Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Last sentence of first paragraph
The last sentence of the first paragraph says that all articles under this guideline must have at least one source indicating GNG. However, the closure of the RfC said "all sports biographies" must have at least one source indicating GNG (emphasis mine) and this is not an insignificant difference given several participants had BLP concerns that would not apply to an article about a season or a team. If we want to extend it to all sports articles, that is fine, and we can discuss that here, but we should either come to that consensus or change the sentence so it actually reflects the closure. I take no position for now except that in the event we fail to reach a consensus in this discussion one way or the other, it should be changed to reflect the previous consensus (biographies only) as that is what we actually decided previously. I may have additional comments later. Smartyllama (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd support extending it to all sports articles (and all non-sports articles, too). I also believe that WP:GNG already covers all articles, including all sports articles. GNG is the default unless an SNG says otherwise (e.g., WP:NPROF, WP:NCORP). WP:MASSCREATE also requires at least one GNG source per a 2022 RFC Although that applies only to mass-created articles, I think all indications are that the last sentence of the first paragraph of WP:NSPORTS has consensus, based on these two RFCs from last year, one for biographies and one for mass-created articles. So, IMO, WP:NSPORTS should continue to say "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline". Levivich (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- GNG only requires the sources to exist, not that they actually be cited in the article. I'd argue in cases where sources can be found to exist but are not cited in the article, the article should still be kept on GNG grounds, but I've seen AFDs closed both ways in those cases. And there's a much stronger argument for deleting the article in those circumstances when it's a BLP then when it's about a team or season. So I don't think this statement is equivalent to GNG. Smartyllama (talk)
- I am in agreement that there should be consistency within the SNG. I think the references should reflect the close of WP:NSPORTS2022. Specifically, I think the sentence should read: "The article must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." --Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify, the 2022 RFC was specifically drafted to mandate the inclusion of at least one example of SIGCOV in all "sports biographies", not all sports articles. This portion of the RFC was intended to address widespread concerns with mass creation of sub-stub sports biographies sourced only to a database entry. This portion of the RFC passed and resulted in the addition of the following sentence to subpart 5 of WP:SPORTBASIC: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Cbl62 (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Volleyball notability?
I think it could be valuable to create a proposal for volleyball athletes. There is nothing in WP:N about volleyball and I think coming to a consensus on criteria that would deem a volleyball player notable would be beneficial. Is playing in multiple competitive professional seasons and competitions notable? Are there certain achievements necessary? Any thoughts and ideas ? HennSw123 (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- HennSw123 Note that this guideline is no longer a hard list of criteria for the sports listed, but a list of criteria for which it is expected that sources will be available in order to meet WP:GNG. What aspects of volleyball generate coverage in reliable sources? (world championships, Olympics, etc.) 331dot (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- @HenSw123: First, check if there is enough reliable, independent source material to create a reasonable biography of a volleyball athlete. Things like books, magazine articles, journal articles, newspaper articles, etc. from reliable sources and which cover all aspects of the volleyball athlete's life in sufficient detail that some reasonably comprehensive summary of their life could be written. Once you have found that, you know the person is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you can't find that source material, then they are not notable. I hope that clarifies things for you. --Jayron32 13:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah makes sense. Coverage for volleyball especially in Europe where a lot of these players play professional is quite different than other sports such as mlb, nba, nfl, etc. in America. I work on a lot of the stubs in the volleyball community and run across articles where players are in the stages of their careers where they have some notability and are likely to get more but thought that have some guideline of in WP:N for volleyball could benefit. HennSw123 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- At this point, I'd oppose the creation of new sports notability criteria generally. With a widespread move towards just relying on the GNG, that's the easiest way to avoid difficulties. Can Soandso volleyball player meet the GNG? Great, then an article for them can be sustained. Ravenswing 03:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- There's a good reason for this. The GNG is about assuring that it's possible to write a decent encyclopedia article about the subject. That's all. We shouldn't be creating new articles about topics which have no hope of ever being a reasonable encyclopedia article. WP:GNG just says "don't write an article unless you are sure the source material exists upon which to base such an article". We went astray of that when we tried to create reasons to bypass the GNG and give people license to start creating articles that have no chance of being anything.--Jayron32 13:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Its possible to write a decent article on someone who's not a GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- It isn't though, at least not one that passes Wikipedia policy. I mean, I can write a well-written article about myself, at least grammatically correct, and complete, and narratively compelling. However, it isn't verifiable to independent, reliable sources. That's the point, if you obey the core principles of Wikipedia you can't create a reasonable stand-alone without enough verifiable information to add to the article. To wit " All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources," That's all the GNG says: without the sources, don't create the article. --Jayron32 17:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I still disagree. For example, it could be argued that a recent player kept at afd, Stan Robb, failed GNG (I argued for a pass of NBIO) – but just look at how the article turned out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how they failed GNG, there's numerous reliable sources in the article which discuss the player. There's entire paragraphs of text, and it's all sourced to reliable, independent sources. That passes GNG with flying colors. Of course, one can argue anything. It doesn't make them right. --Jayron32 18:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Then there was also this article that I wrote that was determined through AFD to have failed GNG (although I disagreed). That looked pretty decent before redirection, wouldn't you say? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how they failed GNG, there's numerous reliable sources in the article which discuss the player. There's entire paragraphs of text, and it's all sourced to reliable, independent sources. That passes GNG with flying colors. Of course, one can argue anything. It doesn't make them right. --Jayron32 18:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I still disagree. For example, it could be argued that a recent player kept at afd, Stan Robb, failed GNG (I argued for a pass of NBIO) – but just look at how the article turned out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, no kidding: I can write an absolutely splendid, detailed article about my wife. As Jayron32 says, though, it would not be verifiable to independent, reliable sources, none of which describe her in detail, and that's why she wouldn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. (This is my full-scale rant on the subject.) Whether you disagree or not is utterly irrelevant -- I can think of any number of policies that would be far different were Jimbo to appoint me Dictator of Wikipedia tomorrow, and my "disagreements" which run contrary to settled policy are just howling in the wind. We are all bound to the policies and guidelines in place. That you don't like the result of last year's NSPORTS RfC is obvious, but its outcome is the basis for sports notability all the same. Ravenswing 19:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not to mention even the sourced info likely wouldn't be DUE. Anyone can prosify some bare stats or cobble together a biography from mundane local newspaper coverage and obits; doesn't mean it's encyclopedic or adherent to NPOV. That's how we get articles with four paragraphs on someone's state HS records and college acceptance hype, two paragraphs on their college career, and a couple sentences on their subsequent office job, but nothing demonstrating they received more than fleeting regional attention for low-level achievements. College and especially high school stats really shouldn't be in any articles unless they've been discussed years later in places outside their home region; certainly they shouldn't be sourced only to databases or local newspapers where every match/result is reported. And yet these seem to be the go-to data for fluffing up bios of contemporary athletes with no actual claim to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Quite. Take the laundry list of my personal achievements listed in that link. Many are verifiable -- I can link to Amazon, corporate or WorldCat sites for everything I published. I can provide information for the times I was written up in newspapers, as well as for the local concert series I produced. The election results for the public office I held were published, and remain on the municipal website. The published documents of the World Science Fiction Society record my participation as a Worldcon speaker and moderator. All that and more (every time I made the Dean's List in college or high school made it into a newspaper) can be sourced. And I don't qualify for a Wikipedia article either -- all of that, barring substantive coverage, is just as unmemorable as Some Dude whose sole claim to fame is that he pitched a couple unnoticed innings for the Monumentals in 1884. Ravenswing 01:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am fine with the decision to subject athlete biographies to GNG/SIGCOV requirements, but we should at the same resist efforts (as reflected in Joelle's post above) to impose even stricter standards for athletes than exist for politicians, academics, and other biographies. First, there is no GNG exclusion on the use of "obituaries", provided they are "independent" (not family-submitted death notices) and appear in reliable sources. Second, Joelle's advocacy above for barring the use of "mundane local coverage" is deeply problematic. There is no GNG exclusion on the use of local coverage (or requiring "regional" coverage) except in WP:AUD which is expressly limited to corporations. (I would agree that hyperlocal coverage from a small-town newspaper should not get the same weight as a major metropolitan daily newspaper, but Joelle's proposal would apparently exclude both sorts of coverage as "local"). And who gets to decide what is "mundane" (i.e., "lacking interest or excitement; dull")? Third, the assertion that college-level statistical achievements should be excluded from biographies is baseless -- many contemporary athletes are notable for collegiate sports, so why in the world would we ban articles on these athletes from including their most notable achievements? (For example, does anyone really believe that a Chase Brown biography should omit reference to his 1,643 rushing yards in 2022 because it hasn't been discussed outside his region "years later")? Cbl62 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Mm, you're going for the extremes. Indeed, many contemporary athletes are notable for collegiate sports ... "notable," that is, for outstanding achievement which receives wide coverage in the press. Nor is anyone with half a brain claiming that college stats be debarred from appearing in articles; that's just an absurd premise to toss out. What JoelleJay (and I) mean is that such stats do not form any basis for notability. Ravenswing 20:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- My comment was a rebuttal to the claim that one can write a "decent article" on an athlete without them meeting GNG. Basically what I am saying is that just because one can create a moderately-lengthy detailed biography out of non-GNG-contributing sources doesn't mean it's encyclopedically worthy. The obits in this scenario would of course be non-independent submissions, and the mundane local coverage would be things of strictly local interest, like announcements, write-ups of town events, brief blurbs on people honored for minor things, etc. If a newspaper profiles the owner of every new business, provides a recap of most sports matches, records the goings-on of every committee meeting, yadda yadda, then such material is routine and should not appear in the article (let alone be used for notability).
- Regarding the stats, maybe I should have made it clearer that this is predicated on the subject not having received clear non-regional GNG coverage during college. If they're already notable for their college career then obviously their college stats are DUE. But the vast, vast majority of athletes around the world are not notable for their college records despite them being mentioned in local press at the time they're made. So even if they're later notable for their pro career, if no one outside the home area has later remarked on their sophomore NAIA Frontier Conference year-end record then it shouldn't be mentioned. And that should also be the case if the non-notable (or notable-for-unrelated-things) subject didn't advance beyond college/amateur level; it doesn't suddenly become DUE just because there's no other coverage to fill out a biography. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am fine with the decision to subject athlete biographies to GNG/SIGCOV requirements, but we should at the same resist efforts (as reflected in Joelle's post above) to impose even stricter standards for athletes than exist for politicians, academics, and other biographies. First, there is no GNG exclusion on the use of "obituaries", provided they are "independent" (not family-submitted death notices) and appear in reliable sources. Second, Joelle's advocacy above for barring the use of "mundane local coverage" is deeply problematic. There is no GNG exclusion on the use of local coverage (or requiring "regional" coverage) except in WP:AUD which is expressly limited to corporations. (I would agree that hyperlocal coverage from a small-town newspaper should not get the same weight as a major metropolitan daily newspaper, but Joelle's proposal would apparently exclude both sorts of coverage as "local"). And who gets to decide what is "mundane" (i.e., "lacking interest or excitement; dull")? Third, the assertion that college-level statistical achievements should be excluded from biographies is baseless -- many contemporary athletes are notable for collegiate sports, so why in the world would we ban articles on these athletes from including their most notable achievements? (For example, does anyone really believe that a Chase Brown biography should omit reference to his 1,643 rushing yards in 2022 because it hasn't been discussed outside his region "years later")? Cbl62 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Quite. Take the laundry list of my personal achievements listed in that link. Many are verifiable -- I can link to Amazon, corporate or WorldCat sites for everything I published. I can provide information for the times I was written up in newspapers, as well as for the local concert series I produced. The election results for the public office I held were published, and remain on the municipal website. The published documents of the World Science Fiction Society record my participation as a Worldcon speaker and moderator. All that and more (every time I made the Dean's List in college or high school made it into a newspaper) can be sourced. And I don't qualify for a Wikipedia article either -- all of that, barring substantive coverage, is just as unmemorable as Some Dude whose sole claim to fame is that he pitched a couple unnoticed innings for the Monumentals in 1884. Ravenswing 01:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not to mention even the sourced info likely wouldn't be DUE. Anyone can prosify some bare stats or cobble together a biography from mundane local newspaper coverage and obits; doesn't mean it's encyclopedic or adherent to NPOV. That's how we get articles with four paragraphs on someone's state HS records and college acceptance hype, two paragraphs on their college career, and a couple sentences on their subsequent office job, but nothing demonstrating they received more than fleeting regional attention for low-level achievements. College and especially high school stats really shouldn't be in any articles unless they've been discussed years later in places outside their home region; certainly they shouldn't be sourced only to databases or local newspapers where every match/result is reported. And yet these seem to be the go-to data for fluffing up bios of contemporary athletes with no actual claim to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- It isn't though, at least not one that passes Wikipedia policy. I mean, I can write a well-written article about myself, at least grammatically correct, and complete, and narratively compelling. However, it isn't verifiable to independent, reliable sources. That's the point, if you obey the core principles of Wikipedia you can't create a reasonable stand-alone without enough verifiable information to add to the article. To wit " All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources," That's all the GNG says: without the sources, don't create the article. --Jayron32 17:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Its possible to write a decent article on someone who's not a GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- There's a good reason for this. The GNG is about assuring that it's possible to write a decent encyclopedia article about the subject. That's all. We shouldn't be creating new articles about topics which have no hope of ever being a reasonable encyclopedia article. WP:GNG just says "don't write an article unless you are sure the source material exists upon which to base such an article". We went astray of that when we tried to create reasons to bypass the GNG and give people license to start creating articles that have no chance of being anything.--Jayron32 13:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG HennSw123 (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
AfD backlog
Can we please get more eyes on the sportspeople AfDs? There are discussions from mid-February yet to be closed. JoelleJay (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
More input is welcome at this AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Badminton update
Can someone please update the badminton guidelines? The BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix have been replaced by the BWF World Tour. Also is Super 100 medalists considered notable? Timothytyy (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Timothytyy Updating the badminton guidelines requires a consensus. A Super 100 medalists is likely to be considered notable if the individual has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Same goes for BWF World Tour medalists. Alvaldi (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Proposal for revising NBAD
Proposal
|
---|
|
- Remove criterion 1 Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (e.g., Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International). It is meaningless as the notable tournaments are the World Tour events, not the Continental Circuit events (especially Future Series). For example the Indonesia Masters Super 100 does not fit this criterion but the Slovak International does (I believe this tournament's winners cannot be considered as notable).
- Update criterion 2 to the current BWF World Tour.
- I am seeking for clarification on what "countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics" actually include; the current wordings are too vague.
- Support 1: I'm not seeing any data that indicates that these medalists are likely to have the WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Oppose 2: At least until there is any research done that shows that medalists from the BWF World Tour generally have the WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. The BWF World Tour started in 2018, so sources for these medalists should not be hard to find if they are notable. Comment 3: This should really be removed as it is rather ambiguous. Alvaldi (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)