Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 58

In the current version WP:NHOCKEY, the most notable hockey leagues (the NHL, the WHA, the best European leagues) are conspicuously absent. This is because a clause that included them has been removed with no thought for a replacement. Perhaps the NHL, the WHA and the top European pro leagues (the KHL, the SHL, the Liiga and the Czech Extraliga, as well as their predecessors) should be added to the current text? Also, I think that the definition of "preeminent honors" should include more single-season accomplishments: in addition to first team All-Stars, major awards like playoff MVP, regular season MVP, best forward, defenceman, goaltender and rookie of the year should count, as well as leading the league in scoring (goals or points) in a season. Шахматист2025 (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

NHOCKEY is not broken, it was deprecated. Previous discussions agreed to use WP:GNG instead. Flibirigit (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I get what OP is saying though. A hockey notability guideline that makes no mention of the top leagues is nonsensical. They need to be included, or else just delete the whole thing and redirect it to WP:SPORTCRIT. 162 etc. (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I would be fine with using a redirect then. Not all players who play in the NHL, KHL, Liiga, or SHL, are going to have biographical information. Conyo14 (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Almost all NHL players do (as to get to the NHL in the first place, a player has to have proven himself in another league). And for those that don't, articles about them can't be created per WP:SPORTSIGCOV anyway. Шахматист2025 (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I decided to be WP:PGBOLD and add the NHL, WHA, KHL and its predecessors, Czech and Czechoslovak Extraligas, SHL and Liiga. Шахматист2025 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I also clarified the coach/manager guideline, which made no sense and was marked as such. Шахматист2025 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I wrote the original guideline, but I strongly feel that especially with the deprecation of participation standards, we should just rely on the GNG. If NHOCKEY was eliminated altogether, fine by me. Ravenswing 19:56, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Even if they have no special rules (that is, they use the "Basic notability" rules) those sports are so major that they should have bullets/subsections. I look at the page and they are missing. I think: is it an oversight? Is there another WP page devoted to those sports? How many hundreds of editors have come to this page and wasted time wondering about MAJOR sports that are not even listed here. Noleander (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Those are major sports that do not need specialized advice as the more minor ones given on the list. Masem (t) 01:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NSPORTS2022. GiantSnowman 01:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

TNT? NSPORTS, in its current form, remains only as a community time sink for maintenance of a now toothless guideline. —Bagumba (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hell, at this point, I'd advocate tossing ALL SNGs in favor of the GNG. Toss NSPORTS, toss PROF, toss them all, let them stand and fall on the GNG. Ravenswing 04:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. GiantSnowman 14:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There's benefit to having some of them, e.g. NPOL is particularly good, but NSPORT? Not so much... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

My take's evolved over the last twenty years, surely, but my objections to SNGs comes down to this: almost without exception, they're carve outs implemented by partisans to insulate their particular bailiwicks from broader notability standards. NPROF, for instance, boils down to "Here's why obscure academics of whom no one's heard outside their narrow disciplines ought to have biographical articles anyway, because, y'know, they're worthy, unlike those sports figures and porn actresses." Granted, it sucks that the world cares more about 5th round NFL draft choices than about the average Nobel laureate, but we ought to be making as few subjective value judgments as we can. Ravenswing 15:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The issue with relying solely on GNG is cases like, e.g., obscure but prominent early Maldivian politicians, for which the coverage most certainly exists, but a plain English Google search is not going to find it. Without criteria such as NPOL we'll have deletion-obsessed editors AFD them and demand "you show me coverage now or it gets deleted!" BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

That is, in fact, the rule of the road. And if a wider application of the same provoked more editors including such sources in their newly-created articles -- as they're supposed to be doing in the first place -- so much the better. Ravenswing 22:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I dont agree to remove the SNG, but I'd point out NPROF predates WP:N and thus should be treated in the same bucket as other SNGs Masem (t) 15:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

To my surprise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hill, there is still something meaningful at WP:NBASKETBALL.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I understand the frustration, but blowing up NSPORTS is not the solution. Wikipedia remains better with NSPORTS in place. Here are a few examples off the top of my head as to why NSPORTS still serves a valuable function:

(1) Though less comprehensive than it once was, NSPORTS provides useful guidance for the sports that it does cover in detail. E.g., WP:NTRACK, WP:NCYCLING, WP:NGOLF, WP:NGYMNASTICS, WP:NTENNIS, etc. New page patrollers and new editors rely on these as reasonable guidelines.

(2) WP:SPORTSEVENT provides useful guidance on when individual games/matches warrant stand-alone treatment. If this were eliminated, there would be less guideline against mass creation of articles on such games/matches.

(3) The "Basic criteria" at WP:SPORTBASIC provide helpful guidance on sports as a whole. For example, prong 5 passed with overwhelming community consensus in 2022 and ensures that there is no resumption of mass creation of sub-stubs sourced only to databases.

(4) WP:YOUNGATH is another valuable element of NSPORTS, providing a bulwark against mass creation of articles on high school athletes.

We shouldn't allow our frustration over the repeal of participation standards for some sports to lead us into jettisoning all of the other valuable guidance we have built in NSPORTS. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cbl62: As long as there are secondary sources provided, that normally would be fine. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

As an active NPP'er, I think that it's good to have an SNG for sports. The previous "did it for a living for one day" standard for biographies was too lenient and that has been fixed. WP:SPORTBASIC is pretty useful for biographies. It's sort of a "GNG lite" which I think is middle of the road of what the community thinks on these. And IMO things are sort of working on biographies. IMO the big problem is a flood of completionist "stats-only" articles with only "stats only" sources on seasons of teams, competitions, and events. This goes agains the goals of wp:notability, and WP:Not Which is that we are an enclyclopedia which covers article type topics with articles. One roadmap for a fix would to expand the WP:SPORTBASIC "GNG lite" criteria to apply to all sports related stuff. Then either ditch the rest of the SNG or else create tidy stringent criteria which be an available alternate (bypass) to even the tuned up WP:SPORTBASIC. Sincerly, North8000 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not really "GNG lite", it's just a duplicate of GNG with some explanations that could be merged into WP:SOURCETYPES instead. If this guideline would explicitly allow interviews by otherwise independent media (a large part, if not the majority, of non-trivial sports coverage) to be used to establish notability, then it could perhaps be considered "GNG lite". Шахматист2025 (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Could I get a second opinion on List of sports figures considered the greatest? I'm not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for lists which are related to this kind of thing, though I tried to dig around to find out. It looks as if the page was created by a split from GOAT (sports culture), but I'm not sure whether the creation of a separate article with a detailed list of (potentially, if not likely) hundreds of athletes solely connected by this designation is necessary given the "general" example list already on the GOAT page.

But, as I said, I'm not sure whether the page actually goes against any WP guidelines, or whether there are any bigger issues I (or page contributors) have failed to notice. I would really appreciate an external & impartial perspective with better knowledge on this. PunkAndromeda (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that the top ten ranked fighters in the world in a weight division will be notable. For example, there are about 1,200 Major League Baseball players, so the top 1,200 baseball players at any given time are notable. NMMA is never cited to keep articles because no one is AfDing articles on any top ten ranked athlete. NMMA is only ever cited to tack on extra weight to delete !votes. This proposal is in a similar vein to the proposal to eliminate WP:NBASE from 2022 which received overwhelming support. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Dang, this place is dead. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - Previous discussions have supported the idea of simply using GNG to determine notability. As such NMMA adds nothing useful. Nigej (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Support: Likewise. Ravenswing 20:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Support: I think WO9's point about NMMA only being used to strengthen delete !votes is especially poignant. All NSPORT does nowadays is confuse and mislead new editors... JTtheOG (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose we should try and figure out what the actual criteria that predict survival at AfD instead of just removing the current criteria. It is top twenty instead of top 10? Is there a specific MMA competitions that would work better as a likely indicator of AfD survival? Also, the baseball problem with NBASE being misinterpreted to suggest that other major-league players aren't notable isn't happening here. Iffy★Chat -- 20:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose The only rationale given is in essence an argument that all SNG's should be eliminated because some people sometimes fundamentally mis-apply /misuse / mis-understand what SNG's are. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Likewise.Jeff in CA (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Support. It's utterly useless. If someone meets GNG and fails NMMA, we have a number of editors who'll argue "delete because fails NMMA". If someone meets NMMA but doesn't clearly meet GNG, the argument is "delete because fails GNG; passing NMMA is completely irrelevant". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Support, Beanie raised a point about how counterintuitive NMMA has become as a basis for deletion arguments. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there consensus here or no? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Relatively frequently I notice a single game player's article come up at AfD, and for Australian rules footballers (& most cricketers or Olympians) there are lists of players that would be preferable to deletion. Rather than having to make that argument every time (Redirect to List of Foo Football Club players), can it be incorporated into this guideline?

Something like Where articles were created under previous WP:SNG guidelines, but no longer meet the current WP:NSPORTS requirements, preference is to redirect to an appropriate list, rather than deletion. This can be done with or without an AfD. The-Pope (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Redirects can happen now, but if they are contested, they still need to go to AfD. - Enos733 (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I know they can happen. I would like some text added to the guideline to prompt people to make it happen rather than afd first. The-Pope (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised that WP:NTEAM doesn't point to WP:ORG. I would think that the relevant guideline for sports teams wouldn't be WP:GNG alone but also WP:ORG. Sports teams are in fact organizations and should be treated as such. There's also large marketing engines behind sports teams and financial interests; particularly in professional sports, so it would seem appropriate to have that guideline named at NTEAM.4meter4 (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The goal of WP:NORG is to prevent mis-use of Wikipedia by marketing professionals for advertising or promotion, which is not a problem which exists in the world of sports, with the possible exception of amateur teams, youth sports teams, or teams/competitions related to internet marketing which would want a Wikipedia article to build credibility. However those exceptions are easily handled by other parts of the encyclopedia without forcing a far more restrictive guideline on users who are just trying to chronicle sports. SportingFlyer T·C 15:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Meh. One could make a similar argument for all kinds of other businesses. I really don't see a good reason to exclude sports teams from this requirement; particularly since we have a highly developed media and advertising culture around sports. It seems like an odd thing to exclude.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You're trying to create a problem to solve for some reason. Sports get completely different types of coverage than businesses. Sports and business are completely separate sections in newspapers. And NCORP solves the issue of the fact that every day, we get business spam from people trying to promote their companies. We get a lot of sports spam as well, but only a very small fraction of those are with the intent to be promotional, and those articles are flagrantly obvious because of the nature of their content. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That is definitely not the only, or even the main, reason for NORG. Its primary use-case is in helping editors navigate a source landscape that is fairly unique to organizations: a preponderance of press releases, interviews, local and routine coverage, and uncritical repetition of what the org says about itself. This is relevant regardless of whether the org is engaging in self-promotion on Wikipedia, and certainly is applicable to sports teams. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

• When the "local" element was added to WP:ORG, it was put up for a vote and was the subject of a long discussion. After opposition from sports, school, and religion folks, a consensus was reached that WP:ORG would NOT apply to sports teams, churches, or schools. The "local" element was ultimatly pased to respond to the mass commerical spamming that is often asssociated with the promotion of commercial products. As SportingFlyer notes, sports (as well as religion and schools) are not generally subject to the same sort of mass promotional spamming as are commercial products. Put me down as a "strong oppose" to any proposal to upset the longstanding consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  What about the aspects of NCORP that aren't related to AUD? JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

There simply isn't a need for the tighter restrictions than GNG to be extended to religious institutions, sports teams, and colleges/universities. That was the consensus that formed when AUD was added to NCORP. GNG works fine for such institutions. Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League has an RfC for the notability of conference championship games. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs) 21:39, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RFC at WP:VPM § RFC: Baltic bios infoboxes question, regarding the exact phrasing and linking of birth and death place names in infoboxes of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian persons. This naturally includes athletes. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Just came across this. While interesting, it strikes me as WP:OR. What do folks here think? Should it be put up for deletion? Or should we allow such articles for every major city, state and country? Cbl62 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Without having reviewed the sources carefully, I imagine that if there are usable references that fall short of justifying a standalone article, a fair amount of this content could be migrated to articles about the teams, or the city. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)