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)

World masters championships should be mentioned, although as my orginal post states, I think a single gold medal in an event that doesn't necessarily field the best masters running is questionable. I thought a multiple gold requirement (either through multiple years or multiple events) was the best solution. MATThematical (talk) 20:47, 25 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. The male-oriented rugby notability rule 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 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)
    • As I mentioned in the AfD when you posted that self-same laundry list, if there are articles on male rugby players for which reliable sources can't be found, by all means prod or AfD them.[Ha! Good luck! If you try, the !keep votes will all point to WP:NSPORT and cry "presumed notable", and you will get nowhere! KDS4444^Talk 00:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)] For another, you're falling into a common trap of someone thirsting to save an article on AfD: that if some excuse can be made for the subject not having the multiple reliable sources, which discuss the subject in significant detail, that the GNG requires, somehow WP:V and WP:N should be suspended in the subject's favor. This curious doctrine forms no part of Wikipedia policy.

      I stand by what I said above: that the purpose of notability standards on Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights laws, but to reflect what the world finds notable or not. There are women's sports which by virtue of media coverage and public support have relatively loose notable standards: basketball, soccer, hockey, tennis, golf. There are many that don't attract that attention, and don't. Now if you want to argue that WP:V and WP:N should be suspended if you believe they disparage groups you personally favor, I commend their respective talk pages to you. Ravenswing 06:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

      • Generally I agree with your view that the purpose of notability standards in Wikipedia is not to enforce equal rights, that their aim should be to reflect what the world finds notable. Given that, what I am arguing is this: that the world finds female athletes such as Valerie Griffeth notable, that this notability is reflected by numerous sources in respected media, and that the current Wikipedia rugby guidelines (ie point 1, point 4, etc) fail to reflect this reality. That is, the more specific rugby-related guidelines are geared towards men, not women; as a result, Wikipedia has dozens and dozens of one-line articles about male rugby players (many of whom get little press) and which are poorly referenced, with the only reason for their being in Wikipedia is that they happened to participate in the right tournament, from the right country, for the right years. So while it is easy for a male rugby player to qualify for a Wikipedia article, it is extremely difficult for a female rugby player to do so. I advocate a rethinking of the point 1 to point 4 rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
        • As I responded at length in the AfD, I disagree with your characterization. A Google News search for Griffeth turned up only the Wikipedia article; she is not so much as mentioned in a single mainstream media article that could be found. The only sources you have produced come from rugby websites and from the subject's collegiate athletic department. Claiming that there are many articles on male rugby players that are similarly poorly referenced -- aside from being an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument -- is not an adequate or legal defense of Griffeth's article: it's an indictment of those other subjects' notability, and a good reason to make a systematic examination of those articles and weed out the ones which fail of references which satisfy the GNG. Ravenswing 08:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
          • A systematic examination of those articles, with numerous AfDs, would be a gargantuan task, fraught with fuss. Frankly, I do not know enough about rugby, or rugby players, to even attempt such an undertaking. It might very well be that the rule-writers (point 1, point 4, etc) are correct, that participating in certain matches, from certain countries, from certain years, automatically should qualify a player for Wikipedia notability. From my viewpoint, it looks suspect, however, when there are numerous one-line article with the only reference being a link to a site saying player X participated in such-and-such a playoff match. It would be much cleaner, simpler, and smarter to more closely align Wikipedia's notability guidelines to reflect the reality of notability, to suggest the same general standard of notability for all athletes. That is what I am asking: for people who know rugby, know the rules, to take a good hard look at the point 1 point 4 business, and come up with a workable guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
            • A bit bewildered here: if you're unfamiliar with rugby, upon what basis do you consider yourself knowledgeable enough to challenge the guideline's accuracy? (I never have myself; I am not a rugby expert, and I presume that those on Wikipedia who are know better than I do what competitions at what levels are notable.)

              That being said, we broke up the old WP:ATHLETE into differing SNGs for each sport for the basic reason that one-size-fits-all doesn't work. There are certain sports where 14-year-old athletes are highly notable. There are many where they never are. There are certain sports where female athletes are highly notable. There are others where they seldom are. There are certain sports where low-level minor leagues receive national press coverage. There are certain sports that get noticed by the public only for so long as their competitions are on the TV during broadcasts of the Olympics. This is why we don't consider "sports" a homogenous heap when it comes to SNGs. Ravenswing 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• This discussion appears to rest on a flawed assumption. WP:Notability_(sports) is not what makes things notable. WP:GNG is what makes things notable. WP:GNG rests on the coverage that subjects achieve. Coverage of sports-played-by-males hugely outweighs sports-played-by-females, thus it's easiler for sports-played-by-males to achieve notability. I completely agree that this sucks, but Wikipedia is not the place to correct this (although Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias has some great hints on attempting to avoid perpetuating it). WP:Notability_(sports) is a shortcut for our collective feeling for where the various lines are for notability are in the field of sports. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Stuartyeates somewhat, in that WP:GNG makes things notable, except that (if I understand things correctly) a player can qualify if he/she passes the WP:Notability_(sports) guideline; that is, either GNG or SNG works, that is, if a player meets either the GNG or the SNG, they're notable. Is this right? If I don't know much about rugby, I know about Wikipedia, and what occurred to me, seeing article after article in Wikipedia of male rugby players, which only had one or two references at most, that something was amiss. My sense is the culprit here is the point 1 point 4 rules, that it is poorly written or needs to be rethought, that's all I'm saying.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
    • See the frequently asked questions page, which is included within the guideline page, and linked to at the top of this page, for more information on the role of the sports-specific guidelines with respect to the general notability guideline. isaacl (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Interesting, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you all for your input on this. I really appreciate the discourse my small page has sparked. After reading the discussion, I still think the WP:Notability_(sports) should be changed to be more reflective of the evolving growth of the game. As Stuartyeates noted, it sucks that women's sports generally do not get as much coverage as men's sports. This does not mean that there are not people interested in following those sports and the women making spectacular achievements in them. Finding publications to support WP:GNG is unfortunately more difficult for women than for men, but as an athlete that has competed internationally, it is notable. Period. End of story. People find out and they're awed by it. The IRB sanctions international matches for both men and women for this reason. They are the gate keepers above the gate keepers of the national team selectors, so why should Wikipedia then say international participation in your sport is not notable if there are both International and National governing bodies both saying yes, you are notable. That said, can we at least get rid of the qualification that women must have played in the semi-final or higher at the World Cup? And explicitly include the Women's Sevens World Series? Players must still meet WP:GNG of course. Vgriffeth (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• And so must any subordinate notability criteria. It's already been mentioned in this discussion that the various SNGs -- the NSPORTS criteria included -- have one essential premise: that someone meeting them would be reasonably assured of passing the GNG. Every such criterion has to be checked and tested against that premise; if athletes who fulfill that criterion generally do not meet the GNG, then the criterion is flawed and must be stricken.

  On Wikipedia, "notable" has a precise definition at variance with the general public's definition of "I think this is important." That meaning is set forth in Wikipedia:Notability, which holds that "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Neither that definition nor the GNG makes any reference -- nor should they -- to the decisions of sports national sanctioning bodies. Since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, we can not serve as an advocate for the growth of your sport. Ultimately, if the media chooses not to cover your sport, that doesn't impede the various sanctioning bodies from declaring anything "notable" they see fit. It just deters Wikipedia from having articles about it.

  As far as your specific objection about international play goes, if you review the various NSPORTS criteria, you'll see that in almost every case, merely playing for an international team (and in every case of merely being named to a squad) is not sufficient to meet the criteria. Over and over again, the criteria requires competing for a national team at the top level of competition, such as the Olympic Games or at top-rung World Championships. If, in this particular instance, you can demonstrate that the typical competitor in this Women's Sevens World Series meets the GNG, that would be a good reason to amend the SNG. I recommend the FAQ link that isaacl posted uptopic for more clarification. Ravenswing 08:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Objections

WP:NSPORTS has come to trump WP:GNG: Wikipedia is flooded with thousands and thousands of unreferenced one-line articles on players who are "presumed notable." Check it out: click on "Random article" from the main page. If you don't get a sports player within the first four clicks, you are my new hero. References be damned: they are notable because they seem like they autta be notable, because references "seem likely to exist" somewhere, even if no one can find any... which is pretty weak reasoning if you ask me, but there you have it. And the guys who made it happen are very proud of their 800+ articles apiece on these players. Wikipedia is now a sports roster. Whodathunkit?? Not me! KDS4444^Talk 00:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Case in point, I give you Stefan Stojanović (footballer born 1992). (and okay, it took me five clicks to hit on a footballer randomly, but you get the idea). KDS4444^Talk 00:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Brilliantly put. I agree WP:NSPORTS has come to trump WP:GNG. And it should not do this. GNG should rule. The NSPORTS guideline is causing huge mayhem in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Hrm. Speaking of Mr. Stojanovic -- have you attempted, and failed, to find sourcing for him? Has there been an AfD filed? Any attempt there at finding Balkan-language sources? Heck, have you attempted to find him on either the Serbian or Serbo-Croat Wikipedias? No? In your shoes, I wouldn't be bemoaning the sad condition of an article I declined to source, improve or file on.

  The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia has many tens of thousands of stub articles. A lot of us have been working very hard for many years to take these stubs and turn them into useful articles ... and, come to that, a lot of us have worked very hard to AfDing or PROD sub-stubs which don't even make NSPORTS criteria. It is, in fact, the case that the GNG trumps NSPORTS, and many of us advocate that at AfD on a regular basis. (If what the complaint really is here is that sports figures have a disproportionate media impact in our culture, and altogether too many of them would meet the GNG thereby, that's an arguable position, and I wish you well in having WP:V, WP:N and the GNG changed to conform to your own preferences.)

  That being said, Tomwsulcer, what is the "huge mayhem" you claim is being caused? Ravenswing 02:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• There are two competing guidelines for notability: the general notability guideline and the sports specific guidelines. There really should be only ONE guideline: the GNG. That should be it. It should apply to all subjects, persons, topics, including sportspeople. But the point made by KDS4444 and myself is that the SNG has been overriding the GNG. What has been happening is these sports-specific guidelines have been written, so that a player plays in such-and-such a game or tournament, and there is the presumption that he or she will automatically meet the GNG. I sincerely doubt that this is the case. For one thing, there have been one-line stub articles that have persisted in Wikipedia for years without improvement. My sense -- unproven I admit -- is that many or maybe even most of these subjects are not really notable according to the GNG and they should not be in Wikipedia. There is not much media coverage of them. They seem non-notable. What KDS4444 asserts I believe to be correct: Wikipedia has become the repository of slews of one-line stub articles, subjects who don't meet the GNG, subjects who are in Wikipedia merely because they passed a requirement based on the sports-specific guidelines. Consider these articles: 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. Are these athletes notable? Maybe some are; but maybe some are not. What I am saying is these sports-specific guidelines cause confusion, undermine the GNG, and need to be seriously rethought. Maybe as a test of this hypothesis, I might put up the above articles for AfD, simply to see what happens, although here again, somebody may be stymied, because doing an AfD requires some preparation, background checking, and such -- a lot of work -- but I may just do it any way as an experiment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• (shrugs) Any article upon which you do the reasonable due diligence that WP:BEFORE requires, prior to filing an AfD, that turns up lacking sources, you can file on them with my goodwill. That being said, "they seem non-notable" is the standard battle cry of those who don't actually have any clue one way or another. If there are as few as a hundred thousand biographical articles on Wikipedia of whose subjects I've never heard, I'd gape with astonishment, but the only way I'd ever say "They seem non-notable" is if I actually checked first. Stub articles persist for years without improvement not because they're inherently unimprovable, but because no one's yet taken the time to do so. For instance, let's take a look at the unreferenced article you cite above. It took me all of 45 seconds to find out that Sports Illustrated did a feature article on the subject in 1988. There are a number of other articles on the subject, which quite properly validate the NSPORTS football guideline stipulating that any NFL player is presumptively notable.

  That being said, I recognize that SNGs may well confuse you and KDS4444, and that your personal opinion is that they override the GNG, but those opinions ought not be conflated into a Wikipedia-wide state of confusion about the meaning of the word "subordinate."

  (I also admit to being confused. Weren't you arguing, just a couple of weeks ago, that the NSPORTS rugby union guideline ought to be expanded to include a female athlete you thought ought to pass it, and now you're advocating the abolition of NSPORTS guidelines, citing as example a bunch of male athletes who meet the very same SNG you were arguing ought to be expanded? WP:POINTY, perhaps?) Ravenswing 03:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I did, but I acted in good faith. The NSPORTS caused confusion not just for me and several others but even for the person who nominated the article Valerie Griffeth for deletion on the basis of failing to meet the NSPORTS guideline. GNG should rule, not NSPORTS. That was unclear. Is there a problem with the NSPORTS wording, its existence, its relation to GNG? There appears to me to be a problem.

  My sense is that many contributors misunderstand the NSPORTS guideline. They think it trumps or matches GNG, and this has led to the creation of numerous articles in Wikipedia which fail GNG but meet NSPORTS. These stub-articles can linger in Wikipedia for years, unchecked, unreferenced. It may be that many of them belong in Wikipedia, but my sense is that many do not. This is a testable hypothesis; I can take a sample of the dubious sportsperson articles, check them out, see what percentage of these articles are notable, and get a better sense of what is going on here. I may do this.

  I tried KDS4444's random experiment, hitting the "Random article" on the Wikipedia main page. I did not get one of every 4 or 5 articles being a one-line sportsperson stub barely referenced, but rather, I did a hundred random ones, and found perhaps among them 6 dubious sportsperson articles (short, unreferenced, etc.) So it seems to be not as prevalent as KDS4444 makes it to be, but still there could be a problem, since 6% of Wikipedia's 4 million-plus articles is considerable. My one hundred was only one sample; if one repeats the experiment many times, finds the percentage of dubious sportsperson articles each times, and then averages these percentages, a more accurate percentage will emerge, and I may do this too.

  So, here is where I am now: test these hypotheses, find out, sample, research. I will keep an open mind that NSPORTS guideline may be right (that, say, the one-line stub unreferenced sportperson articles will prove notable after more work) but if I find otherwise, I hope that others will keep an open mind that maybe there is a problem here.

  My overall concern is that the NSPORTS guideline, via confusion, bad wording, its existence even, may be causing a lot of non-notable sportspeople biographies to slip into Wikipedia which is subsequently hard for the community to remove, if one strictly observes the steps required before deleting each article. In addition, the logic of NSPORTS seems unclear; why is it the case that playing in such-and-such a game automatically qualifies a subject to be notable? Is not each case different?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)