Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

Minor change to WP:NBOX

I recently made a change to WP:NBOX based on the discussion at WT:WikiProject Boxing#Notability via Ring magazine rankings. I added Ring magazine to the list of top 10 rankings that can show notability. It triggered the discussion above about who decides the notability criteria for individual sports. I view this as an especially minor change considering that Ring magazine's rankings were in WP:NBOX until last October's revision. However, I have been told it needs to be discussed in this forum so here it is.Mdtemp (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, my edit is reverted and I'm told to post here and no one makes any comments. I'm going to put my edit back in.Mdtemp (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I see someone beat me to it.Mdtemp (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I did it a few minutes ago because it sat for 7 days without objection. Which proved my point, if you don't actually object to the edit then don't revert it. There is a reason we say here to be bold. If someone objects then we can discuss it. But to be fair, in the future you should link to your discussions on changing these criteria from this talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable coach?

I see this 2014 US Olympic Head Coach (not an RS, but summarizes his accomplishments) had his page deleted in 2006 as NN ... but thought he would be notable now under our guidelines. Before I recreate the page, though -- any thoughts? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Which section were you thinking presumes he is notable? FWIW, looking at the deleted contents, the 2006 article was on a different person.—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In some sports, where we discuss notability of coaches (snowboarding is not one, so this is by analogy), coaching Olympic medalists or an Olympic team (or one that has medalists) suffices. That's what I was thinking would be the key point. Though its not in his bio, it appears as well that he is the coach of more than one notable snowboarder. Tx. And tx as to the info on the 2006 article!--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There is not a one size fits all guideline so far for Olympic coaches, so an Olympic coach in one sport could conceivably be presumed notable, but not in another. It's all a matter of presumed coverage an Olympic coach in a given sport would receive. The more sure-fire way is just demonstrate WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Horse racing

I was reviewing Sam Waley-Cohen, which was tagged for notability, and was checking for the guideline here to see if there was a horse-racing specific guideline.

WP:NEQUESTRIAN says,

This section does not encompass notability issues for individuals in the sports of horse racing or rodeo, which have separate guidelines.

But I cannot find any evidence of the horse racing guideline. Could we have a link, please? Kahastok talk 20:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I see there was plans at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_17#Topics_to_include, but not sure the outcome. Will notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing to comment here. —Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In any event, just looking at the ref list (without actually looking to see if it is significant coverage), WP:GNG is likely met.—Bagumba (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, yes, we started on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horse_racing/Notability but haven't really finished it, but mostly doe to boredom rather than disagreement. I'd say if it passes what's in there now, it's notable, though if it doesn't meet the criteria there, GNG is still a good default. How would folks like us to proceed with getting the project polished up? Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If there hasn't been any problems going off GNG, there's no need to create a guideline for the sake of having one (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). Since none exists right now, I'll remove from the reference from NSPORTS for now to address Kahastok's problem.—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd prefer you didn't do that; the one thing we do periodically run into are people who think that there shouldn't be an article about 1) a horse, or 2) people who work with horses. It doesn't come up a lot, but probably at least once a year. I'd actually like to add this in. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem adding it in when it is ready. You can revert my change if you want, but I don't see the point in referencing a guideline for horse racing that doesn't (yet) exist on this page.—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll post a request below. Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Add horse racing

If there is no significant objections, I would like to add a notability criterion for horse racing here. We have rodeo and equestrian sport (i.e. Olympic level stuff) in here already, horse racing is an even bigger sport. per NOTBUREAUCRACY, this isn't overkill - we occasionally have people who raise GNG issues about horses having "biographies" and sometimes question whether people who work with horses quality as athletes/coaches - jockeys, trainers/conditioners - or are significant as owners. I was taking the lead on developing guidelines over in a sandbox at wikiproject horse racimg, and other than wanting to be sure that we have a proper international focus, there seems little objection to the concept; WP Horse racing has informally had guidelines on this for years. Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the proposal?—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I suspect the basic simple version for this page will be what is in this section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horse_racing/Notability#Notability_of_individuals, and like the figure Skating section from which I stole the idea, we will continue to flesh out the notability page too, but not post the whole thing here. If you want, we can sandbox the basic outline here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

National governing bodies

Is the national governing body of an IOC recognised sport in it self inherently notable? The question has arisen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Bandy Association regarding the American Bandy Association. Bandy guy (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Very few things on wikipedia are inherently notable (the only ones that come to mind are plant/animal species and high schools). In fact, the top of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) specifically says that the page is a guideline to help evaluate whether an article is notable, but that the article still must meet the general notability guidelines and that "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 that is on articles for deletion." In the case of the American Bandy Association, Bandy is barely recognized by the IoC (it was a demonstration sport in 1952 with Finland, Norway and Sweden participating, but that's it), and Americans haven't participated in Bandy in the Olympics. I don't think that there is a case for inherent notability, but the article may be notable if it meets the General Notability Guidelines. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Masters Athletics World Championships

At one point in time, this was mentioned in NSPORTS. It was inauspiciously removed in a burst of edits here without further discussion by user: MATThematical, an opponent. As you can see the earlier discussion, months before the edit, was at best inconclusive. It really had not been discussed much at all. MATTs proposal was for multiple but nobody else reacted. We had not concluded how much of a showing at the meet constituted notability, but NOWHERE in the discussion was there a suggestion for removal. Even though I do watch the progress of this policy, the burst of edits effectively hid the edit from my attention at the time. Now, years later, I have to track this down as its absence becomes an issue. I'm going to replace the original language before the edit. We know MATT's opposing opinion. Do any other voices have an opinion here? Trackinfo (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about rugby union rules

Why are there separate notability rules for men and women rugby players? According to the current (May 23 2014) rules, female rugby players are notable only if they participated from specific countries during specific (World Cup) years. All years are notable years for male players from Tier 1 and 2 countries. Seems unfair and in comparison there is no such distinction for association football (soccer). My name is Valerie Griffeth. I am a female rugby union player who represented the United States in both 7s and 15s, and now because of a notability-rule technicality which I view as discriminatory, my article here is being put up for deletion. Wondering.--Vgriffeth (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of notability standards on Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights laws, but to reflect what the world finds notable or not, whether or not that suits our amour propre. In particular, the underpinning of the NSPORTS subordinate notability criteria is that those who meet it should generally be able to pass the General Notability Guideline. That different sports have differing notability criteria is plain common sense; collegiate-level play is highly notable in some sports and not in others, minor league play is highly notable in some sports and not in others, and women's competition is highly notable in some sports and not in others. Ravenswing 16:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but can you see the problem here? Wikipedia's contributors are almost all men (one estimate: 90%). You are a man I bet. I am too. Rugby is a male-dominated sport (although women are starting to catch on). So it is highly possible that the male-rugby-notability-rule writers came up with something very male oriented such that if a male player participated in such-and-such a competition, in such-and-such a year (point 1), he is automatically notable, whereas the chances for women are meager (point 4). The result is highly discriminatory, so there are very few female rugby players considered notable, yet male players, whose only claim to fame is to have participated in one of the selected matches, qualify for pages in Wikipedia. This is highly unfair in my view. Consider Griffeth. Her college magazine was so proud of her they devoted an entire article to her; she earned plenty of media attention at Rugby magazine, Erugbynews, the International Rugby Board, 16 references in total, but because her matches did not happen to have the right nation or year, she is automatically excluded from notability. It goes against all the other notability guidelines. Can you begin to see how unfair this is?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider that Valerie Griffeth has sixteen (16) references. She played for US rugby teams in international competitions. She played for 7s; she played for 15s. But she is a WOMAN. Now, check out the following American male rugby players who have only 1 reference (a primary source usually, just a few lines each for each article, but who, BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN and happened to play in the "right" (according to Wikipedia) competitions, have Wikipedia pages which are unchallenged: Mike Mangan, Owen Lentz, Mark Aylor, Hayden Mexted, Chad Erskine, Jonathan Vitale, Blake Burdette, Dan Payne (rugby union), Henry Bloomfield, Junior Sifa, Patrick Danahy, Bill Hayward (rugby union), Tom Billups, Richard Tardits (no references), Dan Lyle (2 refs), Alec Parker, etc etc. Is this fair? It is not fair. The rules need rethinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)