Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:31, 23 September 2013

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

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

Archives

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

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

error on shortcut box for Misplaced Pages:NGAELIC#High_school_and_pre-high_school_athletes

I tried to make a shortcut box for Misplaced Pages:NGAELIC#High_school_and_pre-high_school_athletes but dont think I did it right can someone fix it please? Theworm777 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Tightening the criteria for WP:NHOCKEY

There have been a couple article creations lately that have impressed on me the desire to revisit some aspects of our ice hockey SNG. As presently constructed, I think it allows for the inclusion of too many people who had trivial careers, or that criteria were written in an overly broad fashion. There are two articles specifically that spur my desire to discuss some of these points. The first is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael D'Orazio, where notability is claimed primarily based on a Canadian university award. Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall our ever discussing - here or at WT:HOCKEY - whether a CIS award winner could be presumed notable. We did for NCAA players, and I think the result of that discussion resulted in an overly broad definition. The other is Scott Winkler (ice hockey), who was a non-notable college player who tragically died. The article was created as a result of the news event (WP:NOTNEWS), but on the talk page, notability was retroactively claimed on the basis of his appearing with the Norweigan national team at a low level regional event. In both cases, the article subjects merit a technical pass on NHOCKEY as currently worded, but I disagree that either is notable. Coupled with another entry that has bugged me ever since it was put in, there are three current and one potential line to this SNG that I would like to discuss. Resolute 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

3.Played at least 100 games in fully professional minor leagues...

The purpose of an SNG is to argue that "we can presume this subject is notable because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that someone who did foo will receive coverage significant enough to pass WP:GNG". This criteria is not rooted in that presumption, and I believe it should be struck. 100 games is a season and a half, even in the lowest levels of pro hockey. Most low-level players will never garner coverage that meets GNG, and even at the ECHL or AHL level, I do not believe one can presume that 100 games merits an automatic pass. Except for unusual cases, players at these levels might get a story or two in the local paper as part of ongoing coverage of the local team, but not much else. My proposal is to remove this line entirely and consider the determination of notability of minor league players on an individual basis. Resolute 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have gone back and forth on this one. I would support it but would prefer jacking the number up first to something like 500. That way the truly notable minor leagues from back when the minor leagues were a bigger deal (Original 6 era) would not be hit so hard by the google bias against more recent players. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Fine with this one as it was before, but would support raising to either 200 or 300 games played. 500 is a bit too high for me. --Hockeyben   16:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If we were to go this route, then I would prefer a higher number. At least 300 (roughly five seasons) or more. But even at 300 or 500 games, I do not believe most players at the lowest levels would generate coverage. An AHL player might, but not a UHL player. I have a concern that any number we come up with is arbitrary and we cannot demonstrate that GP > x = expectation of notability. For instance, my grandfather played well over 500 games in the Original six era IHL. I've searched up and down for solid evidence of notability (not for Misplaced Pages, but for family history), and there just isn't a lot. That is only one example, but I do think it reflects the majority. Resolute 20:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • This is true. As I said I would be ok with removing it and making all minor leaguers face GNG individually. This would be similar to how baseball handles it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Truth be told, I hate how baseball handles it -- their admitted take, at the time, was that they just plain didn't think minor leaguers could be notable, end of statement. I think that's a muddleheaded notion, and demonstrates ignorance of hockey history, where for decades, players who today would be third-liners on NHL teams played in the low minors ... the more so in that not only NHOCKEY but all the subordinate sports criteria completely support the presumptive notability of a fellow who stepped on a big league playing field for all of two minutes. I think the current standard is fine, I wouldn't object to 200, but I'd strenuously lobby against 500 or removing any standard at all. Ravenswing 04:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
        • As something of a coda, I just took a look at hockeydb.com and glanced at how many players played as many as 200 games for longstanding AHL franchises and didn't play in the NHL. Rochester's only had 13 in its entire history. Hershey has had 17. The Indians had only five. The 30 years of the Bisons had only four, and the twenty-someodd years of the Hornets zero. Ravenswing 05:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
          • What about 250 games? That would take players past the standard 3 year entry contract Assuming seasons stay at 76 games a year or close to it. That way we weed out the one and done players who are very unlikely to be notable. This is probably the number we should have choosen to begin with. Your comment about how few played that many and didn't play in the NHL is sort of the point, this criteria was only ever meant to catch the relatively few players that fell into that sort of situation. But lately we have had people who aren't using common sense creating players who play 100 games in the ECHL which is a bit ridiculous as very few 100 game players in the ECHL are likely to be notable especially ones who just passed the mark and never played again. The number clearly needs to be higher to stop the gaming that is going on with the criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
            • I wouldn't go to war over 250; I admit I considered that exact standard -- three seasons worth. Ravenswing 14:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – I am in agreement with Ravenswing's rational, and I object to raising the minor league games played standard any higher than it already is. At one time the NHOCKEY criteria was any professional experience, and then it was raised to 100 games played - which means that most current players need to have played at least into their second year at a fully professional level. This effectively weeds out all players on a try-out or one-year contract who go no further. Even that standard is not fair to a goaltender who likely needs to play 3 or more seasons to reach the same 100 GP level. A better topic to discuss might be what leagues are considered to be “fully professional” and what leagues are not? Dolovis (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I have gone back and forth on this one, but after reading Dolovis and Ravenswing's comments, I think it should be kept as it stands now. However, I do think the guideline for which professional leagues only need the 100 game threshold should be improved. 100 games in the CHL and SPHL, for instance, is completely different from the same amount in the AHL or ECHL. For leagues such as the CHL and SPHL, I'd propose around 250-300 games played for any players to be presumed notable. --Hockeyben   13:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  Truthfully, even 100 in the AHL often isn't enough for us to state that we can expect a player to meet Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. A not unreasonable number will, but many wont. Would it perhaps work better to set the number at 250 for the AHL, and case by case for lower leagues? This keeps in mind that players who clearly pass GNG do not need to meet an arbitrary threshold of games played. Resolute 13:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  Hence Criterion #4. #3 explicitly doesn't apply to lower-tier leagues such as the CHL.

4. Achieved preeminent honours...

This one has been modified through various discussions, but I believe has suffered poor verbiage as a result. We've discussed the merits of NCAA award winners, and there is logic to top players at that level being presumed notable as many or most earn ongoing coverage for being top players at this level. In Canada, however (and perhaps counterintuitively), the CIS is not a path to the NHL like the NCAA is. It is pretty much a dead end where most players are there to get a few more seasons in while they get an education. Winning an award at this level rarely portends a significant future hockey career, nor does it often generate too much other than a local news story. Likewise, Canadian Major Junior generates a high level of coverage, while the top levels of American junior are far more spotty. My proposal is to tighten the wording of this line to specific organizations. Further additions or removals may be discussed either here or at WT:HOCKEY:

Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American, major award) in one or more of the following leagues: American Hockey League, Canadian Hockey League (Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, Western Hockey League) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association.(Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements)

Since we have disputed it before, if this proposed change is accepted as worded, I will begin a discussion within the hockey project to define "major award". Resolute 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• I like your changes however, we would need to create a page and link to it of the exact awards that meet it. Like the soccer notability guidelines above link to exactly what leagues count for their guidelines. -DJSasso (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would add other leagues, like the old International Hockey League or the old Western Hockey League as well, if we are going to list leagues. They were at least on par with the AHL when they existed. I would also limit the NCAA to Division I. Patken4 (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• You're missing the point of criterion #4, Resolute: it was never intended to establish notability for top-level minor leagues, but for mid-level loops such as the CHL, major junior, NCAA hockey and the like. The AHL and the old WHL don't belong. As far as the old IHL goes, that loop had several stages, and declaring its whole history on a par with the AHL's just inaccurate. Up into the early 70s, it was a semi-pro loop akin to the old Eastern Hockey League or the current LNAH. Starting around then, it gained some NHL affiliation, and was on a par around with the CHL. The mid-80s was when its ambitions really started to kick in.

  Finally, if you're going to define leagues outright, like FOOTY does, your list can't be North America-centric. How do we gauge the European leagues? Ravenswing 05:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, your argument touches on the exact reason why I propose these changes: SNGs were never expected to establish notability at all. They were expected to describe the point at which we can expect reliable sources exist to satisfy notability criteria. However, SNGs are used to justify articles that lack notability because they inevitably use arbitrary criteria. And in this case, they allow editors to create reams of articles on non notable players on the basis of an award won in a lower league that does not generate much coverage. My goal is not to say "this league notable, this league not notable." My goal is to say "we have established that players who win these awards in these leagues generally receive enough coverage to meet guidelines". Players in other league would be determined case by case, and if a case is established that other leagues meet the bar, we add them as needed. Resolute 13:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – The value of criteria #4 is that it allows the well deserved inclusion of notable athletes who have achieved, what amounts to, national recognition for their outstanding athletic performance. It should not be gauge for crystal balling as to whether or not the athlete will become an NHLer. To suggest that a national award winning amateur athlete is not notable because they may not play in the NHL should be entirely discounted. Such players should be included in NHOCKEY because they have already achieved notability. When a major junior hockey player, professional minor leaguer, CIS or NCAA athlete, or a World Junior player is announced as being the best in their position, that is a preeminent honour and should be recognized as such. It is understandable why a big fish in a small pond may achieve notability before a big fish in a small pond small fish in a big pond receives similar recognition. The fact that a national or league award is publicized and written about in several sources demonstrates notability. Dolovis (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

6. Played on a senior national team...

This one is my bone of contention with Scott Winkler. I dislike the wording primarily because lower level competitions do not generate the kind of coverage that supports a presumption of notability. That includes lower divisions of the World championships. Consequently, I propose that this be restricted to the highest levels only:

Played on a senior national team in the Olympic Games, the top division of the World Championship or the Canada Cup/World Cup of Hockey. Resolute 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Little more hesitant on this one but I could support it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed to this one as per my comments on WT:HOCKEY. --Hockeyben   16:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  Suppose I struck the limitation to the top division of the WCs? Resolute 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd be all for it. --Hockeyben   00:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Very well, struck. I will treat Ravenswing and Dolovis' opposes as continuing to stand unless they choose to re-comment following this change. Resolute 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is a significant departure from NSPORTS generally, as it's always been the case that players for senior national teams in recognized international competitions pass. Ravenswing 05:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – National senior team members who compete in international tournaments are notable. However, simply being a member of a senior national team is not enough to establish notability, so reliable sources are required to verify that the person actually played in an international competition with the national team. Dolovis (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, if you believe that, then you should be able to demonstrate that we can expect most players on this list meet WP:GNG. If you can do so, I will happily withdraw this proposal entirely. Resolute 14:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

EIHC should be looked at separately from the World Championships. I personally think that for "other" international tournaments such as the EIHC, players should be looked at and their notability should be determined on a case-by-case basis. --Hockeyben   14:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed: Satisfaction of GNG

There are examples of award winners that may not otherwise meet GNG, and there are going to be cases of minor league players, members of national teams in lower divisions, etc. that will. Even though the lead already explains this, I would like to add a line specifying GNG as a requirement:

Meeting any of the above criteria presumes a player is notable, but this SNG is not meant to be definitive. If that presumption is challenged, it must be demonstrated that the player meets the general notability guideline (GNG; i.e.: at WP:Articles for Deletion). Additionally, a player who meets GNG may be considered notable even if they do not satistfy any of the criteria listed. Resolute 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Before yesterday I wouldn't have thought this necessary, but since someone attempted to insinuate that something in the top of the NSPORTS guideline didn't apply to the individual sections then maybe it does need repeating. Wikilawyering is ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Just as a note, I would try to avoid directly linking to WP:AFD, but I don't know the better link to be made as an alternative means to discuss the notability of an article before it is sent to AFD; AFD is meant as a last resort. Perhaps WP:BEFORE? --MASEM (t) 14:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The only issue with BEFORE is the presumption that meeting an SNG = automatic notability pass. The challenge to notability would inevitably be made at PROD or AFD. But the simpler alteration is to just remove my bracketed note, and leave it stated that the presumption can be challenged, and would therefore need to be defended. Resolute 20:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • All I'm suggesting is that AFD should be a venue of last resort if you're pretty certain the article fails notability. If you question it but aren't 100% sure, AFD is not the right veneu, and most of the advice on BEFORE is alternate ways to discuss that. (There are factions of editors that strongly oppose the use of AFD as a testbed and that's what I'm suggestion is to be avoided.) --MASEM (t) 06:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – Inclusion of the suggested paragraph is verbose and redundant. The first three paragraphs of WP:NSPORT fully covers your concern. If you have a problem with that wording, then I suggest you open a fresh discussion to change the wording at the top of the page. Dolovis (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• As with Dolovis, while I don't disagree with the text, it's redundant: every SNG, Misplaced Pages-wide, is subordinate to the GNG, and every article is (theoretically, at least) subject to the GNG's provisions. Ravenswing 14:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

NBASKETBALL

Per the current notability guidelines, any player drafted in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft is notable. This apparently includes the BAA (the precursor to the NBA). However, in the 1947 BAA Draft and 1948 BAA Draft, half the draftees never played. Therefore, there's no real info available on them in general, because they're just regular NN people. Should the guideline be adjusted? MSJapan (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it needs changed. First, we are talking about 2 out of 60+ drafts so I think these are outliers. Second, just because they never played in the BBA/NBA does not mean they were not notable. For example, Walt Dropo (1947, #4) opted to play pro baseball. Further, in that era pro sports are not what they are today, so some of the players that did not play in the BBA/NBA still played basketball elsewhere, such as George Kok (1948, #2) who played in the American Basketball League and that play may be considered notable. Third, many of them were college stars and those accomplishments make the notable (some level of presumption in that if you were drafted high, then you were a college star with some level of press coverage). Fourth, high draft picks usually receive a large amount of press coverage. I would imagine that in the local newspapers of their day non-trivial coverage was present in the player's hometown newspapers, college town newspapers, and newspapers of the city that drafted them. Finally, this is just a guide and everyone needs to pass GNG anyways. Out of all the players drafted in the last 60+ years in the first two rounds I would imagine a few that are not notable. However, I don't think those few are enough to eliminate this guideline. RonSigPi (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that the handful of players we're talking about probably met GNG as college stars, factoring in the press coverage college basketball received in the late 40s (which was why someone thought pro leagues would be viable anyway). For goodness sake, Jarrod Polson is a modern day scrub at Kentucky and he passed an AfD review. Keep the guideline as is. It pretty clearly states that early draft picks should be presumed notable, not just those who played in the NBA. The reason is that they are presumed notable as high profile college players or in other pro leagues, and my years of experience and 1000s of edits agree. Rikster2 (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

George Hauptfuhrer, for those unaware, is what brought this redux on NBASKETBALL about (side note: he's notable). The system isn't broken using the first two rounds criteria, so don't fix it. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Arena football

I'm not sure I would consider the Arena Football League to be a top-level professional league, as the guideline suggests. It consists of players who aren't good enough to play in the NFL or CFL, which are top-level leagues, and it sticks out like a sore thumb among the other leagues listed (NFL, CFL, AFL, AAFC, and USFL). I'm not saying that arena football players can't be notable; they are eminently capable of meeting the GNG just like anyone else, of course. But those cases usually won't be cut-and-dried enough to extend a presumption of notability to everyone who has played at least one game of arena ball. I think that the Arena Football League should be removed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As of now I am not for or against this change, but have a few thoughts. I don't know how much it being a 'top-level' league matters and one could argue that the AAFC or USFL were never top-level leagues. While I know each sport is different, I do like looking at other sports as guides. In other sports there is no requirement to play in a top-level league (e.g., in soccer the fourth-level English Football League Two has their players notable). In most sports, such as soccer, rugby, Australian rules football, the 'one-game' requirement is for 'professional' leagues (i.e., players don't need another job). Currently AFL pay is not at a professional level (see and was only that way for a short time (circa 2003-2008). However, I think the other thing to look at is the 'reliable sources' likely available. Many of the AFL teams are in major sports markets with a good amount of media coverage. For about half the league (6 of 14) the AFL teams are the only pro football team they have. Also, some of the AFL teams are in cities without sporting opposition during the winter/summer (e.g., no NHL/NBA/MLB in Jacksonville) or at all (no major sports team in Des Moines or Spokane) while other may only have one major pro team (San Antonio and Salt Lake). I think these facts would lend themselves to their being a large amount of coverage and in turn a high likelihood of sources existing. Also, even if the AFL players are 'players who aren't good enough to play in the NFL or CFL' they still will need to be quite good players and as such likely have been successful college players. Those successful college careers will carry their own reliable sources that factor in. Then again, this presumption stands for all AFL players and I question how much coverage was out there for teams like the Cleveland Thunderbolts or Miami Hooters. I can see it both ways with this presumption so don't come down one way or the other, but figured my insight may be useful. RonSigPi (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• I think that for the top league, the coverage is likely to exist; those teams get substantial coverage on a regular basis. I also think that if we're going to cover a league it's better to cover it thoroughly rather than in a scattershot manner. So I would stick with the current rule, which, as far as I know, has been working fine; if there have been substantial problems, that might put a different light on the matter.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• If it's not fully professional, then it doesn't matter whether it's the top-level division or not; appearances in the league are not enough for notability. Likewise, if it is fully professional, then the level of the league is irrelevant, as it does give some presumed notability. At the moment, that's how NFOOTY works. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Tennis Qualifying

Hello, I have a question about Tennis Qualifying articles. Should the qualifying rounds have its own article? I've seen multiple tennis tournaments in Wiki that have a separate article for its qualifying round, but the qualifying section is already in the main article.

Here are some examples:

1999 ANZ Tasmanian International – Doubles Qualifying 1999 Dreamland Egypt Classic – Singles Qualifying 1999 Estoril Open – Women's Doubles Qualifying

Should these qualifying articles be deleted, or be redirected to its specific section in its appropriate article? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Fully professional

Hello. I have a question about notabily footballer and fully professional leagues. You know Süper Lig, TFF First League, TFF Second League, TFF Third League are professional leagues in Turkey. But whats meaning of fully professional? For example TFF Third League is not fully and Süper Lig is fully ? Whats the decisive criterion? I am asking these questions because of for example this pages some footballers are notabily in tr.wikipedia, but same pages in en.wikipedia footballers are not notabily? (for example Atahan Menekşe). What it must be our criterion? If en.wikipedia's regulation is true, we should delete a lot of footballer in tr.wikipedia. Beyazmavi (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)