deprecated because of these exact situations. We're no longer willing to presume there's coverage because too often there was no coverage when we looked closely. A quick search of a German newspaper archive brought up nothing, if that helps? SportingFlyer  T · C  23:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer, thank you for your reply. If NSPORT is basically deprecated, then it should have Superseded or similar at the top. I don't think the guidelines are deprecated because they're still actively used in deletion discussions, and there is no proven consensus to make such a change. --Habst (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer - the criteria at WP:NSPORT that the original poster refers to were deprecated. WP:NSPORT is still fine, it just suggests that significant coverage is likely to exist now while now requiring evidence of SIGCOV. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer, thank you for clarifying. I still think that "are presumed notable" versus "significant coverage is likely to exist" is, frankly, a distinction without a difference. Both statements have policy implications about keeping the articles, which is a subjective process anyways so the word "likely" is redundant in nearly any notability policy. --Habst (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's actually a huge difference, even if the change feels minor. "Presumed notable" means you can create the article without significant coverage. "Likely to exist" means it's probable someone who has achieved a specific accomplishment will be notable but does not give anyone permission to create an article without some demonstration of SIGCOV. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer, thanks for explaining the difference. I agree with your explanation of "presumed notable", but not your explanation of "likely to exist". Understanding that the word "likely" is redundant because all notability policies deal in generalities, establishing that "significant coverage exists" is functionally equivalent to a presumption of notability, because on Wikipedia notability is determined by presence of coverage whether or not that coverage is specifically linked in the article (for example, recently a deletion discussion was closed as keep due in part to a hall of fame plaque about the subject being mentioned as existing, even though the specific plaque was never photographed – the mere assumption of the plaque likely existing is evidence of notability). --Habst (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NSPORT was specifically re-written to require the SIGCOV be linked in the article, though. The two work together now. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer, thank you for providing that perspective. I think that the WP:SPORTCRIT bullet point #5 on this page you're referring to is contradictory to other Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:BASIC, which (for example) allows for combining sources while SPORTCRIT does not. Also, WP:BASIC requires sources to exist, but not necessarily to be referenced in the article – this page is a supplemental guideline to that, so BASIC would apply anyways. --Habst (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not see this as being inconsistent with WP:BASIC, since we could still theoretically have a sportsperson where BASIC gets tied together. And if we knew SIGCOV exists, but it's not in the article, that would still be kept at AfD I think. In any case it was a negotiated change in order to prevent disruption, and some topic areas can be a bit stricter with the rules - NCORP is probably the strictest for instance. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer Thank you for your civil conversation, I think it has been helpful. If "SIGCOV being known to (likely) exist" means "article would be kept at AfD", then I think that it only takes one logical step to say, "if NSPORT says significant coverage exists, then the article is notable" so we end up at the distinction without a difference from the old guidelines. I don't think that NSPORTS2022 has really ended the "stalemate" on these guidelines as much as people think it did. --Habst (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The key change was the removal of participation-based criteria, which precludes participants in a deletion discussion from just saying "per sport X's notability criteria" without further explanation, for cases that relied on the removed criteria. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Isaacl, thank you. That's all fine, but the original question is about a person who won a silver medal at the Olympics representing Ruderclub Reuss Luzern in a 12-team final, well beyond just participation. So I don't think that the NSPORTS2022 decision really affects this case, as in relation to this case it only changed the wording from "presumed notable" to "significant coverage is likely to exist" which I think are effectively two ways of saying the same thing. --Habst (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was responding specifically to your general comment that "I don't think that NSPORTS2022 has really ended the 'stalemate' on these guidelines as much as people think it did." isaacl (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you would like to have an achievement-based standard for having an article, rather than a coverage-based standard? For better or worse, there hasn't been a consensus for this amongst the subset of editors who like to discuss these matters. Part of the reason for this is that many editors think that biographies should have some information about the subject's life as a whole, and absent significant coverage, it's hard to do this. (I've discussed your last question in previous discussions, so I won't go over it again here.) isaacl (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The Karl Schweger outcome of "redirect" appears sound. Under WP:SPORTBASIC prong 5 requires at least one item of SIGCOV, which was not found despite diligent efforts. An exception has been made in rare cases under WP:BASIC where multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability and write a reasonably rounded biography. In Schweger's case, neither of these options was satisfied. Given these circumstances, there was not a single "keep" vote. Even so, a decision was made to "redirect" as a WP:ATD, thus preseving the history and text so that nothing is lost if better sourcing is located down the road. This strikes me like a reasonable outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say those were "diligent efforts" - I've never recognized the 2,000 edit nominator who doesn't seem to be a sports editor, Geschichte just said we should redirect "at the very least" (no comment about searching), Let'srun appears to be just a revenge/hounding !vote (I can provide evidence if needed) and then there's Joelle (not sure the depth of her searches as she just said "no sigcov has been unearthed"). It does not appear that anyone looked in relevant (i.e. Swiss newspaper) sources; if such standards (no need to look at relevant sources for NSPORT passes) are more widely applied I am certain that a great many Olympic medalists (i.e. greatest athletes of all time) will be deleted. That's not something preferable, in my opinion. Then what is the point of these sub-criteria? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Because, for one, winning an Olympic medal is not synonymous with "greatest athlete of all time." There are all manner of Olympic sports which scarcely move the needle, and there's vastly more coverage to bronze medalist marathoners, figure skaters or 100 meter sprinters than for gold medalist rhythmic gymnasts or 10 meter pistol shooters. For a second, c'mon, BeanieFan11; this isn't your first rodeo. You have to know that there are vastly more articles thrown up with poor or no sourcing than AfDs with little or no attempt to find that sourcing.  In any event it's a longstanding rule of thumb that the onus on finding such sourcing rests with the editor(s) seeking to retain material.  My own strong belief that it is incumbent on every article creator to put that sourcing in as a precondition of posting the article in the first place.  If they can't be assed to do that, I'm not troubled by those articles falling into the dustbin.   Ravenswing      03:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see more expansive criteria at AFD arguments. Recent "keep" arguments have included merely merely being selected to compete in a future Olympics, or being the first person from their country to win a bronze medal in their sport in a junior regional competition. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked three of the newspaper archives from WikiLibrary, as I do for a lot of AfDs. If we can't find the one IRS SIGCOV source then I don't see how we can presume GNG coverage exists from meeting a criterion that was never tested for predictive capacity in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ...we have no access to sources that would have covered said athlete... It's also conceivable that sources just don't exist. The community could WP:IAR, saying that most Olympic medalists are notable, and allow WP:PERMASTUBs for a few of them in order to have a complete collection.  Of course, you'd need to get community consensus that such an exemption improves Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course this whole area is fuzzy, but for stuff that is before the internet explosion, and before electronic "sports coverage as entertainment rather than just coverage", the ratio of actual notability to coverage tends to be higher, I tend to enter that into the equation during NPP reviews. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONSENSE applies. Whilst I know participation-based 'automatic' notability has been abolished, common sense says that somebody who made 1 professional sport appearance in 1905 is likely to have less coverage than somebody who had 5 appearances, or 10 etc. GiantSnowman 19:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Every since these guidelines were gutted, they are completely useless.. Probably better to just delete it outright at this point since it provides no guidance whatsoever anymore. Spanneraol (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, they might have served a purpose in the early Wikipedia years, but I haven't noticed an onslaught of obvious AfD nom errors, at least in the Big 3 U.S. sports. I don't know if its had an impact on any non-domain expert new page patrollers. The amount of discussion this page still generates might outweigh any utility value this guideline might still actually  provide. —Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Apparently changing "presumed notability" to "presumed coverage" in our sport-specific guidance is still, somehow, controversial?
Diff. Do we really need to go over this every single time we identify a piece of overlooked legacy wording? The change (bolded) is in this passage: The current language implies either that medaling in a competition with more than three participants is an indicator of presumed notability, or that medaling when there are ≤3 competitors affords the same presumptions as when there are 4+ (because the latter also is not an indicator of presumed notability). The original intent of this wording was to distinguish between these two groups re: notability guidance, so to retain that distinction the language should reflect our updated presumptions.

This really should not be controversial. JoelleJay (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you please post an additional diff showing why you think this was an oversight? Because presumed notability appears several times around that passage, but presumed coverage does not exist in the article and the exact phrase has only been used 49 times on Wikipedia according to a quick search. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ...did you miss that whole RfC and the followups? Here is when the guideline stabilized with all instances of "presumed notable" supposed to be replaced with "significant coverage is likely to exist". The term doesn't have to be "presumed coverage", the point is to remove the "presumed notable" language. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been over ten months since that closed. I don't mind the edit, but the problem with that particular sentence is that changing it from presumed notable to presumed coverage makes the entire thing worse/less clear. At least the current edit makes clear someone who got an Olympics participation trophy isn't entitled to an article. I think options are removing entirely or changing it to something like ...Laurentia Tan, unless the athlete competed in an event with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants received a medal.) SportingFlyer  T · C  17:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your suggested wording is great. I'll implement it. JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have an objection to my implementing this? @Cbl62? I tried to do so earlier but was reverted again by @Cassiopeia despite this discussion having a pretty uniform consensus against retaining "presumed notable" and for "likely to have...". JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * T-N-T! T-N-T! T-N-T! ;) On a more serious note, I have no objection to the change. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What specifically is the proposed change?  Which section/paragraph and which specific substitution?  Such is not stated anywhere in this thread.North8000 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The section in question is the green text in my first post, the proposed change is the green text in SF's comment. It's an extremely minor change that simply makes the guidance consistent with everywhere else. JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, just leave it as "you should be able to figure it out" instead of distilling it into a clear proposed change. So, with that narrowing, you are asking about 2 people for feedback. :-) North8000 (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * changed to JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, and I support that change. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, too. Cbl62 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since I saw it's been reverted already, I also support this change. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I support the change. It reads better. - Enos733 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2022 RfA, we've used "likely to have received significant coverage" as the operative language. I support that. The phrase "presumed coverage" strikes me as something that can and would be misconstrued. At Afd, we generally don't allow folks to rely on a "presumption" that SIGCOV exists. To the contrary, we generally require that "actual" SIGCOV be presented. Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine rewording it to say something about coverage likely existing rather than "presumed coverage", I just wanted to remove the "presumed notable" and figured it would be more controversial to fully rewrite that sentence. JoelleJay (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think it'd be best just to apply some TNT. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am working on a draft. - Enos733 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to be rude, but that won't work. An American football player must be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (i.e. one of the greatest 300 figures ever, when there's probably 50,000 notable figures) to be considered as "likely" to have significant coverage? That is only going to result in nominations for deletion like "isn't in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not notable" or "only was a starter in the NFL for six full seasons, not notable" – which are plainly ridiculous. The players in the Big Four leagues having presumed notability for playing a game is the only thing that made sense (especially post-1930, that criteria really worked); and although I know the anti-sports editors will never let this page return to sense like that, restricting it to only the greatest ever would only encourage silly time-wasting deletion nominations. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My sense was that this edit is very narrowly construed to the Olympic games part of NSPORT. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that regarding short term effect those terms are all the same.....they mean "OK'd by the SNG". In the bigger vaguer picture, "significant coverage is likely to exist" might be better because it follows the pattern of nearly all SNG wording by giving deference to the GNG coverage criteria and the need to establish it if questioned. Whereas "presumed notable" can be read as granting it irrespective of GNG coverage and  "Presumed coverage" can be read that suitable coverage is presumed to exist rather than needing to be established if questioned. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Please note that for a subject to be notable (GNG), the subject needs to have Significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the subject is talked about in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. If a SNG indicate certain criteria to be notable in Wikiedia, let's a say XX sport needs to be world top ten ranking by certain source or a medal holder for certain sport, then in regardless how significant coverage a subject is, if the coverage is all about routine tournaments or the results that would considered routine report and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG unless the sources talk about somethings else of the subject. So in short, presume significant coverage does not means presume notable - it is a big different here. In Wikipedia, we always set GNG criteria as the first and most important one. Cassiopeia  talk  06:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ...why did you revert this extremely minor change again, asking for a link to the talk page discussion that I pinged you to yesterday? JoelleJay (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't get it at this point. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * User:JoelleJay Again, pls provide the links where consensus has been achieved and close by other editor which does not vote the changes as per norm. I have no objection if the changes is consensus and an editor who is not involved with the vote has closed the discussion with the conclusion changes is supported as this is not only the Wikipedia norm for any changes in Wikipedia guidelines and especially about notability/specific notability guidelines, any changes, regardless how minor, is important as per interpretation/definition for it should not take it lightly at all. Pls understand, I come in good will and try to serve Wikipedia as per it agendas, guidelines, and norms. Get someone who is not involved and closed the discussion. Whatever, the closing outcome, I will be OK with it. Stay safe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiopeia (talk • contribs)
 * Unlike the (unintentional) case with my initial BOLD edits, this current edit is not a substantive change to the guideline, and especially because we also have unanimous support for the proposed wording, it does not need formal closure. Changes may be made if there are no objections or if the discussion shows there is consensus for the change. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time. JoelleJay (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The norm is to get an editor, dont need to be an admin, to close the discussion and state the result. If there is unanimous decision, then it is easy to close the discussion (usually after 7 days the discussion has raised). It is better to be slow and do the what it takes then just change in such manner especially about notablity which is one of the most important topic in Wikipedia and it is not hard to find an interested editor to do the closing (for I dont see "each" editor state "support" of the wording change for at least I am the one of the editors state a closing should be done" since I did not vote support so it is not an unanimous support for this topic. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  01:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is the norm for substantive changes; clarifying the wording of a guideline in a way that 100% reflects pre-existing consensus (and now also represents unanimous consensus among editors who have actually opined on the proposed wording) falls under Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time. Meanwhile, your continued reverts do fall afoul of policy Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page. Frankly, you should not be policing this area if you do not have the language proficiency to understand the changes being made. JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * you do not have the language proficiency to understand the changes being made A gentle and friendly minnow slap -- keep it on substance rather than the editor's personal attributes. Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I pointed my view which every editor allow in good will to do here and not arguing with your info but you seem attacking my English which is my second language. To get someone not involve to close the discussion is a easy manner but I guess you are not willing to do so. I have nothing more to add.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's really not something that we need an RfC over, especially considering we now have six editors who have approved of it explicitly or implicitly. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've restored the edit. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines for wrestlers/judoka/grapplers
I see them for boxing, kickboxing, and MMA, but not for wrestlers, judoka, and other grappling sports (besides sumo). Seems like a big oversight considering wrestling and judo are Olympic sports. Am I missing something or have these just not been structured yet? Spagooder (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)