Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Lacrosse

I’m curious about the discrepancy between the notability criteria for MMA and football athletes on Wikipedia. In MMA, an athlete must be ranked in the top 10 in their division by major sources like Sherdog or Fight Matrix to meet notability, which seems to set a relatively high bar for recognition.

On the other hand, football players are deemed notable simply by playing for a professional club, even in lower divisions or smaller leagues, as long as they meet the criteria of having played in a fully professional competition or for a national team.

Could you clarify the rationale behind these different standards? Is there a reason why MMA requires ranking at a higher competitive level, while football players are deemed notable for playing at a broader range of levels, including lower divisions?

I believe these discrepancies might need a more consistent approach, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Thank you! Wiseuseraze (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:Where are you reading that footballers only need to play professionally? We don't have any criteria for football anymore, and all presumptions of notability from playing any sport were removed years ago. JoelleJay (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:And beyond anything else, the basic criterion for notability of sportspeople is the GNG. As with your inquiry about sambo above, there's simply no comparison between MMA and the vast amount of coverage association football gets worldwide. Ravenswing 05:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

JoelleJay and Ravenswing , Thank you both for the information. As I haven’t been very active on Wikipedia for over a year, I must have been referencing outdated guidelines. The criteria were different the last time I checked, which is why I got confused. I appreciate the clarification! Wiseuseraze (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{Re|JoelleJay}} I think Wiseuseraze read that from WP:FOOTYN, which has not been removed for years.

:{{Re|Wiseuseraze}} I have to admit that this wiki removed most sport-related notability criteria, including football, was because not all athletes receive significant coverage. This is a big problem especially for those in their prime during pre-internet era (early 2000s and below), where there might be higher chances of finding significant coverage from archived newspapers than modern online ones. Playing in lower levels is also a very weak claim to notability in my view.

:⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Pending AfD within the scope of this project. Cbl62 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Apparently it is not clear to all editors that SPORTCRIT #5 is required even for subjects that meet a sport-specific criterion. The lead should properly summarize the major points of the guideline, including the #5 requirement. Pinging @Cbl62 as author of that amendment. JoelleJay (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Is there specific language that is being proposed? Has it been discussed elsewher? Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• :What do you mean "discussed elsewhere"?
  The bolded part of the lead should include "In addition, all sportsperson articles must cite a plausible source of SIGCOV." JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
• :: Sorry for the lack of clarity. I thought maybe you had been discussing this issue with Vanderwaalforces (or other editors) somewhere else? Cbl62 (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Cbl62 It was the other editor's comments in that user talk thread and the linked AfD that prompted this. JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Personally, I feel the current sentence in bold already covers it. A suitable source showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline is one that provides significant coverage. isaacl (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The bolded part doesn't reference the newer requirement, and apparently this means the consensus for all sportsperson articles to meet SPORTCRIT #5 actually only applies to those who don't meet or have a sport-specific criterion...... JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::The consensus achieved at the last large discussion was for all articles within scope (whether or not there is a set of sports-specific criteria for that sport) to include a citation to a source providing significant coverage. As I pointed out when it was added, the fifth bullet point isn't really a criterion for evaluating if the standards for having an article are met, and so really should be listed elsewhere. The bolded statement is slightly stricter, stating that enough sources should be provided to demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met. I don't see an advantage to weakening the statement in the lead. It correctly captures the end goal intent for articles on sports figures (and articles in general). isaacl (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::There is the end intent of demonstrating GNG, but there is also the additional requirement that the article cite a GNG source. It's not weakening the bolded statement to say that there is this extra requirement. JoelleJay (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The current bold sentence already says that sources should be provided, which is done by citing them. The current statement is stricter because it requires sufficient sources to be provided that collectively demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met, whereas the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability was that one suitable source be provided, and that "[m]eeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG." isaacl (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I understand that the bolded sentence can be interpreted as being stricter, but "should" is weaker than "must", and some editors think that GNG can be met with multiple non-SIGCOV sources added up. What about {{tq|The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline; at least one source containing significant coverage is required to be cited in all sportsperson articles.}}
  Or {{tq|In addition to the subject meeting the general notability guideline, all sportsperson articles must cite a source of significant coverage.}} JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::One source is not enough to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::"Should" is often used in Wikipedia guidance as a soft-pedalling of "must", because often those arguing over the language will find reasonable exceptions. Personally I would prefer keeping the existing, stronger statement as a superset of the requirement to have one source, and discuss if there is a consensus to change the verb. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::@Isaacl @Clariniie (and @Cbl62) Ok I get that the bolded part could be interpreted as weakened by the proposed addition; so what if we instead clarify in SPORTSCRIT #5 that "all sportsperson articles" includes those that meet any sport-specific subcriteria? The way people are supposed to interpret the guideline is that if someone meets a subcriterion AND meets SPORTSCRIT #5 then the presumptions of SIGCOV existing afforded by the subcriterion can be applied(*). However as can be seen in the linked example and dozens of others, a minority of editors insist that SC is just a separate section from the subcriteria, not encompassing them. Adding {{tq|All sports biographies, including those meeting any of the sport-specific criteria listed below, must include...}}. As this obviously follows directly from the consensus at NSPORT2022 as well as the numerous followup consensuses on this page, I really don't think it should need an official RfC and anyway this discussion itself has had no objections to the underlying intent of my OP, so I'm just going to boldly add it.{{pb}}(*) While meeting SC#5 but not any subcriterion is more discretionary, as, IME, even though I object to this, more leeway is given to subjects who used to meet a "more predictive participation-based criterion" like playing in certain leagues. But that's a discussion for another time. JoelleJay (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::As I stated, my suggestion is to move the text in question out of "Basic criteria" and put it in "Applicable policies and guidelines". For example, the following could be added as as new paragraph after the second paragraph: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.See consensus from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability." isaacl (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Yeah I agree that would be the better place, but I think at this point the requirement's been cited as "SPORTSCRIT #5" for so long that it would be confusing to move it. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::The bullet points aren't numbered, so not sure why people are choosing to use this jargon. In any case, an anchor can be created that is used to link to the paragraph in question. Personally I think it would be good to start transitioning away from using a cryptic, all-caps jargon phrase for something as straightforward as "an appropriate citation has to be provided". As we discussed last year, it's a documentation requirement, not a criterion for evaluating if the subject meets the standard of having an article. isaacl (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::People have been citing some variation of "fails SPORTSCRIT #5" as a deletion rationale for 3 years now, that's not going to change. JoelleJay (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::Feel free to continue to do so. Nonetheless, this can be made to refer to a new location in the text, particularly since it's jargon that doesn't mean anything in itself. isaacl (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

So there's a new article called GOAT (sports culture), which I worry may be too subjective to be reasonably maintainable for an encyclopedia. Of the article's 171 references, only 49 are used to support prose and the remainder are holding up lists that are essentially reincarnations of things like WP:Articles for deletion/List of ice hockey players considered the greatest of all time and WP:Articles for deletion/List of association football players considered the greatest of all time for which there was consensus to delete. What do others think? Left guide (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think the term GOAT is perfectly acceptable. The list entries would be subject to normal editing and consensus building. - Enos733 (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Even when this guideline was actually usefully, I don't think it was intended to judge inclusion of a page's content, though it was never explicitly stated. WP:N, however, says: {{tq2|They {{em|do not}} limit the {{em|content}} of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni). For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons.}} —Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:The GOAT part might be notable, but the list part seems like WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 06:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Agree. I think the article is fine up until "List of sports players considered the greatest". The article should be about the history of the term GOAT in sports media/discussion, but not an actual list of everyone who has had that title used for them. It's completely duplicative of List of sports figures considered the greatest. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

There are two sets of circumstances in which medals and other awards may be "won" retrospectively:

• Where the event originally was not one where a medal would have been awarded (either because of the rules at the time, or because of the status of the event) but later on it was decided to award one retrospectively. This can happened decades after the event. One example of this would be the 1911 Turin Gymnastics Tournament - it was purely a team event with no individual awards, but later on the FIG decided to recognise individual scores at the event and so a lot of databases will show individual "gold", "silver", and "bronze" "medals" being won at it when no actual medals were awarded at the time. Another example would be the winner of the Swiss Badminton Open in 1990 - actually this event wasn't held, apparently due to money issues. Instead another Swiss tournament ("The Watchmaking Metropolis Tournament", later called called "La Chaux-de-Fonds International") was retrospectively recognised as the 1990 "Swiss open" on a lot of databases.
• Where the original medal-winners were later disqualified (the men's 100 metres event at the 1988 Seoul Olympics is the classic example of this). Again, this is something that can potentially happen years after the event.

It turns out we actually have a lot of articles that fall in to at least the first category here because a lot of events were held where, in the early years, no individual awards were given. For notability purposes it's pretty clear that the assumption that these "winners" would have received significant coverage in reliable sources is actually pretty dubious, because they weren't seen at the time as event "winners" in the way they would be now. For the second it's less certain but again someone who was originally in 4th place but now has a bronze is not going to receive the same kind of coverage that they would have received if they won it directly (either in the event or by a disqualification that followed shortly after the event), especially if the retrospective award is delayed by a significant amount of time.

I should emphasise that this is not to knock these people and their accomplishments. This is simply about the degree of coverage their accomplishments generally creates.

I think it's worth adding a note about the general assumption of notability for retrospective award-winners being weaker particularly when the retrospective award was given a significant amount of time (e.g., years) after the event to WP:SPORTBASIC. FOARP (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:The {{section link|Wikipedia:Notability (sports)|Basic criteria}} section doesn't mention award winners at present, just a more broad "success in a major international competition". Thus I think such caveats are better placed within the sports-specific guidelines that mention awards where some awards have been granted at some future point past the competition. isaacl (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)