Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Addition to WP:NRODEO

Should we add "Professional Bull Riders to WP:NRODEO"?

Background

WP:NRODEO currently reads:

===Rodeo===

Shortcut
Individuals who participate in the sport of rodeo are presumed notable if they
  1. Have participated as athletes at the highest level of professional competition such as the Calgary Stampede, Canadian Finals Rodeo, National Finals Rodeo, or National Finals Rodeo (Australia);
  2. Have been inducted into a national or international rodeo hall of fame such as the ProRodeo Hall of Fame, Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame, or Bull Riding Hall of Fame.
  3. College rodeo athletes in NIRA competition will follow NCOLLATH and younger rodeo competitors will follow NHSPHSATH.
  4. Named animals participating in rodeo, such as bucking horses and bucking bulls, are presumed notable if they have been named to a rodeo hall of fame such as those noted above.

So, we would add the Professional Bull Riders to No. 1 with the other rodeo organizations. And, we would add their hall of fame organization Professional Bull Riders: Heroes and Legends to No. 2.

Awards:

  • Bull Riders receive World Champion Bull Riders awards which would be equivalent to the same world champion awards won by the other awards won by the other rodeo organizations in No. 1
  • The Heroes and Legends win lifetime achievement type of awards that are similar to the ones won by the other halls of fame listed in No. 2
  • Bucking bulls win the same award as the bulls listed in the other organizations, basically they are all champion awards for the year.

WP:NRODEO is now proposed to read:

===Rodeo===

Shortcut
Individuals who participate in the sport of rodeo are presumed notable if they
  1. Have participated as athletes at the highest level of professional competition such as the Calgary Stampede, Canadian Finals Rodeo, National Finals Rodeo, National Finals Rodeo (Australia) or PBR World Finals;
  2. Have been inducted into a national or international rodeo hall of fame such as the ProRodeo Hall of Fame, Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame, Bull Riding Hall of Fame, or Professional Bull Riders: Heroes and Legends.
  3. College rodeo athletes in NIRA competition will follow NCOLLATH and younger rodeo competitors will follow NHSPHSATH.
  4. Named animals participating in rodeo, such as bucking horses and bucking bulls, are presumed notable if they have been named to a rodeo hall of fame such as those noted above.

The addition of PBR World Finals would necessitate an article same as the others link to an article in No. 1. Right now, that is a redirect to the Professional Bull Riders article. But I can write an article. The addition of the hall of fame already has an article. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC) p.s. I could also just write a section about the finals in the PBR article. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding tour names: The lower level tours are to help riders join the PBR and climb their way to the higher tours. They enter the Touring Pro Division and this is the middle level tour: Velocity Tour. The Premier Series (elite series) is currently titled the Unleash the Beast Series (UTB) for 2018-present. However, every time that the PBR changes sponsors, they change the name of the elite series. It has also been the Built Ford Tough Series from 2003 to 2017. Before that, it was the Bud Light Cup from the beginning in 1994 until 2002. Writing the tour names into the criteria is not recommended. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Qualifiers for the finals

I thought I had answered the question of who goes to the finals in the discussion. Perhaps we are waiting for more detail? The rules are set forth in the PBR Media Guide, for one. You can actually find the link at the bottom of the PBR's main page. However it is PBR Media Guide. It has four sections. Anyway, the rules for who goes are actually set forth in two different places in the guide, and they contrast a little bit.

First, in the PBR Tours & World Finals section, page 4, it says: "The PWVT Finals will be featured as the last event of the season, taking place just prior to the PBR World Finals each year. The Top 35 riders from the PWVT along with qualifying representatives from PBR’s international territories, including Australia, Brazil, Canada and Mexico, will compete for the final five positions available at the PBR World Finals..."

Second, in the Bull Riding Basics section, page 31, it says, "The Top-35 ranked riders, based on the PBR world standings, will compete at the PBR World Finals. They are also joined by the PBR’s Velocity Tour Champion and runner-up, and the Top 2 finishing riders overall and the highest-finishing international qualifier at the Velocity Tour Finals."

So okay, I don't believe we need to get that granular. For the Velocity Tour, which has been around only since 2013, all but one have been to the finals, several more than once. All of the Australian champions, just looking back to 2015 have ridden herein the U.S. with the 2018-19 champion here for 2020 to try to win the title here. For Brasil, four of the last five have been here for several years and those four have all been to the finals; Leme has been 2nd place to the champion twice. For Canada, the 2019 champion was at the 2019 finals. Champions going back further to 2012 have all been here to the finals except maybe one. For Mexico, the last champion has won the last three titles, so he is notable. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Reasons

PBR Wikipedia Articles:

PBR Websites:

Here are some facts about the organization:

  • Professional Bull Riders founded in 1992.
  • Parent organization IMG founded in 1960.
  • In 2014, IMG was acquired by WME. The two entities merged to form Endeavor. See Endeavor story
  • About PBR PBR broadcasts reach over half a billion households in 50 nations and terroritories. Live attendance is 3 million fans annually, compared to 310,000 in 1995.

I have included numerous sources to establish the organization's notability and also a few of their world champions. I have included a section of world champion bull riders and bulls of the PBR:

Sources:

World Champions:
Jess Lockwood

Kaique Pacheco

J.B. Mauney

Cooper Davis

Heroes and Legends (hall of fame)
Guilherme Marchi

Luke Snyder

World Champions Bulls and Hall of Fame:
Bushwacker

Pearl Harbor

Airtime

Long John

PBR Org Sources:

Please confine threaded discussion to the discussion section.

Support

  1. The PBR is notable due to the sources I've listed in this guideline proposal and the hundreds more listed on the Internet. It also has three articles that have already have established its notability. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  2. support: The Professional Bull Riders is the “major league” for the sport of bull riding. The purse money and television coverage is probably greater than the PRCA. Just as some major league baseball players may not be inherently notable just for getting on a team if they were benched all season and then released, or a figure skater might make it to the world championships and then break their leg in practice the second day of the competition, the criteria above, as are all NSPORTS guidelines, is a guide to demonstrate what meets notability within a field. Clearly, this is a floor where someone has to at least cross this threshold to be considered notable. Montanabw(talk) 22:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. support a convincing case has been made. Dream Focus 07:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support. This is one of those things that probably should have been included in the guideline to begin with. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Per the discussion below, there's no showing people who participate in this organisation will always pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    SportingFlyer Per your vote, I have addressed this issue completely. Even if you can't see your way towards voting, can you at least change or strike out your oppose vote now? As this is no longer true? Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnleelynn (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    Fine, I shouldn't have struck out your comment. But I when I asked you to consider changing your vote, it's your prerogative of course. But a little rude that you could not even have replied to my comment. I bent over backwards to respond to everyone, made that list for you, etc. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry again for striking. I want to add that since consensus is not just based on voting, in the discussion this editor said they would support this proposal if the criteria were limited to just world finalists. Taking that into account, he has negated his oppose vote if we go by the spirit of what he said in this entire proposal. Considering that the proposal now says, "PBR World Finals."dawnleelynn(talk) 19:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  2. GNG is fine here, adding additional criteria like this simply invite endless arguments about the tension between the policy-based GNG and the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS-based SNGs - and also drives people to accept unreliable sources to support content that cannot be sourced reliably. Guy (help!) 15:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  3. Proposal as it stands would allow anyone involved in PBR regardless of qualification to be considered inherently notable. As the current qualifications for participation in a PBR event consist of being 18 years old and paying a nominal fee, anyone could buy themselves into the organization. Participants should meet GNG. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 11:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    Criteria this vote opposes no longer applies. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I removed strikeout as I now understand this is not done. However, in the spirit of the proposal, an oppose vote that applies to criteria that is no longer true, should no longer be considered in the consensus. As the criteria now says, "PBR World Finals."dawnleelynn(talk) 19:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    I have found Bagumba and DJSasso‘a rationale to be compelling and decline to change my opposition despite the proposer’s determination that my considerations no longer matter.TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 23:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  4. The Professional Bull Riders organisation is clearly notable. The article says that "There are 1,200 or more bull riders who compete in competitions sanctioned by the PBR in five countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the United States." I'm assuming that the change to 1. "Have participated as athletes at the highest level of professional competition ..." is meant to cover all of these. This seems like an awful lot and I can't believe that a high proportion of these are notable. Nigej (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    Another oppose vote that is regarding criteria that all of the bull riders that compete are too many to consider. This is obviously no longer true once again as the criteria in the Background clearly shows, "PB World Finals." dawnleelynn(talk) 19:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  5. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: No explanation why GNG is not sufficient or that Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q6 has been demonstrated.—Bagumba (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    From my 65 years of experience of the England language I can assure you that "nearly 100% guarantees" (as it says in FAQ#Q6) is completely different to "likely" (as it says in the actual guideline), demonstrating yet again that the FAQ is patent nonsense and should be removed. Nigej (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    So improve it.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    I have now changed it to reflect what the guideline actually says. Nigej (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    That wording was the result of much community discussion, your edit has been reverted. You will need consensus to get it to be what you want it to be. -DJSasso (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  6. Like Bagumba mentions I don't see how Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ#Q6 has been demonstrated and I think GNG works better here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

  • they are watched by over half a billion households on television This is factually inaccurate, the Professional Bull Riders article only implies that their television content is carried by networks that are available in half a billion households. How many people actually watch? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    Look at the first link in the sources. The Forbes article also says half a billion. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    The Forbes article says with television broadcasts reaching more than half a billion households in 40 countries and territories around the world. This is not the same as saying they are watched by over half a billion households on television. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    Striking out my comments as the support rationale has been amended. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Whether or not it is suitable for an article to exist for a given person is determined by the availability of significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources. Rules of thumb to guide this decision are based on how accurately they can predict the existence of this coverage. Audience size of an organization is not a determining factor. isaacl (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    I have changed my support statement. There are hundreds of sources about the PBR, not to mention three Wikipedia articles. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    Participants in an organization do not inherit notability from the organization. isaacl (talk) 05:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm asking to add an organization to the guideline, and saying that there are lots of sources for it, and three Wikipedia articles about the organization. I never said participants inherit notability. dawnleelynn(talk) 05:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    The reason these sport-related SNGs exist isn't because an organisation is notable, but because the participants in the organisation (typically a league, or an event like the Olympics) are notable. For this to be added, you have to show that participants in the event will almost always pass our WP:GNG notability guideline, not that the organisation itself is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    "Almost always" is incorrect. The word used is "likely". Nigej (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, technically, but "likely" means "very probable," and there's a tendency in NSPORTS of late to have stricter SNGs versus looser SNGs, so I would still imagine you'd need to demonstrate more than 9 out of 10 new articles would be notable under the SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    You are proposing changes to a section that starts with "Individuals who participate in the sport of rodeo are presumed notable if they..." Your rationale for the change is that the organization has suitable coverage. As per question 6 in the sports notability FAQ, you need to show that your proposed new criteria is a good predictor that the person meeting the criteria has suitable coverage. isaacl (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    I just compared this to The sports immediately above and below this one. We are consistent with other NSPORTS guidelines. WP:RLN says Rugby players are presumed notable if they play for certain teams, WP:NMOTORSPORT, an individual sport like rodeo and bull riding, says, “Motorsport figures are presumed notable if they Have driven in a race in a fully professional series...A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series...” and then give examples. Similar here.Montanabw(talk) 22:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    As you know from past discussions, for better or worse, the sports notability guidelines have been designed to be predictors of the existence of suitable coverage meeting the general notability guideline for the person in question. So while consistency with the guidelines for other sports is a positive, it doesn't provide direct evidence on how accurate the proposed criteria are as predictors. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    I guess I’m failing to see how the reams of evidence the nominator put forth here isn’t adequate. What are we missing here? We’ve demonstrated the notability of the sport itself, the notability of the stars of the sport, and that there is significant coverage of this sport, the notability of the organization. We are basically adding, if you will, PBR as the other “big league,” to supplement the existing PRCA “league.” Perhaps we’re missing an appropriate analogy here. Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    Not knowing the sport, I don't have a clear view on what are appropriate criteria, but the Wikipedia article says there more than 600 members of the organization. How accurately does membership predict that a given person has significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources? (I apologize for repeating what we've already discussed above and in previous conversations.) isaacl (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, think of the PBR as kind of like NASCAR for cowboys. I think that PBR membership is restricted, but dawnleelynn can address that. So 600 is an elite, but we wouldn’t be adding 600 new articles, as it includes (I think) not only the human athletes, but also bull owners, rodeo event operators, and so on. Outside the PBR and the PRCA, there are thousands of bull riders, and like Little League Baseball, rodeo kids start with National Little Britches Rodeo Association, where they ride steers instead of bulls (and they ride horses too, but that’s a different issue), graduating to National High School Rodeo Association, which has national championships. Then, as noted already in NRODEO, there’s a collegiate circuit, and from there, as in other sports, the elite turn pro. The PRCA, which we already include, covers all rodeo sports at a professional level, including bull riding. The PBR is focused exclusively on bull riding, as someone discovered that —surprise— it’s the most dangerous sport in rodeo (some say the most dangerous sport, period, but I don’t have the stats to back that up) and had the biggest crowds, the best TV ratings when rodeos are broadcast, and so on. Think of the PBR as a specialty league within the broader sport of rodeo, but it’s become the one where there’s the most money, thanks to greater television coverage, more sponsorship, etc. does that make sense? Montanabw(talk) 00:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The PBR has events routinely televised nationally, with the winners obtaining significant coverage in the rodeo press, and usually enough mainstream coverage to meet GNG. Like any other sport outside of football, baseball, and basketball, rodeo may not always be covered in the New York Times but the major events meet GNG and the winners will similarly be covered. As for the “every participant is notable,” all we really are after here is the same standard used for cricket players from Luxumborg or whatever... Montanabw(talk) 22:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the article actually says 600 cowboys. So the proposed criteria would include all of them. If adding this criteria will reduce the load at Articles for Deletion, great; if it will add to the load by creating a lot of detailed arguing over cowboys who are members but don't have appropriate coverage, not so great. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • So I hear what you are saying and there is no doubt that some riders are very notable, therefore pass muster under GNG. This is one question that I have about membership, per the PBR entry criteria. Essentially in order to register, the criteria is that you pay $420 and you can enter any competition. This would make individual participants potentially very non-notable if anyone could enter a competition. In theory, I could enter by paying $420. I could probably even become notable by getting killed before I got out of the stall. Even by the criterion of winning $2,500 to receive a card, I would think this is quite low. If, as an amateur, I entered an open golf championship and won $2,500, that would not necessarily qualify me for the PGA. I would have to actually win enough tournaments on or finish at a high enough level in sanctioned events to qualify. Under the example of just participation, it seems like anyone on earth could get into a tournament. Obviously, not all of those participants are notable. Under the second, winning $2,500 and getting a tour card, I would have to know what that means. Does it mean you’re a top 10 finisher in one event or can you earn that by being the 75th best rider in a given tournament? But I think by adding this as a something that mere participation conveys notability, like Major League Baseball, I’m not sure it reaches that point. No one is saying the org isn’t notable or individual tournaments aren’t notable. But if it’s something where any person, regardless of skill, training, or qualifications can participate, then many of those participants simply wouldn’t cut it via the organization. They achieve it via other means such as winning championships, or making halls of fame, or participating in the existing events that convey notability. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 01:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry you felt you had to go into all that detail because I forgot to specify that exactly. In the current specification, all but one of them says "finals rodeo" in them. Meaning that only the competitors who make it to the finals are notable. For the PRCA, the National Finals Rodeo is the championship event at the end of the year and only the top 15 competitors in each event make it. There are nine events. That means there are only nine champions each year. The same is true for the Professional Bull Riders. They have the PBR World Finals at the end of each year. The top 35 bull riders get to go, and there is only one champion each year. The top 6-7 bulls are world champion bull contenders and there is only one world champion bull each year. And by the way, most articles are written about champions on Wikipedia thus far although all competitors who attend are notable. So I would be writing into the criteria the PBR World Finals. The hall of fame you can see for yourself by looking at the article, but it's five new inductees each year. I suppose this criteria could reduce the load at Articles for Deletion; I don't really visit there much. I hope this helps! dawnleelynn(talk) 03:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't follow rodeo at all, can someone link to an article which would demonstrate a list of a recent event and a description of which participants in the event would pass GNG and be granted notability? Sorry if this is a burden, but this is an important request and we should be taking it seriously, and I don't think many of us are all that knowledgeable about rodeo. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • SportingFlyer, I think dawnleelynn posted a good half-dozen up there already. Montanabw(talk) 14:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC) additional comment: So, yesterday, Reuters ran this short piece: [1] it didn’t go into detail, but it’s recent. Another on the same thing here: [2]. Looks like the major players weren’t at this particular event yet, though again, dawn has a better idea of who the current big names are. Of the notable PBR cowboys, Jesss Lockwood was covered in the mainstream press here: [3], and I think some of the links above are mainstream media. There is a mention of the world rankings leader in this article, but I don’t know if he’s done enough to reach GNG yet, but if he won the finals (“highest level of competition”) he would be. Also note Monster Energy is sponsoring him. Montanabw(talk) 14:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The other issue here is that we are adding to existing lists. I don't follow rodeo at all either but I'm assuming that many participants in the Professional Bull Riders events are already covered by the existing NRODEO criteria (I may be completely wrong). So what is important is who would be added (ie those not covered by the current NRODEO) and some indication that a high-enough proportion of those are notable. Common sense says that this should be a general principle when we change existing sports notability guidelines. Nigej (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily. Many bull riders to cross-enter PBR and PRCA events, but with the wear and tear on the human body that is inherent to bull riding, some specialize. Also, because prize money won is used as a criteria for entering the PRCA National Finals, if a rider focuses on the PBR, I don’t think the circuits overlap (dawn? Am I right about that?) so I cannot say for certain that a rider could compete in both championships, at least not in the same year. Montanabw(talk) 14:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Everyone is getting into the weeds here. I also was getting bogged down in the debate and had to go reread the proposal. As I see the proposal, it would read: “...1. Have participated as athletes at the highest level of professional competition such as the Calgary Stampede, Canadian Finals Rodeo, National Finals Rodeo, or National Finals Rodeo (Australia).or Professional Bull Riders (World Finals?). 2. Have been inducted into a national or international rodeo hall of fame such as the ProRodeo Hall of Fame, Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum Rodeo Hall of Fame, National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame, Bull Riding Hall of Fame, or Professional Bull Riders Hall of Fame. Note the phraseparticipated as athletes and highest level of competition. This isn’t just membership, it’s reaching the top. So we are just adding one more major group. Montanabw(talk) 14:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The proposal says (under 1) "Professional Bull Riders" not "Professional Bull Riders (World Finals)". Nigej (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
If dawnleelynn can clarify, that would help, but highest level of competition of Professional Bull Riders says basically the same thing, just a bit awkward in phrasing. Montanabw(talk) 14:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not the same thing at all. It says "highest level of professional competition such as ...", so the proposal says that Professional Bull Riders is an example of participating at the highest level of professional competition. Nigej (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
That’s hairsplitting over a phrasing error. The entire organization is like the PRCA, which is already in. The PBR clearly has preliminary competition and just being a member isn’t enough alone to confer notability , even though membership is somewhat limited. It is the highest level Within the PBR we are talking about. Montanabw(talk) 01:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The PBR has three tours. We are talking about the elite tour also called the Premier Series, which is currently called the Unleash the Beast Series (sponsored by Monster Energy). And yet, even in that tour, not all of the riders who make in are notable. Riders who don't make it from the two lower tours, the Pro Touring Division and the Velocity Tour, are not notable. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, this is helpful. For clarity, can you please draft a specific list of criteria (including specific tour names) that you feel would accurately predict notability (in the Wikipedia sense of having appropriate coverage)? (Montanabw, can you please let dawnleelynn respond; I'd like to hear the editor's thoughts directly.) isaacl (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer Here's the list you requested. The event this weekend is really not a good example because they haven't yet published a good list of the results with all the competitors. The last event was in Duluth, Georgia, the Duluth Invitational.There is a list of competitors in this article.Dener Barbosa wins historic PBR title in empty Georgia arena

World Champions who appeared at Duluth:

  • 2017 & 2019 World Champion Jess Lockwood
  • 2018 World Champion Kaique Pacheco
  • 2018 & 2019 Australian World Champion Aaron Kleier
  • 2016 World Champion Cooper Davis
  • Three time world champion Silvano Alves (who is Brazilian)

See for source of champions (except Kleier)

PBR World Finalists who appeared at Duluth (several Brazilians):

  • Dener Barbosa
  • Daylon Swearingen
  • Ezekiel Mitchell
  • Fabiano Vieira
  • Derek Kolbaba
  • Stetson Lawrence (Native American)
  • Joao Ricardo Vieira
  • Marco Eguchi
  • Brennon Eldred
  • Jose Vitor Leme
  • Eduardo Aparecido
  • Matt Triplett
  • Ryan Dirteater (Native American)
  • Lachlan Richardson (Australian origin)
  • Brock Radford (Canadian origin)
  • Aaron Roy (two time Canadian champion)

There is a list of all competitors in this article thats shows all competitors. It can verify the Duluth list notables were here. Jess Lockwood crowned 2019 PBR World Champion to become youngest two-time title holder in league history dawnleelynn(talk) 16:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I admit that I needed to take more time with this proposal in the beginning, after seeing this through this far. I don't know why I thought the sources should be for the organization; rather than the bull riders. I actually know better when I take my time. Thank you all for making the proposal better. It also sounds like the current criteria wasn't enough? "the highest level of professional competition" seemed to be enough for the current organizations. But when it came to adding another, there was some concern that there would be a flood of individuals. Of course, that was never my intention; it was always to be the same as the other organizations; a finals event. So, proposing the Professional Bull Riders instead of the PBR World Finals did not fit the pattern. Which leads me to ask? In adding the National Finals Rodeo, the only way one knows that is the finals event for the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association is to click on it. And the organization's hall of fame is also not associated in the criteria, the ProRodeo Hall of Fame; again the only way to know is to click on it. Same with these other organizations. But if that's the format we want to keep, then we would add: PBR World Finals to No.1 and PBR: Heroes and Legends Celebration to No. 2. Thoughts. Do we spell out PBR? dawnleelynn(talk) 17:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Regarding bull riders trying to participate in the PRCA and the PBR at the same time: it is extremely rare. It is just very taxing to do both circuits. You can ask Shane Proctor about it; he's the only one to do it somewhat successfully for a few years. Rodeoing in the PRCA and competing in the PBR are both essentially all year long. The PBR takes a break over the summer for a couple months and a two month break after finals in November. The PRCA gets a small break after the finals for maybe a month or two. However, there are bull riders who move from one circuit to the other. J.W. Harris won four championships in the PRCA. He came to the PBR for several years and then went back to the PRCA. Mike Lee and J.B. Mauney tried also tried to do both circuits one year not that long ago, but neither finished the PRCA season. Actually, it's the bulls who do the real running in both circuits. Both Bodacious and Bruiser have won world champion bull titles in both circuits and in the same year. Spotted Demon has run in both circuits several years and he has won the title in the PRCA in 2018 while going to the PBR Finals a couple years. But, to summarize, only three riders have tried to do both circuits in the last few years. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Another note about why adding the criteria has become more important. The PBR is said to be the fastest growing sport in the country...see these articles:
      • We will want to be able to sift out the non-notable articles with the criteria we add to this guideline on the PBR now in not too distant future as the sport is growing at an accelerated pace now. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
        Okay, I will do a new mock-up in the Background section. But I have a few questions first. In the morning I wrote up a little bit asking about the wording. I mentioned how the existing wording is handled. In that the National Finals Rodeo doesn't mention the PRCA; you have to click through to the article to find out the details. And that is true for all three of the organizations that have finals rodeo. The Calgary Stampede is different; it really doesn't give any criteria other than the part about the individuals that comes first. Anyway, I said it would probably be "PBR World Finals" but should we spell out PBR for No.1. And then for the hall of fame, it's PBR: Heroes and Legends Celebration in No. 2. assuming if we just don't spell out PBR. No. 3 doesn't need any addition. However, it never occurred to me until today that we have world champions in Brazil, Australian, and Canada. Just as a question on sports in general, would we add the champions and runner ups from the other countries too? I'm not sure how much sources I could find on them. And they also have world champion bulls too. Maybe that's something that comes later after there is more access. The best Brazilians come up here to win anyway. The Australian champion from 2018 and 2019 is here for all of 2020 trying to win the US championship. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
        If it's easier, don't worry about creating a full mockup of the final results. Just give a list of the criteria you want to add, such as "participated in the Professional Bull Riders World Finals", "member of the Professional Bull Riders Heroes and Legends Ring of Honor", and so forth. According to [4], it seems there are 40 riders in the finals this year? The article you provided for last year's competition lists 45; is it typically in this range? isaacl (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
        Sorry forgot to answer this. It's actually supposed to be 35 top riders. See current Media Guide. [5] Page 31.
        I'm sorry; I see now that you did mention this earlier. Thanks for the reference! The guide says the thirty-five are joined by "the PBR’s Velocity Tour Champion and runner-up, and the Top 2 finishing riders overall and the highest-finishing international qualifier at the Velocity Tour Finals". Do you believe these additional five bull riders would also meet the general notability guideline? isaacl (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
        Thanks for the reply. Here's the main page of the media guide; it might be useful. [6]. As far as adding the additional five, it might be hard to sift them out so we'd probably include them. But I wouldn't want them to be a deal breaker either. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This has become kind of a mess, but based on a spot check of the riders, I'd be comfortable !voting keep on just about every rider I looked at in the World Finalists list. Some are more borderline on WP:GNG - Derek Kolbaba has a lot of local feature articles, for instance, and local isn't as strong as national - but I don't have any problems with having articles on any of them. If this is clearly narrowed just to World Finalists (has it been?) I would support it. SportingFlyer T·C 05:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    • SportingFlyer, yes it is rather messy. I'm glad the list worked out for you. Perhaps some of the ones on the finalist list are a bit newer finalists and may have less coverage than others. But to answer your questions, yes the list is just World Finalists. I mean to add PBR World Finals tomorrow in a formal way tomorrow. Thank you for your help, much appreciated. dawnleelynn(talk) 05:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Actually, two of the oppose votes don't count anymore. SportingFlyer has already stated that they would support the proposal if the list I gave them "If this is clearly narrowed just to World Finalists (has it been?) I would support it." Yes it has been, see Background for updated proposal. And TastyPoutine's oppose is against criteria possibilities that no longer exist now that the criteria is just World Finalists. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
        • SportingFlyer and TastyPoutine I have been patient. It has been several days since I added what the new wording to the existing criteria would become to the end of the Background section, and it met the concerns that you both stated. SportingFlyer, you said you support it if it was narrowed down to just world finalists and it has been. TastyPoutine, you asked that I make it clear and more rigid, which I have done. If you still feel you cannot support it, can you at least strike out your oppose votes which oppose criteria that no longer applies? I would appreciate your consideration. Oh, are you waiting on something else perhaps? dawnleelynn(talk) 17:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
          • I had nothing to do with montanabw trying to change the guideline a week ago. She was trying to help, but it was the wrong text and poor timing. Perhaps I should have addressed this before. She must have missed the new wording that I added to the bottom of the Background section. That wording is the proper proposal and content to be added: "PBR World Finals" is the content to be added to No. 1 while "Professional Bull Riders: Heroes and Legends" would be added to No. 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnleelynn (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Notability guideliness speed skating

I started creating many speed skating ariticles, but realized it doesn't have notability guideliness. Because not everybody is into speed skating I also want to give some background information. And give examples with articles I already created.

Background

Note: I'm focussing on women (see WP:Women in Red), because the men were more popular (in the old days) and many more articles are about men. So if a skater meets the WP:GNG for women, it will also be for men

Old days

Speed skating is a very popular sport in the Netherlands. The first known women speed skater who won a competition was the Dutch Trijntje Pieters Westra in 1805, but also other speed skaters are well described like Trijntje Reidinga, other women speed skaters from the 19th century are for instance Trijntje Reidinga. The most well known women speed skater of the 20th century are the skaters who finished first the Elfstedentocht, the most prestigious tour in the Netherlands over 200km on natural ice; taking place about once every 10 year. Even there was a women's race in the early edition (only recreational riders), the best women's are well described, seen as hero's, and are visible in speed skating museums. (like: Janna van der Weg, Jikke Gaastra, Sjoerdtsje Faber).

The speed skaters who took part at the Olympics are already under WP:NOLYMPICS. For women it was a demonstration event in 1932 (since 1960 official in the Olympics). The 10 women competitors were the best skaters from the United States and Canada at the time. Some of them also participated at the world championships (first unofficial edition in 1933, first official edition in 1936). Many newspapers and other sources I found list results of the women, reporting the event and are calling the women "Olympians". As is had wide attention, and the people are described in some newspapers I found, they are notable (few examples I created: Géraldine Mackie, Elsie Muller-McLave, Hattie Donaldson-Briggs, Florence Hurd).

Kortebaanschaatsen was very popular in the Netherlands. In winter time there were many competitions and it was described in the newspapers. Many women became heros, even some who never won a national title. (Geesje Woudstra, Sjoukje Bouma, Sietske Pasveer, Geesje Woudstra). So second bullit: * the senior winner (men/women} of the Dutch championships kortebaanschaaten: Nederlandse kampioenschappen kortebaanschaatsen [nl]

The speed skaters who competed at the World Championships. In the early days, between 1933 and 1948 less than 15 women participated at the World Allround Speed Skating Championships for Women. Is started looking for some secondary sources, and even the women who didn't won a medal are described Gonne Donker, Ruth Hiller, Maddy Horn, Lissa Bengtsson). It hard to find information about skaters from Asia. I don't have access to Asian newspapers, and the names are in native script.

On of my most recent created articles is Joanne Fath, finishing at the bottom of the 1965 World Championships (26th of 29 skaters), I found an article about her in a newspaper writing when she was a junior skater. And see here (top left corner) that of the World Speed Skating Championships all the entrants are named in news papers in the week before the championships, including all foreign skaters.

Recent events (after 1995)

The main international events are World Cups (6 World Cups per year). Via the World Cups you can qualify for the World Championships/Olympics and "European championships" / "championships of all continents apart from Europe".

Because only a few riders per nation can qualify for the World Cups, there are national qualification races. The qualification tournament in the Netherlands is every year in December. These qualification matches are broadcasted live, and are best watched programms these days. Apart from that, also the World Cups, European Championships, and World Championships are broadcasted live. As many skaters who didn't qualify for the World Cups meet WP:GNG. So that's the reason that at the Dutch WP all top-10 riders at the national championships will meet GNG, but I won't go that that far, but all Dutch skaters at the world cups meet notability. However, maybe this won't be for every nation (while I think every rider at the World Cup will meet GNG, I won't say it because I'm not sure). But the World Cup is split in an A-division and a B-division. The A-division consists of the 20 best skaters, all people in the A division are well described during the live broadcast. The B-division are all the other skaters. So there the next bullit: skaters who participated at the A-division of the Speed Skating World Cup.

And only the best riders of every country can qualify for the World Championships (about 4 riders per distance) , Olympics and European Championships (about 3 riders per distance) via the World Cup. So I all skaters at the World Championships, Olympics, European Championships will have competed at the A-division World Cup, maybe only missing a few. And as you can see, at all international competitions, it are almost the same speed skaters who participate.

Proposal speed skating (long track)

Shortcuts

a long track speed skater is notable if he/she

  1. Has competed at the Winter Olympics (including demonstration event), senior World Speed Skating Championships (allround, sprint, single distances), A-division of the ISU Speed Skating World Cup, European Speed Skating Championships
  2. The winner (men/women) (or best positioned women) at the Elfstedentocht, winner of the World Junior Speed Skating Championships
  3. Became senior national champion in a country with a 400m ice rink holding official competitions (including Dutch kortebaanschaatsen speed skating championships)

# Holder of an official senior national record (and so including World record holder) and competing at international level

SportsOlympic (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to drop the last one. Complicated things like this are not generally a good idea. If they're notable as a result of some record they'll probably be covered under the normal GNG criteria. The third one "senior national champion" seems too general. Is it meant to cover all countries in the world? Nigej (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Nigej:, thanks for your reply. Yes I agree with you that the last one complicated, while the persons will be GNG covered. About the seniore national championships it needs a bit of explanation, as it's different with others sports. Many countries are not holding nationals, due to the fact they don't have a 400m ice rink. There is no speed skating rink in the continents Africa and South-America. There is even not a rink in for instance the United Kingdom & Australia and no national championships; while having international athletes competing at high level.
So I would change the statement to: Became senior national champion in a country with a 400m ice rink holding official competitions (including Dutch kortebaanschaatsen speed skating championships)
This includes: Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Belarus, Poland, Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Japan, South Korea, United States, Canada
SportsOlympic (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The orienteering guideline says "has won a senior national championship in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships." which has the merit of restricting the list to just the major countries, but maybe your suggestion is ok too. Nigej (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't prefer that statement for speed skating. 1) Czech Martina Sáblíková is one of the best female speedskaters (21x World Champion, 3x Olympic Champion), while the Czech Republic doesn't have a high level in speed skating. 2) If a women of a certain country becomes World Champion, are all the men national champions notable? If someone become world champion, are all the previous national champions notable, and all the next?
For the 400m ice rink statement: 1) A 400m ice rink costs a lot of money, so if a country has one, it will be (widely) used and the nation will reach a certain standard. 2) And of (previous) national championhips, it's easy to see if the championship was organized in another country, so than the national champion isn't directly notable. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
You have to remember its not about achievements, its about coverage in reliable sources. A nation may have a 400m rink, but if the media there doesn't routinely cover the sport it doesn't matter. You also have to be careful of thinking about it in a recentism way. If you add guidelines they apply to everyone going back to the beginning of the sport. I don't know if this is true or not but for example would the 1904 senior national champion of Germany had enough press coverage to meet the GNG? Or in regards to your first bullet point would the last place finisher in the 1891 European Speed Skating Championships have had articles written about them? I find that unlikely. -DJSasso (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Having an ice rink is not about achievements but about a general establishment of a country. It's highly unlikely that a nation with a 400m ice rink doesn't cover speed skating, as these nations invest a lot of money having these rinks, and invest a lot of money organizing international speed skating events (all national listed above had international events over the last few years). And to illustrate a speed skating oval costs a lot of money, the high quality speed skating ovals built for the 2018, 2014, 2010 and 2006 Winter Olympics were rebuild after the Olympics to use for other manners.
And yes, I thought about recentism. Did you read the background above with examples of the early years?
As examples you're questioning if the 1904 senior national champion of Germany had enough press coverage and if last place finisher in the 1891 European Speed Skating Championships had coverage.
  • The 1904 German champion was Alfred Lauenburg (see here). Found a large article about him, see here. So meetint GNG.
  • I don't think the last place at the 1891 European Speed Skating Championships is a good example, as these championships were not official. The first official championships were in 1893. Here is the full result. I will take a look at the bottom finishers. Bottom finishers are: Friedrich Pollack (AUT), S. Adrian (NED), A.G. Beltman (NED), Franz Schilling (AUT) and Julius von Salzen (GER).
  • Friedrich Pollack (AUT), His name is also written as Friedrich Pollak (see here). I can't find old Austrian newspapers. Do you know were to find them? The prove that he wasn't notable, the best way would be to see the Austrian newspapers after 21 and 22 January 1893. But it's likely that there is coverage about him, because between 1914 and 1933 an international speed skating competition was named after him.
  • S. Adrian (NED) There is discussion going on that this would be P. Adrian (in this days there were often typo's in results; for example see already the above mentioned Friedrich Pollack) an international cyclist and speed skater from that era, cometing against the great Jaap Eden. In all sources his name is written as "Adrian" without "S" from Scheveningen (see sources below @A.G. Beltman). Read about him here, he had a shop in The Hague, next to Scheveningen, and was later involved in events in Scheveningen.
  • A.G. Beltman (NED) Local newspaper describing the 500m race of him see here, a few other newspapers where he is mentioned in here and here.
  • Franz Schilling (AUT), as mentioned above, I don't know where to look for Austrian newspapers. But he has a page on the Norwegian WP and Russian WP and Ukrainian WP.
  • Julius von Salzen (GER), many races of him are described in Dutch newspapers, a few examples 1, 2, 3. Also his name is used in advertisements in The Netherlands see here. He is also named in the "Im Memoriam" of Jaap Eden, see here
Note in almost all the Dutch newspapers I showed above, speed skating is the only sport reported in those newspapers, depicting the popularity. Even with the European Championships not in own country, with the Dutch skaters finishing last, the newspapers write about it.
So in summary, of the skaters you say are the most unlikely to have coverage or meeting GNG, I prove above that they are meeting GNG and that it's (likely) there are secondary sources writing about them.
08:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC) SportsOlympic (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Remember a mention does not cut it, the article has to be about the person for the purpose of GNG. Mentions and descriptions of races are considered routine coverage and don't go to show notability. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:, I don't understand your point. WP:GNG is not specially for speed skaters, all sportspeople have to meet GNG. Notability (sport) guideliness are made for people (highly) likely to meeting GNG. And as written above, I suggest speed skating guidelines, as done with many other sports. I checked the vast majority of those. I think you didn't read the background I wrote. Please do so and see all the examples including secondary sources of the speed skaters of articles I created. Also see what I wrote above, as reply on Djsasso. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, SportsOlympic! We should have some specific criteria for speed skating. Then we know that if skater X has won championship Y, he/she is notable and do not need to find many sources about that. Instead we can improve the content.Per W (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Per W, false. If there are no sources for a fact, it does not beloing on Wikipedia. Subject notability guidelines are not a substitute for sourcing. Guy (help!) 14:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
JzG, I should have been more precise. If we can find one reliable, independent source that skater X has won championship Y, which has a high level, then we do not need to find the significant coverage of X. Then we can spend time on other articles. Per W (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
That still isn't the case, you are still expected to find significant coverage. The SNG is just a temporary reprieve. You are still expected to prove it meets GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Volleyball

From time to time I see draft biographies of living persons for volleyball players, and I usually have to decline them because they do not appear to meet general notability and there is no special notability guideline and the players have not competed in the Olympic Games. Sometimes the BLP says that the player has played on the national team. Is there a mention of national teams that I have missed? If not, should national teams be presumed notable along with their players? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Taking a look in the archive there have been made several proposal, but never became effective. This was the last proposal: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 24. Maybe a good idea to have have guideliness, as it’s one of the mayor sports? SportsOlympic (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the main volleyball template, national teams, and therefore their squads, playing in the World Championships, World Cup, World Grand Champs, Nations League, etc, I would assume to be the top level of the sport. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Create Notability Guidelines for Field Lacrosse

I have had several articles on field lacrosse rejected because they did not meet the sport notability requirement. In the process of trying to fix that, I realized there is no sport notability guideline for field lacrosse. How can I submit a drafted notability requirement, and where do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschwam (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should articles on lacrosse players be exempt from being based on reliable, independent source texts? How does the general notability criteria not already allow for sufficient articles about lacrosse players? --Jayron32 18:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I have no comment on the proposal, but that's a ridiculous argument or we wouldn't have any SNGs at all. Smartyllama (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The entirety of your statement after the word "or" can be made more correct by swapping in "shouldn't" for "wouldn't". --Jayron32 18:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
So you're only here to push an anti-SNG agenda and have no comment on this specific case. Good to know. Smartyllama (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
You've not demonstrated a need for a new guideline that existing guidelines are insufficient to handle. What about the GNG is getting in the way of you improving Wikipedia that you think the new lacrosse guideline would fix? It's a simple question that doesn't require a counter-argument or combative position. What do you need a new guideline for?--Jayron32 05:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Jschwam: Many other professional sports have their own notability guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports). In no way am I saying, nor did I say field lacrosse should not be subjected to the general notability criteria. I also am not claiming the general notability criteria does not allow for sufficient articles about lacrosse. Rather, like many other sports, have several unique qualities about them that make their own sport notability requirement comment added by Jschwam (talk •
All sports notability requirements are based on a likeliness of passing WP:GNG. If your articles were rejected, it's because they don't clearly pass the notability guideline, and you should look for more independent secondary sources. Creating a SNG needs to show almost all players which might be covered by the guideline pass WP:GNG, especially because a SNG can't "shield" articles which fail GNG from deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment I see one of the articles is Draft:Michael Kraus (lacrosse). It's easy for reviewer at AfC articles to say: lacks sports notability. And they do refer to here and not to GNG guideliness. "You may ask for advice about the sports notability criteria (or other notability criteria) at the Teahouse." And in this discussion we are not helping, but only sending him away! This demotivates editors!! The reviewers at AfC didn't look up the athlete at all. A quick Google search shows Michael Kraus is notable enough for having an article (I think) 1, 2. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment2 And yes, all people should meet GNG, also the Olympians and others at NSPORT. If you know a standard of Field Lacrosse players all (likely) meeting GNG, please feel free to propose. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would certainly support any proposed guideline on lacrosse where it's been demonstrated that 90+% of the subjects that meet the elements of said proposal can meet the GNG. That being said, I'm rather pessimistic one can be achieved, lacrosse not being a sport that receives much media attention. I agree we need not be rude to editors asking questions in good faith, but I would also hope that editors are not "demotivated!!" by the fact that Wikipedia operates under certain policies and guidelines. Ravenswing 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
My experience from creating some sport articles the recent months is that there are many sources that lists results. Hopefully you find something with more depth. I have not looked for lacrosse. Since it is a team sport, I would not be surprised if a team wins a major competition and there is only a short notice about it in the newspaper, where just one or two players' contributions to the victory are described. I think that you should start with criteria for the teams. Per W (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not out of the stretch of reason for teams to be notable. I'm rather skeptical that the coverage for players exists, beyond routine sports reporting already ineligible to confer notability. I leave the burden of proof up to any proponent of such criteria.

That being said, do we need any here? IMHO, the preponderance of wishes for new SNGs come from people unhappy that their submissions were rejected at AfC or deleted at AfD. My feeling there is that if the editors applied more effort to ensuring their subjects met the GNG (as, after all, they are required to do as a fundamental prerequisite) and less to searching for some automatic pass so they didn't have to bother, there wouldn't be much of an issue. Ravenswing 11:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that the difference in notability between teams and players is not handled. 10 of the 28 sports mentioned are team sports and there is nearly no mention about the team's notability. The players do not inherit notability.
One point with a SNG is that you can start writing about a club or a runner that should be covered by sources, although you have difficulties finding sources. For example I have used two Swedish news databases, which do not cover Finnish orienteering clubs so much. Anyhow, any reference found shows more notability since the club or the runner has become quite famous. Also with a SNG you have some idea of which articles should exist, so you do not start searching for a club that is not that important.
I am quite conservative when it comes to formulate a SNG. Per W (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
While this is just my observation at having seen the process develop over the last 15 years -- and you can take this with as many grains of salt as you wish -- the reason we haven't bothered to develop notability standards for teams is a collective "Why bother?" Sports creates such a vast blizzard of media coverage that you can easily find sources that satisfy the GNG for levels far lower than we'd ever dare to advocate for players. I could, for instance, make a strong case for the notability of the girls' softball team of my wife's small (8000 residents) high school: it happens to be a perennial state champion, and receives routine significant coverage in the regional metropolitan daily, the oldest continuously published daily newspaper in the US, the local county daily paper ... never mind occasional coverage in the Boston Globe. Given that there are (for example) English Saturday league teams with Wikipedia articles, it's not a stretch. So I think a lot of people were just comfy with "do they meet the GNG?" as the governing criterion for teams. Ravenswing 16:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenswing: I don't think you are advocating articles such as Turner Falls High School softball, but, to be clear, we have generally and appropriately discouraged articles on high school sports teams. There are 24,000 public and 7,500 Catholic high schools in the USA. We should not IMO invite creation of thousands of articles on high school sports teams. I would support an amendment to WP:NHSPHSATH explicitly stating that it applies to high school and pre-high school sports teams, as well as athletes. Cbl62 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not advocating that, no, but let's be honest with ourselves: the consensus that no high school team can possibly be notable comes from amour propre, not due to any facts on the ground or adherence to policy ... come to that, pretty much the same way as the shibboleth that high schools are all presumptively notable, evidence be damned, developed. Ravenswing 03:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
As a general rule, when you say "No X can possibly be notable", you're almost certainly wrong. A high school lacrosse team could be notable. A mouse could be notable. Both are highly unlikely, yet even if we're limiting ourselves to real mice (and not, say, Mickey Mouse) we've got an article on Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, and Phooey. That being said, just as we don't have WP:NMOUSE because there's no notability criteria for mice that would result in the vast majority of those who pass meeting GNG, there's no such criteria for high school lacrosse teams either. Smartyllama (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we could ask the big cheese at WP:RODENT to clarify! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenswing:, thank you for explaining the lack of need for criteria about teams based on your long experience. I added some year ago that team notability does not imply notability of an athlete or vice versa. Then we let it be like that. Per W (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Is everybody reaching GNG notable?

Most discussions here are bout: with a guideline, is it likely that the person meets GNG. But is the opposite as a guideline also possible? That someone meets GNG but is not notable to have an article. I'm wondering if someone who meets GNG, but was only notable locally (and not at a national level), is he/she notable enough to have an article? I'm wondering because yesterday I created such an article, and might create more.

I created the article about the Dutch boxer Bram Kloppert who died last week. His death was announced in a secondary source see here and I found several newspapers with his name in the title of the article Bram Klopper ging zwaar k.o. tegen Belg Blanquaert and Bram Klopper kreeg zege en Stijlprijs. He competed at national championships see here and became champion of the Dutch provinde Zuid Holland (see here). But when writing the article, I had the feeling he was mostly known only local and not nation wide. Does such a person deserve a Wikipedia page? SportsOlympic (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Is everyone who meets the General Notability Guideline notable? Errr ... by definition. We're not in the business of deciding who "deserves" a page or not; simply in the business of applying the policies and guidelines which delineate who qualifies for articles. If, using your example, Kloppert had significant coverage in those sources, and those sources are reliable, it's a done deal. Ravenswing 15:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources is available, then the general notability guideline is met. For sports figures, meeting the general notability guideline is sufficient to meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. isaacl (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The GNG just says "Is there enough reliable source text covering enough of this person's life that I could write a properly researched and cited article about them" If they pass the GNG, then that means you have found enough reliable source text to write their life story from. --Jayron32 01:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jayron32 and Isaacl:, thanks! Sorry if it was a silly question. But it helps for me :) SportsOlympic (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability for swimmers

Hi, is there any info for criteria notability for swimmers? SarahTHunter (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@SarahTHunter: - this has come up several times before, but unfortunately conversations have tapered off before any criteria could be added to this specfic page. However, WP:SPORTBASIC states "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". So using this as a starting point, anyone who has taken part at the FINA World Aquatics Championships, for example, would pass this. The same for other multi-national tournaments. Hope that helps. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay that's fine, I mostly do Paralympians and sometimes do other athletes - mostly swimmers and track and field athletes. As a member of the women in red project I have been in some trouble with some entries for them not being eligible for encyclopedia reasons, particularly badminton players (I have lots of interest in the Island Games as my hometown hosted them in 2005: not applicable although they are a multi-sport event but not at elite level). The pages I created have participated in the Commonwealth Games but only in the first/second rounds (notability rules are for those who were in the quarterfinals and further on). Reading the sports notability project page has taught me a big lesson! Thanks for replying. SarahTHunter (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@SarahTHunter: I think the articles now at AfD are meeting GNG, as I responded. Maybe, if successful and if it helps, we might think of a guideline all gold medal winners at the Island Games are notable (as already mentioned for some sports). And of course, if you find some good secondary sources, the person meets WP:GNG. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability for basketball players

As a memer of WP:WIR, I notice that there is a big gender gap in basketball players (>81% are men) That could be 'normal' as men's basketball is more popular. However, I also noticed many, of I think, notable women players don't have a Wikipedia page. Previous month Maret-Mai Otsa died, who was world champion and several times European champion. At the time this person had a page in (I believe) 5 languages, but not the English one. When I started creating the page, I noticed many of the World Champions don't have a Wikipedia page. When looking at the WP:NBASKETBALL I see this is also not part of the guideline. All national league players at the Spanish, American, Australian, Italian, Greek and Israeli league are notable. Think about how many teams, and players this is about!! But a world champion is not part of the guideline. Also when taking a look at the guideliness, these are mostly about the men's national leagues; not even mentioning national teams. Also, it's not that the women's are not notable; with over >3500 articles at other Wiki projects missing at the English Wikipedia, it's one of the longest sports red list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation. I won't say all women's players in a national league are notable like the men's, but the best players of a country that qualified for the main championship are likely to be notable. The World Championships, are like the Olympics, once every 4 year. And out of the ca. 200 national team that exisist, only 16 participate. The same is for the European Championships, but these are every 2 years. These continental championships are overall at a much higher level compared to the other continental championships, becasue the continent has much more high level basketball countries.

That's why I would like to add the following guideliness for national teams players:

  • Was a member of the national team at the World Championships or European Championships.
  • Won a medal at a main senior international competition (e.g.: Asia Cup, AmeriCup, AfroBasket, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games).
  • Won a gold medal at a minor senior international competition (e.g.: Games of the Small States of Europe, Pacific Games, Pan Arab Games, Southeast Asian Games)

If the guideliness are there, there would come a day I would help working on the most important players (like I'm doing at the moment with speed skaters). SportsOlympic (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not the level of competition, but the amount of independent coverage that the event receives. I'm note sure the amount is necessarily sufficient for all countries that participate. Individual players can always demonstrate GNG and be created. For a given country, demonstrating that GNG is met for rosters for a few years pre-Internet would be convincing that an SNG for that country would be worthwhile.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba is on the right track here. I think you are falling into the common fallacy that the criteria are about the level of competition or quality of the player. But they are not, they are about how much coverage the players within that given criteria are likely to receive. For example is the player who played one 3 minute shift in an AfroBasket game going to have enough news articles written specifically about them to pass GNG. Likely not. That is why they are not included as individual players can fall back to GNG to pass notability for an article. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
+1. It's not that we lack many standards for women's team sport because we're a bunch of misogynistic swine. It's that the world, by and large, doesn't give much of a damn about women's team sport. Yes, the stars get coverage, depending on the league and sport ... but as DJSasso suggests, SNGs cover the lowest denominator. Sure, I'd be startled if there wasn't ample coverage for the starting center on the Spanish or Croatian women's national teams. How about the benchwarmers on the Angolan or Lebanese teams? Are you prepared to stipulate they can all make the GNG? Ravenswing 18:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. And yes, I agree. I’m not in a hurry to have a guideline. In the coming weeks. I will do some research in finding sources. On the basis of that I will adjust the above proposal. But I think at least the World Champions would have received attention ;). But yes, I will try to find out. Will come back :) SportsOlympic (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion re: cricketers

Hello. There is a discussion going on at Talk:List of Bengal cricketers which I'd be interested in fathering as many opinions about as possible. It involves whether or not short stub articles would be better merged into a list (with a redirect) or left as stand alone stubs. It follows on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrish Banerjee and has a relationship to the ways in which the cricket notability guidance (WP:NCRIC) is interpreted. I'm unlikely to see any responses here unless I'm pinged. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Create notability guidelines for short-track speedskating

While creating an article for a short track speed skater, I noticed that while guidelines exist for its sister sport, long track speed skating, there are none for short track. The ISU has a similar, albeit different system and series of competitions for short track so I propose the guidelines for short track should be:

a short track speed skater is notable if he/she

  • Has competed at the Winter Olympics (including demonstration event), senior World Short Track Championships, ISU Short Track World Cup, or European/Four Continents Short Track Championships
  • Is or was the Junior World Champion overall, or in any individual distance, or achived a gold medal in any individual distance at the Winter Youth Olympics
  • Holds a Junior or senior World Record in any individual distance

Perhaps some consideration must also be made for athletes competing at Olympics, World Championships, etc. only as a relay member and not as an individual skater. Ezwdygoutkcgjvkuf (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see Why the two can’t simply be merged into a general speed skating SNG, adding the above championships as needed. Montanabw(talk) 17:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Guidance for creating sports-specific notabiity guidelines (reprise)

Following up on the previous discussion, is there consensus support for replacing "likely" with "highly likely" in this guideline, as per this diff of where the changes would be made? The FAQ would be changed accordingly. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It does look pretty clear cut. -DJSasso (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I support the addition of highly. Per W (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Works for me. Ravenswing 14:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
"highly" more accurately reflects the reality, so this clarification makes sense.

Thanks for the responses. As I opened the original discussion, would someone else like to implement the changes? isaacl (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Bagumba, would you like to evaluate consensus and implement it? isaacl (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to get to it by next week, but anyone is free to beat me to it.—Bagumba (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Isaacl: I evaluated the "previous discussion" in the below section, which was mostly about the FAQ. Discussion here seems to be about this previous edit to the main guideline, which is somewhat separate and can continue here.—Bagumba (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 discussion

Per the request above, this is my evaluation (or deferred informal closing) of the April discussion (referenced above as "previous discussion") at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_35#Guidance_for_creating_sports-specific_notabiity_guidelines.

The opening statement refers to a specific diff of an edit to the FAQ page, which changed "highly likely" to "likely". (Note that there was a related edit changing "nearly 100% guarantees", but it was not generally discussed here. However, that edit would also seem to apply here.) The consensus for that specific edit was to have it read "highly likely", conveying that the standard practice has been that sports-specific notability guidelines indicate that it is highly likely that sources exists which establish notability of the subject. There was some scattered discussion, mostly in the latter stages, about text outside of the FAQ to also read "highly likely". It is probable that consensus can develop for non-FAQ changes, as well, but it was not clearly established in that discussion, given the framing of the opening statement. Discussion can continue about non-FAQ changes at #Guidance for creating sports-specific notabiity guidelines (reprise) (above).—Bagumba (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability: skiers

Hello, could a section on skiers possibly be added? I'm struggled while looking through CAT:NN to evaluate if Anatoliy Karpenko is notable. Thanks for any help anyone can offer, Boleyn (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Mm, our SOP is to create new SNGs only where it can be demonstrated that it's highly likely an athlete who meets the criteria will meet the GNG. That's a good bit more work than (to date) most proposers are comfortable with essaying. (For my money, by the bye, Karpenko's not notable, and I'll slap an AfD on.) Ravenswing 11:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, user:Ravenswing Boleyn (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Speed skating again

In Wikipedia 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[7]. 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)

Boxing fights

Hi! I'd like to establish some parameters as far as notability for boxing fights. As there have been tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of boxing fights, including world championship ones, parameters should be established as to which boxing fights should have an independent article apart from being mentioned in the respective boxers' articles and which should not.

The article criteria should be:

  • Main or co-main events on Pay Per View
    • HBO
    • Showtime
    • Or another country's equivalent to those American channels
  • Fights with a proven historical context or impact (therefore Wilfredo Gomez versus Carlos Zarate, Gomez vs. Salvador Sanchez, The no Mas Fight and Jack Dempsey vs. Georges Carpentier, for example, would qualify)
    • Fights where a country or a continent crowned its first world boxing champion
  • Major organization's (IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO) unification bouts
  • Ring Magazine fight of the year award winning fights
    • Knockout of the year
    • Upset of the year
    • fight of the decade
  • Fights that led to major changes in boxing rules or where a major scandal took place

should qualify as notable enough or as notability establishing standards for boxing fights as events notable enough to have their articles on wikipedia.

What do you all think?

Thanks and God bless! Antonio The real Boxer Martin (loser talk) 14:28, August 29, 2020 (UTC)

Should meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA and not limited to WP:ROUTINE coverage leading up to and immediately following the match. Also, see the generic guidances for ganes, which would applicable for boxing matches, at WP:SPORTSEVENT. —Bagumba (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_36&oldid=1142663951"