Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker/Archives/2021/April

Proposed change in sports notability policy
A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. Also, article creation based on Wikiproject Guidelines would be curtailed. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that we don't actually have an SNG, we just have an essay WikiProject Cue sports/Notability which pretty much says WP:NSPORTS. It was written a long time ago, and I'd actually argue it's slightly more inhibiting than the letter of the guidelines as it is now.
 * My rule of thumb is professional players (those on the World Snooker Tour) and female players who have appeared at the world championships are notable, otherwise they need to show to pass GNG. I realise this was a link that has been on every page, but it doesn't have much usage for this particular project (also WT:CUE.) Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping to who wrote the above and may have some input on the guideline changes. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 11:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have to go read the proposal before I can comment on it. Keep in mind that with only one or two exception (WP:NPROF, and there might be one other one, which predate WP:GNG and quite literally are alternative to it, and controversial ones), the purpose of all WP:SNG guidelines, and wikiproject notability essays angling toward becoming SNGs, is one thing and one thing only: to explain in a predictive way how GNG is likely to apply to subjects in this particular topic area, so save people time. E.g., if a sport SNG says something like "top-ten placing in an international, or top 3 in a national, event" or something like that as a line-item in it list of notability indicators, that does not actually mean your subject  notable if they match that line-item and  if they don't match that or any other line-items.  Any subject will be assessed as to whether the actually do pass GNG or not.  I.e. "show us the non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources". It's not really possible for a wikiproject notability essay to be more inhibiting that the actual WP:Notability guideline, because the essays (and the topic-specific notability pages aside from NPROF) are all just predictively applying GNG, not making rules that contradict GNG.  All that said, I don't have a big issue with the essay being tweaked, but it should be with that in mind, and should not be rewritten as a list of "rules", because such an essay will not be rules and will not be interpreted as rules.  And I really don't think it should inspire attempts to create a broader range of (especially amateur and low-end professional) snooker articles. Being  at one's hobby or profession, enough to make it into events, isn't notability, any more than being cast as an background extra in 100 TV shows and commercials/adverts doesn't make you a notable actor, just someone able to find employment in the field.  We already have too many articles on has-been players who are almost never going to get more notable than they allegedly are now.  Way, way early on, I thought that picking the list of top-100 (I think) players was probably a good place to start. But over a decade later, almost everyone who was a redlink from that original list has remained one and should remain one; very few of those who had not already, or did not quickly, inspire articles, well they actually receded into obscurity for the most part, while newer hot players who were not even on the old list came into much more prominence.  Finally, in cases like Lynette Horsburgh (British pool, actually, not snooker, but whatever), if someone AfD's it in stub state, if the subject really should be kept, it won't be all that difficult to dig up the sources that prove it, and this kind of "prove it or delete it" pressure generally makes for much better articles anyway (compare A and B).
 * It's not a big issue in the snooker project. Indeed most of the recent additions are clearly notable, eg Jonathan Barron, Norman Squire. The 646 snooker biographies is a drop in the ocean compared with the 180,000 footballers (soccer) or 14000 Aussie rules footballers. Nigej (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Women in 2019–20 snooker season
Hi! I'm working on getting 2019–20 snooker season to GA status (as part of creating a good topic on the season)! I just need to finish the season summary. I did have a question - we mention all sorts of events, but we don't mention anything about the women's game... Not even the world championship. Considering we don't have a 2019-20 women's snooker season or equivelent, it's a little sexist. We do include items on the seniors tour, which is just as amateur as the women's game. Should we add these to the season articles, or remove all non-professional events from the article? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the article is about the season as a whole, then I think it should cover the amateur tours as well as the main professional tour and, yes, we should very much include the women's events too (assuming that the women's tour follows the same seasonal pattern as the main tour). Listing the seniors' events but not the women's events is inconsistent and probably sexist. In fact, would there be any other annual amateur events that should be included, e.g. the IBSF World Snooker Championship, English Amateur Championship, or is that taking it too far? There are probably lots of other amateur competitions played annually in other countries. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At the risk of making a lot more work for myself, there is a good list at 2019 in cue sports, but either this is strictly about the professional tour (which would be my preference), or we should be including all notable events. The issue with being super all-encompassing is the amount of overlap with the X in cue sports articles. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Haining Open
Could I also get a little bit of clarity on the Haining Open? It's listed as a non-ranking event, but it acts a lot more like a pro-am event like the Vienna Open than a regular non-ranking event. this source suggests it is a pro-am. I'd suggest it definately does not have enough information about it to make anything other than a stub. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think Dave Caufield made an error in calling it a pro-am in fairness. It is listed on the WPBSA and WST players profiles pages as a non-ranking event win, as you can clearly see on Mark Selby's profile page. It is a CBSA invitation event. 178.167.149.131 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just us calling it a non-ranking event, on our articles. Even the WST site doesn't list it on calendar and such for example. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 15:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No if you go to the WPBSA, WST players profile pages. It clearly lists these as non-ranking event wins on Mark Selby's, Thepchaiya Un-Nooh and Matthew Selt's pages you can view them for yourself. It is a CBSA invitation event and the WPBSA sanctions it so the players can play in it. Check out the profiles yourself 178.167.149.131 (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It was like in the old days when 110 sports management organised events like the Hainan Classic, World Series of Snooker and the General Cup they were still non-ranking events and needed wpbsa sanction but you did not see them on the WST calendar as they were organised by an outside company or promoter. 178.167.149.131 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, sure? The question is more if these events pass WP:GNG. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think as I said they are listed by the WPBSA and WST tour profiles. You can't get any better really. So I think they should be left alone as they are. 178.167.149.131 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what being listed in Tour profiles has to do with GNG.... Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)