![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. Also, article creation based on Wikiproject Guidelines would be curtailed. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
All that said, I don't have a big issue with the essay being tweaked, but it should be with that in mind, and should not be rewritten as a list of "rules", because such an essay will not be rules and will not be interpreted as rules. And I really don't think it should inspire attempts to create a broader range of (especially amateur and low-end professional) snooker articles. Being competent at one's hobby or profession, enough to make it into events, isn't notability, any more than being cast as an background extra in 100 TV shows and commercials/adverts doesn't make you a notable actor, just someone able to find employment in the field. We already have too many articles on has-been players who are almost never going to get more notable than they allegedly are now. Way, way early on, I thought that picking the list of top-100 (I think) players was probably a good place to start. But over a decade later, almost everyone who was a redlink from that original list has remained one and should remain one; very few of those who had not already, or did not quickly, inspire articles, well they actually receded into obscurity for the most part, while newer hot players who were not even on the old list came into much more prominence.
Finally, in cases like
Lynette Horsburgh (British pool, actually, not snooker, but whatever), if someone AfD's it in stub state, if the subject really should be kept, it won't be all that difficult to dig up the sources that prove it, and this kind of "prove it or delete it" pressure generally makes for much better articles anyway (compare
A and
B).
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
16:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm working on getting 2019–20 snooker season to GA status (as part of creating a good topic on the season)! I just need to finish the season summary. I did have a question - we mention all sorts of events, but we don't mention anything about the women's game... Not even the world championship. Considering we don't have a 2019-20 women's snooker season or equivelent, it's a little sexist. We do include items on the seniors tour, which is just as amateur as the women's game. Should we add these to the season articles, or remove all non-professional events from the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Could I also get a little bit of clarity on the Haining Open? It's listed as a non-ranking event, but it acts a lot more like a pro-am event like the Vienna Open than a regular non-ranking event. this source suggests it is a pro-am. I'd suggest it definately does not have enough information about it to make anything other than a stub. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I think Dave Caufield made an error in calling it a pro-am in fairness. It is listed on the WPBSA and WST players profiles pages as a non-ranking event win, as you can clearly see on Mark Selby's profile page. It is a CBSA invitation event. 178.167.149.131 ( talk) 14:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
No if you go to the WPBSA, WST players profile pages. It clearly lists these as non-ranking event wins on Mark Selby's, Thepchaiya Un-Nooh and Matthew Selt's pages you can view them for yourself. It is a CBSA invitation event and the WPBSA sanctions it so the players can play in it. Check out the profiles yourself 178.167.149.131 ( talk) 15:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
It was like in the old days when 110 sports management organised events like the Hainan Classic, World Series of Snooker and the General Cup they were still non-ranking events and needed wpbsa sanction but you did not see them on the WST calendar as they were organised by an outside company or promoter. 178.167.149.131 ( talk) 15:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes I think as I said they are listed by the WPBSA and WST tour profiles. You can't get any better really. So I think they should be left alone as they are. 178.167.149.131 ( talk) 15:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)