Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 11 August 2020

view · edit Frequently asked questions Relation to general notability guideline Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline? A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Misplaced Pages's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Misplaced Pages's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Misplaced Pages's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.) Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not meet Misplaced Pages's notability standards? A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then they meet Misplaced Pages's standards for having an article in Misplaced Pages, even if they do not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Misplaced Pages: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist. Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources? A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Misplaced Pages articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Misplaced Pages editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given. Proposing revisions to Notability (sports) Q5: I want to create a new sports-specific notability guideline or revise an existing one. What approach should I take? A5: Consider what criteria that, if met, means that the sports figure is highly likely to have significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources. Test your proposed criteria by trying to find persons who meet them but do not have appropriate secondary coverage. It's best to keep your criteria fairly conservative, since for most contemporary persons, establishing notability via the general notability guideline is straightforward enough and the additional buffer time provided by a sports-specific notability guideline isn't needed, so trying to draw a more liberal line isn't worth the effort. Many discussions on rules of thumb start with, "This league/championship is important," or "This sport is popular in country X." While these arguments provide indirect evidence, a much better way to reach an agreement is to double-check if everyone meeting the proposed criteria has appropriate sources meeting the general notability guideline. For example, for an individual championship, you can list everyone who has won the championship and, for each person, the corresponding sources that show they meet Misplaced Pages's standards for inclusion. Subsequent to the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, proposing a guideline for the notability of an athlete purely based on their participation in a non-championship final or non-Olympic event is likely to meet opposition. Note the "nutshell summary" and the "Basic criteria" section are high-level descriptions of the type of criteria used by each sport. This does not mean that any criteria that fit these descriptions are suitable. You must demonstrate that the proposed criteria are effective as a way to determine if a subject meets the general notability guideline. Q6: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports? A6: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Misplaced Pages's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Misplaced Pages's guidance on reliable sources, also see Misplaced Pages's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information. Q7: But these athletes have won championship X; surely that makes them notable? A7: For better or worse, discussions in Misplaced Pages use the term "notable" as a shorthand for "meets Misplaced Pages's standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia". As a result, there are many subjects that can meet the everyday meaning of notable, yet fail to meet Misplaced Pages's standards for having an article. References Request for Comments discussion that established the sports-specific notability guidelines: Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4 § RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline Discussion in June 2011: Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8 § Applicable policies and guidelines Discussion in October 2011: Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 9 § Relation to GNG (again) Discussion in February 2013: Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 16 § Second sentence

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Proposal to amend WP:NCOLLATH to include coach guidance

I’d like to propose an addition to the notability guidance for WP:NCOLLATH to provide more specific guidance regarding head coaches for a limited number of sports. I am proposing an addendum to existing text to state:

5. Served as a full-time (as opposed to interim) head coach for NCAA division I football (since the establishment of divisions in 1957), men’s basketball (since 1957) or women’s basketball (since 1982). Other college coaches in other divisions and/or other sports may also meet notability guidelines via WP:GNG.

This feels like a very low bar for notability for college head coaches, but today there is zero standard for head coaches, even though most major football and basketball coaches meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• For better or worse, these almost always get kept at AfD. My only reservation is that these are not actually athletes, so maybe we go with WP:NCOLLCOACH. SportingFlyer T·C 23:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Why not just rename NCOLLATH as “college athletics?” Coaches have always been included there and I’m not sure where else they’d go Rikster2 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I could get behind this. This generally seems to be how AfDs play out. ~EDDY ~ 02:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Agreed. This would reflect the current reality of these type of articles at AfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this reflects the present reality at AfD. Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to ask for a little more input. As it stands, it appears that the four editors who have weighed in are willing to support. If no one else comments, does that equal consensus? Rikster2 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• While more input is good, an AfD can be closed with four participants. ~EDDY ~ 13:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with this as well. I think we can close this now. Smartyllama (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• This should probably be tweaked to apply to "NCAA Division I or University Division". There was no "Division I" prior to the 1970s, but the "University Division" was the equivalent level of play for the preceding decade and a half. Cbl62 (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I am going to amend the guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion in progress of interest to those who work within SNGs: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#North8000's_description_of_how_wp:notability_actually_works_right_now

WP:SPORTSCRIT clarification on international competitions

It's my understanding that WP:SPORTCRIT is a basic overview, but the sport-specific criteria are in the subsequent sections i.e. Professional sports people, Amateur sports persons, and Organizations and games notability. However, an ongoing AfD has at least two participants arguing that WP:SPORTCRIT is met, even though the particular international competion is not listed in the sport specific criteria (it's also not WP:NOLYMPICS). I'm not arguing the merits of that individual AfD (whose subject could arguably meet GNG anyways); however, I don't think it was the intention for readers to decide which non-Olympic international competions meet NSPORTS if they were not explicitly listed in the specific sport's critteria.

I propose the following rewording to tighten SPORTSCRIT:

"The guidelines on this page in the below sections are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Misplaced Pages's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)."—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear there's any substantive difference between the two, particularly given your previous comments that closers rely on discussion participants to interpret and apply guidelines appropriately. Thus if consensus agrees that applying the basic criteria is enough, the exact wording doesn't play a significant role. Leaving that aside for the moment, the basic criteria section remains as a catchall for sports without specific sections; basketball, for example, should use the basketball-specific section and not rely on the basic criteria. isaacl (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

the basic criteria section remains as a catchall for sports without specific sections: I've always understood it to mean that GNG is the fallback if the specific sport or competition is not mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

We tried to change it seven years ago but didn't attain consensus at the time. Some people thought it was important to retain a mention of the "highest level" general guidance. isaacl (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not looking to change that, just "on this page" to "in the below sections".—Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. My response was to your saying you understood it to mean that GNG is the fallback. We discussed this seven years ago when we were trying to change what the wording said regarding "highest level", and some people wanted to retain the general guidance as a catchall. isaacl (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. I re-read the 7-yr-old thread. Head hurts now. Phrases like "for example" and "highest level" leaves this rife for loopholes.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, like you've said, it comes down to whoever shows up to a deletion discussion and the arguments that attain consensus. The exact wording in this guideline doesn't really matter if closers are primarily relying on participant comments. The FAQ provides guidance for anyone trying to create new sports-specific criteria that meeting the basic criteria isn't sufficient. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That general criteria is essentially the old WP:ATHLETE that used to apply to all athletes, when NSPORTS was created that section was left to be the fall back for sports we didn't make specific subsections for so that sports without sections would not all of a sudden fall to GNG. GNG is the fallback if there isn't a subsection and the athlete doesn't meet the general criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Djsasso, so if a sport (e.g. basketball) had it's own specific criteria, but didn't list a competition (e.g. World Cup), do you believe that :SPORTCRIT's "major international amateur or professional competition" should still apply to the given sport?—Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That would be the case based on the intentions when this guideline was created, it is why I have always suggested people be a little redundant and list stuff like that in their criteria instead of saying well stuff like that is in NOLYMPICS or whatever. As you can see in our NHOCKEY guidelines which I am most familiar with we include it, it used to just say World Championships or Olympics but we have since made it more specific to be the top level of the World Championships and ended up removing Olympics because others felt the fact it was in NOLYMPICS covered it. I do however, think that world championships should be in basketball's criteria but that is a separate matter. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

So generically speaking, if there was no consensus that a respective sport's "world championship" conferred inherent notability to its participants, and the event was not listed in the sport's SNG, an argument using SPORTSCRIT could still be made. Seems like a loophole.—Bagumba (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it probably is, most times I have seen something similar happen it gets smacked down by other Afd participants or the subjects meets GNG making it moot so its never really been something I considered a big problem. But you are right, we aren't very explicit in the wording that its an either the specific sport criteria if one exists or the basic criteria if one doesn't. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t like the “such as the Olympics” in the guideliness, but the world championships basketball are a “major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level“ SportsOlympic (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to see more specifics myself. Indeed, as DJ infers, the NHOCKEY guidelines used to be a great deal looser, and placed much more reliance of the good faith of editors not to rules-lawyer at the drop of a puck. As it turned out, we were heavily mistaken in this approach, with certain editors gleefully interpreting "preeminent honors" as "Academic Rookie Forward of the Month," or the only known beer league in Peru as "top-flight," and suchlike. (I am not, sorry to say, making either example up.) Ravenswing 17:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:NTEAM

What's that all about, it's so weak in context it's kind of pathetic, seriously, can we improve this one? Govvy (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, at one point it said go to WP:NORG, but that guideline later got revised and now explicity says that sports aren't covered there. There generally aren't that many (new) teams anyways, so this topic doesn't come up that often where deferring to GNG is that problematic.—Bagumba (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree that the guideline is weak. Indeed, it's quite strong: meet the GNG, period, with no presumptive notability granted. Slapping any more specificity on it would become a horror show in very short order. Ravenswing 17:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

hmm, maybe the prose needs to emphasise that more. Govvy (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Junior athletes at IAAF World Cross Country Championships

The IAAF World Cross Country Championships consist of a junior and senior race, e.g., Junior men's race (2019). In a literal sense these athletes are notable as they meet the first point of WP:NATHLETE (they have competed at this competition) but as WP:NATHLETE gets more specific for junior athletes later on, I was wondering whether that's indeed the case. So my question is: are the athletes who competed in the junior men / women's races at the IAAF World Cross Country Championships indeed considered notable for an article? - Simeon (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

For most of NSPORTS if it doesn't specifically mention junior it only refers to senior level competitors. Being that NATHLETE #4 specifically mentions when a junior athlete meets it, just appearing as a junior would not meet NATHLETE, they would have to win Gold. -DJSasso (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying! - Simeon (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Speed skating again

In Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 36#Notability guideliness speed skating, there was a discussion to introduce a notability guideline for speed skating. Despite the distinct lack of consensus for it, the proposer, User:SportsOlympic, added it to WP:NSPORTS. I have now removed it again, as all additions should have consensus. I became aware of this when discussing Ewa Borkowska (speed skater, born 1973) with SportsOlympic on my user talk page. I argued that she isn't notable, SportsOlympic said she is because she meets NSPORTS. I'll bring the article to AfD shortly. Fram (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. OK. Would have been better if someone told it earlier. During the discussion I asked a few times for help; and how to progress. Nobody who helped. Please say how to continue. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• My ongoing sentiment is that I will not vote for any new sports SNG where the nominator hasn't demonstrated that 90%+ of the athletes meeting the criteria meets the GNG. This keeping in mind that we're talking significant coverage in reliable sources, while explicitly excluding routine sports coverage and match reports. Looking at the previous discussion, you were challenged to find coverage for five skaters that would have met your criteria. You couldn't find any for two of them. For the others, you posted namedrops and casual mentions. You would need to tighten up your proposal dramatically to have much of a chance to pass consensus muster. Ravenswing 05:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Discussion died out and no further guidance was given after SportsOlympic asked "is this accepted or should we vote?" question, and I don't blame them for being bold, but it shouldn't have been added to NSPORTS - consensus wasn't clear, and I think it's unlikely to gain consensus after a vote, but a vote or RfC would be the next proper step. SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Multi-sport games medallists

Are Invictus Games medallists notable or not? SarahTHunter (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent English FC cricketers fail WP:GNG / WP:BIO

Ollie Steele played 6 first-class games, so according to NPORTS clearly notable. He is English, matches were recent (2013-2015), so nothing obscure or pre-internet or language problems in searching for sources. And yet, apart from some very short mentions (in match reports) in some local sources, there seems to be not a single reliable source about him apart from the typical cricket databases. In short, if this was judged only by the WP:GNG / WP:BIO line, this would be a deletion candidate.

Is he an exception, are my searches defective and is there a wealth of information, or is this typical for many recent first-class cricketers? E.g. Ashley Gowers, I can find even less information on him, but 2 FC games in 2016 so automatically notable? Archie Ogden, same issues. Jack Sterland, identical.

These are people about whom very, very little has been written, people who aren't notable by any standard definition and wouldn't survive an AfD if it wasn't for the SNG.

If there are this many persons who fail the GNG (the above is just a sampling), isn't it then time to reassess the validity of the GNG and the claim that playing FC cricket is an indication that sources will exist? Fram (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that you would need to successfully AfD a good percentage to demonstrate that it is broken. Otherwise, I've rarely seen these types of discussions lead anywhere. It would also likely require participation from many non-cricket editors to minimize the risk of the outcome being driven by a possible WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit of a catch-22: when you bring these to AfD, a fair number of people blindly vote "Keep, meets NSPORTS", but you can't change NSPORTS without getting some deletes at AfD first... So, I thought my best approach would be to first check the waters a bit here, to see if some people agree on the one hand, and to see if people would be able to provide evidence that these 4 are notable (GNG-wise, not just for playing FC cricket) and the problem was with my searches for sources. Third option would be that these matches are not "the highest domestic level" as defined by WP:CRIN, but I doubt it. Fram (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That would bring up Misplaced Pages:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q4. Ideally, a subject should be able to demonstrate GNG at some point. For those whose career are post-internet, it shuold be less likely that sources are mostly offline, where needing more time would be understandable.—Bagumba (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

So Steele played for Durham MCCU, a University team. They had first-class status, which is technically the highest level of domestic cricket. BUT, in reality those matches are low-level practice matches for the professional county sides. Harrias 09:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains the lack of attention these get. Fram (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, that's an overly cynical view. They are also the launchpads for many careers in county cricket and beyond. In 2012, it was reported "Just under 25% of England-qualified cricketers currently playing in the county game graduated through the system. Durham MCCU alone has helped develop more than 50 county players, six county captains, three England players". It's first-class cricket, against first-class opposition. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And those who go on to reach those heights are presumlably notable (certainly the England players and county captains). But that quote also makes it clear that playing for Durham MCCU (and presumably other Uni teams) are considered less notable than those playing at county level, not equal to it. That they can (and many do) progress is good, but notability is not inherited; it's not because some of your former teammates have become notable, have gotten a further cricket career, that you become notable as well. Fram (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

MCCU matches are "first-class" in name only, certainly not "the highest domestic level" – it's worth noting that they are being downgraded, with first-class status being revoked from next year. Notability of participants in these games is questionable at best. Picking out those who've gone on to stellar careers ignores the majority who are never heard from (in cricket) again. _wjemather 10:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I would certainly tend to agree that playing *only* for a University side nowadays is unlikely to mean that in depth sources will be found about a cricketer. They might be, but I would doubt it. Once upon a time that was probably different - early 20th century Oxford or Cambridge players may well have a number of more in depth sources that can be found. But, as effective as the work the MCCU's did (and maybe still do - I suspect that 25% figure is going to be lower in the future; it certainly seems to be so), I'm unconvinced that this is truly notable cricket. I appreciate that this makes things harder to manage when it comes to determining articles and so on, but it seems to be the way it is. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This touches on a wider problem with NCRIC/CRIN, with the notability of most cricketers with very few appearances being highly questionable. Sources are almost always limited to indiscriminate statistical repositories and incidental mentions match reports/scorecards – entirely insufficient for N/GNG/BIO. Large numbers of such articles (mostly non-English players) have been deleted/merged/listified at AfD, but opposition to change of the guidelines at WPCRIC is strong, with some feeling that such players are notable (and should have articles) regardless of sources. Merging them into lists is a good option, but that too has been problematic at times. _wjemather 10:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Six FC appearances is more than notable; one FC with no century/five wicket haul should be a redirect. As pointed out, these matches are FC and we can't allow our opinion of the quality of the matches to get around that. A compromise has been made to redirect one FC players to lists or categories, and for now this should be sufficient. StickyWicket (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The cricket guideline (still) states one match, regardless of contribution/performance in that match (which doesn't even have to be first-class). The complete lack of required sources would seem to suggest that 6 university matches does not equal "more than notable". And of course, we can absolutely make a differentiation between the quality of MCCU matches and the county championship. _wjemather 11:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Quality" and "top level" aren't necessarily indicators of coverage. Per the guideline WP:WHYN: We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Or appearance data/statistics transposed into a couple of sentences, which is what we have a great deal of here. _wjemather 11:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Stats databases are consider WP:PRIMARY sources, so cannot be used to establish that GNG is met.—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Stats databases of any ilk would not go towards GNG, as they are not "significant" coverage. GiantSnowman 11:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, but they often do confirm NSPORTS requirements are met, leaving GNG requirements ignored, which is the problem. _wjemather 11:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The alleged problem is the NCRIC criteria, not that a DB is sourcing it.—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's the same criteria that is used for lots of other sports - at least one start - see WP:NFOOTY, WP:NAFL, WP:NBASE, WP:NBASKETBALL, etc. Lugnuts 12:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And if it turns out that meeting any of those criteria is a poor predictor of actual notability (as here), then those should be discussed and amended as well. A rare exception can always exist, but here it looks as if playing FC matches for one of these university teams (I listed players from 3 different teams above, the same exercise probably can be made for other teams as well) is in way too many cases not an indicator of notability (as defined in GNG / BIO). You are free to start discussions about these other guidelines of course, but their existence is hardly a reason to ignore potential issues with this one. Fram (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no potential issue here, I looked at one at random, and added a few sources. Deletion monkeys are going to delete, keepers are going to keep. Lugnuts 12:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. Fram (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

So the one you changed is Ashley Gowers, where you added two sources of very local coverage, spending a few lines each on him (one from the Bury Times for a game when he was 15 years old in the Bolton & District Cricket Association, and one from Rochdale Online with a game report for a game in the LCB(?). No, these ones wouldn't make a footballer notable either. Local, routine match coverage, nothing more. Fram (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not a one size fits all. Managing to play in one game in one league does not guarantee the same amount of coverage as another league.—Bagumba (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the problem is with the criteria themselves, but the assumption that the criteria are a concrete reference point that it's not possible to be sensible about. There is some work going on with trying to determine a list of competitions that might mean that someone's likely to be notable - Lugnuts has started work on that. And as AssociateAffiliate says, there is an increasing consensus that a limited number of senior appearances but a lack of other information tends to mean that a redirect to a list is a better solution (I wouldn't say that there's a number of appearances that are a determining factor fwiw - it depends on what we know and so on). I think there are some ways that NCRIC could be re-written to make it easier to use (and certainly that CRIN could be), but the basic idea that a single appearance is quite possible a key notability point is, in context, a reasonable one.

Put it another way, if there's a problem with a single appearance in cricket then there's a problem in baseball and association football as well. I have no bones about there being issues with cricket, but there does appear to be a growing acceptance that there is a case for using common sense. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it would be an across the board issue with all sports, not just cherry-picking one that someone doesn't happen to like. Could be worse, we could have tons of stubs on non-notable villages in Belgium, if I was to pick something at random. Lugnuts 13:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Considering that a few sections up on this page, I posted that I had removed the complete notability guideline for a sport I happen to like (speed skating), your ad hominem arguments aren't really convincing. Not surprising after the personal attack you posted earlier in this thread, or your unconvincing "random" Belgium village when you know I'm Belgian. If you would look through my editing history, you would notice that I often redirect villages to larger entities if nothing better can be said (for a Belgian one, see e.g. this), and this example isn't even a very good one, as this village gets full pages in guides, thousands of mentions or articles in the news and a history going back at least 800 years. Nothing extremely impressive, but not really comparable to the cricket player examples given above, and in any case totally irrelevant for the discussion here. Fram (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You're Belgian? OK, I didn't know that. Anyway, you are obviously picking off ones you don't like, with this comment sounding very much sounding that you're cock-a-hoop at getting something deleted ("I recently succeeded at getting some deletions!", and you've moved on to your next target. Lugnuts 14:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"If you would look through my editing history..", such as this and this? OK. Lugnuts 14:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That first one, Goar Vartanian, got a NYTimes obituary. I doubt any of the cricketers discussed here will get this (at least not based on their cricket career, they are stll young and may have other achievements later on). The second one, Fleddy Melculy, have released a #2 and a #1 album. Not of major interest, granted, but there are further reliable sources that could be added, like full interviews in Het Laatste Nieuws or a more recent interview with the frontman or an album review in Het Nieuwsblad. So, your ad hominem point being...? I would appreciate if we can perhaps go back to discussing the merits of these cricketer articles and the underlying guideline, instead of raising one irrelevant tangent after another as if by somehow tarnishing me (so far, not really a success) the actual issue here would become moot and void. Fram (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You asked me to look at your contributions, but you see every critic of you as a ad hominem! Poor Fram. How's your RFA going? Lugnuts 16:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The last bit about meaning if there is a problem with a single appearance it transfers across sports isn't really true. The whole reason we switched from the old WP:ATHLETE which was one pro appearance for any sport to WP:NSPORTS was because it was found that one shoe doesn't fit all sports. In some sports 1 appearance is enough, in baseball for example the minor leagues are heavily covered as well as the top level league so anyone who plays a single game in the Majors likely has enough sources to meet GNG from simply their minor league days. I don't know enough about cricket to know if that is true, but there are other sports where people don't start getting coverage until they are in the top league. But that is very much not the case for all sports. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I was probably thinking more of historical figures than contemporary ones. In terms of cricket, I think it would be possible, for example, to write an article that just about meets GNG about Nathan Gilchrist (see here for context) who doesn't have a senior appearance to his name - but I can find significant coverage in multiple media sources about him going back 2-3 years. Whether I could find that about a chap who played twice in 1906 or who pinch ran once in 1912, I don't know. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

A general reminder that both NSPORTS and the GNG are presumptions of notability. We are giving the allowance of a standalone article expecting more sources to be added so that a comprehensive encyclopedic article can be written. If no more sources can be found or can be expected to be found, the presumption fails and deletion (or actions like merging or redirection) are appropriate. This case is exactly correct: if the player has a career in a first-world country post-2000 which means it should be easily documented online (via Google Search) but nothing comes up, and all we have are stats on 6 games, that's probably an indication the athlete is not notable at all, and the presumption failed. So AFD is the correct course of action. That's how the process is to work. It would be different if this were 6 games in 1960 , or if he was a player from, say, India, where online search may be not as successful as finding sources, and would require a more physical search of sources to prove out. --Masem (t) 14:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

True, but if we don't have sources for these players, it begs the question whether all these others which are "automatically" notable but from a different era are indeed notable or not. Many will be, don't get me wrong, but if the automatic assumption, based on our guidelines, isn't correct for recent ones, then why would it be correct for older ones? Fram (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

“And of course, we can absolutely make a differentiation between the quality of MCCU matches and the county championship”... but we can't, we are not an authority that can make that differentiation, only the ICC, MCC or ACS can. We simply work to their definition of first-class, be it Rajasthan v Delhi, Leinster v North-West, Surrey v Kent ect. StickyWicket (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we can. NSPORTS details are decided solely by us, enwiki editors. We try, for convenience, to base these on some "external" groupings or titles, but in the end we decide what e.g. a fully-professional football league is, or in which sports participation at the world championships is sufficient, or, if we were so inclined, appearing for which FC teams is sufficient and which FC teams fall below that standard. Whether any other body makes that distinction is not, in the end, decisive, although it is something we normally take into consideration. Fram (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. We are not talking about article content that needs to be sourced. We're discussing guidelines for presumed/likely notability, for which we can easily and rightly make a differentiation when necessary. _wjemather 14:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think in some cases we certainly can and in others it's more difficult to. Fwiw I was listening to commentary yesterday where a very well respected ex-professional was generally of the opinion that "runs's against the Universities didn't count". Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)