Knowledge talk:Notability (sports)

1606:, and (2) some number of editors participating seemed to be under the misapprehension that NBASIC is more lax than GNG, when (as far as I can determine) it is slightly more restrictive. Without the perception that NBASIC would somehow be a loophole, perhaps there would no longer be a motivation to circumvent the logic of NBIO by asserting that there is one category of humans to which the otherwise universal standard of NBASIC does not apply but instead a marginally more permissive standard (GNG) does? If we are going to change anything, could we please fix this? I don't think there was a clear consensus to override NBASIC for sports biographies, but the (difficult) close has a number of "approximate" conclusions (or apparent conclusions) of which this is the one I personally find most irritating. 1485:

provide some coverage, to check a box, I guess, and be able to say that they're still covering them. So, they resort to re-printing press releases directly from the team, written by team employees, and using that as their "local coverage" of the team. That, I do have a problem with, as the material is originating from the team themselves and is generated by people who are paid directly by the team to provide PR for the team. But, like I said, in some geographical areas of the US, in terms of print media, that's literally all that there is available anymore. I'm not sure exactly how we want to deal with the issue moving forward, but, like I said, I don't see it going away anytime soon.

46: 289: 409: 330: 159:. Test your proposed criteria by trying to find persons who meet them but do not have appropriate secondary coverage. It's best to keep your criteria fairly conservative, since for most contemporary persons, establishing notability via the general notability guideline is straightforward enough and the additional buffer time provided by a sports-specific notability guideline isn't needed, so trying to draw a more liberal line isn't worth the effort. 2532:, or a team's self-published media guide. A decade or so ago, there was a tendency to create season articles sourced only to such databases. I was guilty of that myself, and I've been going back to add better sourcing to those articles over the last couple years. I've also seen a growing tendency to create season articles for very minor, lower tier teams where SIGCOV is unlikely to exist. One possible solution would be to extend prong 5 of 21: 106:

exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Knowledge's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

1127:

entertainment rather than than "just getting it/them covered" and so can be less indicative. The current defacto "GNG only" criteria can result is somewhat arbitrary decisions in both directions. On some where included coverage is very weak, certain advocates just say "of course coverage exists, it just hasn't been found yet" (including in some presumed search of non-english sources, and no addressing on whether it is

1002:– which are plainly ridiculous. The players in the Big Four leagues having presumed notability for playing a game is the only thing that made sense (especially post-1930, that criteria really worked); and although I know the anti-sports editors will never let this page return to sense like that, restricting it to only the greatest ever would only encourage silly time-wasting deletion nominations. 754:

area to decide on criteria, based on the recent events at AfD I am extremely doubtful that the criteria you nominate would be fit for purpose. It appears that even at the pinnacle of the sport, many riders receive very little coverage which could be used to pass the GNG. Although they may be important to fans of speedway, that does not necessarily mean they are of encyclopaedic significance.

1742:

matters prefer a grassroots approach to the creation of guidance, but it works best when everyone is willing to go along with a general approach. When there is dissension, it leads to wasted time trying to get people to show up at every discussion so that consensus can be re-established over and over again, and inconsistent results when turnout varies.)

133:, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Knowledge editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given. 2139:

requirement. It's not a criterion to presume that suitable sources exist to demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met, so it doesn't really fit in the list under the "Basic criteria" section. I was not able, though, to gain a consensus to move the description of the requirement to another section.

1629:, placed in the context of biographies. Each of the bolded words in the first sentence of the "Basic criteria" section has a corresponding bullet point in the "General notability guideline" section. The basic criteria section derives from the general notability guideline section and is not a replacement for it. 2536:

to season articles. Prong 5 states: "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

2138:

The requirement for an article to have a citation to a source, suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline is met, is a documentation requirement for all sports biographies within the scope of this guideline. The second sentence in the lead paragraph, set in boldface, covers this

2106:

of NSPORT and doesn't apply to the athletes who meet a sport-specific criterion" and "SPORTCRIT #5 means that multiple non-SIGCOV sources can be added together" and "SPORTCRIT #5 can be met/overridden with the assumption that someone's achievements "must have" garnered SIGCOV offline". Not to mention

2017:

I do not think that an incremental path forward will work (and nor will deleting the SNG). The community is clear that at least one GNG source is required for all sportspeople. Any sport-specific wording will inevitably be a guideline, rather than a presumption of notability. That said, we can (and I

1801:

It's hard enough trying to sift through unreliable sources in English search results. Most en.WP editors are ill equipped to use non-English sources and judge reliability or weed out trivial mentions and routine coverage. The problem that was the demise of NSPORTS is that some people assumed without

1207:

Yes, promotional journalism is not only limited to sports (restaurant reviews and travel journalism being other prominent examples). This does not mean that all articles in this genre are promotional. Nonetheless, it's a consideration that must be evaluated for each specific citation when determining

1062:

I am not sure that is an expectation that can be made. I don't think we can expect that an editor won't bring any article to AFD and claim there are not sources or who will not do an adequate before search. I do agree with you that very few athletes that play in a top-tier league would fail GNG. That

1944:

Although personally I think the best way to keep Knowledge viable with its large number of articles is to spread the workload by giving more responsibility to an article creator for including appropriate citations at the start, for better or worse, the consensus of English Knowledge editors who have

1324:

I agree with this assessment of how SNGs like this play out. Without the SNG, borderline cases come down to a subjective evaluation of whether the GNG criteria are met. With clear criteria, borderline cases that don't meet the SNG will be more likely to get declined/deleted than they otherwise would

1133:

coverage ) In the other direction, an extremely thorough / strict reading of GNG is applied, which is stricter than the norm. IMO more clarity and guidance along the "middle ground" in this SNG would be helpful. Not only would it affect the SNG "route in" but it would also influence edge case

1081:

by someone typing the two words "meets NSPORTS," with no real effort to find sources, I'm unmoved by the inclusionists' dismay. 2022 never would've happened without the unreasonableness of the one-game-equals-notability clergy, spearheaded by the likes of the cricket and footy projects, and if they

690:

BI noticed here that the FAQ numbering skips 5. I'm thinking we should probably renumber the questions, but I wanted to check and make sure 5 wasn't being excluded deliberately before BOLDly making the change myself. If we're keeping the same numbering for historical reasons, we ought to make a note

171:

Note the "nutshell summary" and the "Basic criteria" section are high-level descriptions of the type of criteria used by each sport. This does not mean that any criteria that fit these descriptions are suitable. You must demonstrate that the proposed criteria are effective as a way to determine if a

105:

No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be

3065:

1. There was worry that prong 5 of SPORTBASIC would lead to mass deletion of notable articles, and it has not. I think it has had a beneficial effect of telling article creators to do some due diligence before creating sports biographies. The "substub" problem has greatly reduced with biographies,

2902:

Even if there were an impactful structural change of requirements, equating it to a deletionfest of existing articles vs. something that the community would want applied on new articles and the two are not automatically linked and community consensus is usually to not automatically consider them to

2649:

long newspaper sources as well as a half-dozen books, etc., being advocated for deletion because 'none of them are sigcov as we don't have academic journals from 50 years afterwards examining this particular season in-depth') would result in the removal of many thousands of notable topics. It feels

2389:

The absence of sources or citations in a Knowledge article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources

1643:

I 99% agree with Isaacl's, response, the other 1% being to note that it includes a provision allowing combining non-GNG sources when GNG sources do not exist. (IMO a bad idea) I'll also note that in the common cases noted above, the respondents aren't even taking the trouble to quote guidelines

1484:

One problem that I am seeing more and more of in the US (and, I don't see it going away anytime soon, considering the sad state of local journalism in the US today), is that many local US papers post-COVID no longer employ actual reporters anymore to cover local sports teams. But they still want to

117:

No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then they meet Knowledge's standards for having an article in Knowledge, even if they do not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not

89:

is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Knowledge's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the

3032:

and a nothing-but-stats "article" is not that or even a contribution towards that. An article on a somewhat prominent team or player which has substantial article-type content from published sources, I'd like to be in/kept, even if it falls a bit short on not 100% meeting GNG. Which is sort of the

2212:

Well, proposals to change this guideline did attain consensus support and changes were made accordingly. To revise it again would need a demonstration that the consensus view has changed. But as previously stated, English Knowledge's decision-making traditions means people have fairly free rein in

1720:

The problem is twofold, and any "fix" done on this end won't be worth a tinker's damn. There is no rule, regulation, tweak or guideline that will prevent lazy, indifferent AfD voters from being lazy, indifferent, and/or downright stupid. Nor is there any rule, regulation, tweak or guideline that

1522:

Well, the removal of the "did it for a living for one day" criteria stemmed the torrent but we still have quite a mess. (I'm an active NPP'er) In essence, for GNG dependent articles, GNG is not being implemented at AFD. And folks that lament the narrowing of the SNG criteria are probably falsely

753:

It's essential that you understand that special notability guidelines do not confer notability, they are guidelines for editors to understand when a subject will likely meet notability. While a speedway criteria could be implemented, and would require a discussion between editors familiar with the

737:

section, which I cannot seem to find existing at present. The sport is worldwide and extremely popular, in Poland for example it is the national sport (ahead of association football) and was once the most watched sport in the United Kingdom behind football. A simple Google search shows how popular

3036:

As a NPP'er I'd like the dilemma resolved one way or the other. By even a slightly relaxed version of GNG we should be AFD'ing about 75% of new sports articles. But when taking even the weakest of them to AFD all of the above stuff and grief happens.....hand waving and complaints, but no sources

2692:

I do not think any mass removal would be appropriate either, but extending prong 5 to season articles puts the onus on article creators to come up with at least one piece of SIGCOV in the article -- which is not difficult for a notable team season. I, too, recall the AfD where someone argued that

1997:

The first point is already covered in this guideline page. The second is a content issue, which the current consensus of English Knowledge editors who like to discuss these matters considers to be separate from the standards of having an article. Tweaks about these is just going to give those who

1736:

If I'm understanding North8000's original post correctly, they're proposing that guidance should be modified to follow what is being done in practice by the evaluators of consensus for deletion discussions, which would bring the two into alignment. Of course, I agree that nothing compels deletion

3069:

2. I reject the notion that feature stories about each of a team's games do not consitute SIGCOV of the team. The nature of sports coverage is that teams are covered in pre-season articles, in pre-game stories, in post-game stories, and occasionally in post-season awards and wrap-up coverage. As

2413:

In order to define the problem more clearly, it would be helpful if someone could provide some examples of what they consider to be "stats only" articles. Sports coverage naturally and properly includes statistical information. Stats are how we measure performance and importance of athletes and

1286:

I didn't mean that sentence the way that it sounded. My "bypass" statement was just about the flowchart/structural aspect, and about SNG's in general. And while I'm a bit skeptical about the "predictor of GNG" capability, I accept such wording (which is universal in SNG's) and that it is a good

1784:

The main issue with wp:before is that, at any given time, the 15 people who do 90% of NPP's, and a 13,000 article backlog there's only so much wp:before a NPP'er can do. And folks amongst the zillion editors who didn't bother to / instead of looking for sources, just beat up the NPP'er for not

1741:

does not compel evaluators to discount viewpoints that are contrary to guidelines (only views contrary to policy are mentioned). This essentially reduces guidelines to prepackaged sets of arguments that can be used in deletion discussions. (I understand why the editors who like to discuss these

2418:

says is that we shouldn't have articles that simply recite a load of statistics and offer no context or explanation. Here is the precise language of NOTSTATS: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing;

1126:

I have an unusual view of the sports SNG. Most view it (being a way to bypass GNG) only as a way to make the criteria more lenient. But in the fuzzy world of GNG on sports, it could cut both ways. Another gorilla in the living room on sports is that "coverage" is usually itself a form of

1020:

I understand your concerns, but the community discussion that nearly led to the deletion of NSPORTS went the other direction - namely that participation is not sufficient for a stand-alone article. My goal is similar to yours - a desire for more clarity than this existing text and also to give

781:

there are many that are clearly below the level of motorcycle speedway. Rodeo for example is pretty much restricted to North America and yet has countless guidelines. Surely motorcycle speedway which is pretty much worldwide merits at least one guideline!. At least if I can nominate then other

161:

Many discussions on rules of thumb start with, "This league/championship is important," or "This sport is popular in country X." While these arguments provide indirect evidence, a much better way to reach an agreement is to double-check if everyone meeting the proposed criteria has appropriate

2850:

coverage. E.g. I could easily develop something of GA-length or better if I tried for it. That may not be possible for all of them (all the 'stats' articles), but will be for a large percentage if someone puts in the effort (see e.g. the fifth-tier season that became an FA I mentioned above).

2434:

It's pretty widespread for sports. I'd hate to put any individual editor on the spot by making their article an example here. Typicall the only prose is a few sentences derived from the stats, and there are not GNG sources. Maybe if I find several it wouldn't be so bad. I've even asked for

1893:

As I previously mentioned, including a reference to a source suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline is already part of this guideline. It's the second sentence in the lead paragraph, set in bold. The need for such a reference is also described in the "Basic criteria"

738:

the sport is. The two main competitions suggested for notability are the Speedway Grand Prix (previously called the individual world championship) and the Speedway World Cup/Speedway of Nations (the team world championship). Any help about how I go about this would be appreciated, many thanks

1151:

I disagree that most view the sports-specific guidelines on having an article as a way to bypass the general notability guideline. Many discussions have found a consensus that they are used to help predict if the general notability guideline is likely to be satisfied. I agree that there is a

3133:

Adding to a few subthreads, while many topics have promise for development into an article, IMO a "nothing but stats" article is not a real start on such. IMO it's sort of like saying I provided a can of car wax called it "partially finished Ferrari, which could become a really good car".

1021:

guidance on how to evaluate sources based on the circumstances of the subject (prep athletes have the highest bar to clear, second-tier professionals a higher bar to clear, and professionals in a top-tier league the lowest bar to clear). Ultimately I see the sport specific text as useful

1499:

Is that really a "local" problem? I assume that regional and national newspapers also don't send reporters to the games. In fact, I'd assume that regional and national newspapers are less likely to do direct reporting than the local media. The cost is lower: they can both get free

2324:

I agree - I don't think it is unique to sports, but I think that it is easier for editors to make changes in a table than to take the next step to find (for sports) season previews or recaps (for stations) information about their construction and include that in the lede sections. -

932:

I'm an active NPP'er. I was a strong advocate of getting rid of the "did it for a living for 1 day" criteria for athletes because IMO it set the bar too low. But overall I would WELCOME expansion of the special notability guideline to provide more clarity on sports-related articles.

2984:

I just wish the articles people made weren't so incredibly trashy. I see the Northampton ones up above are all using Weebly extensively as a source, which is just some person's blog. I honestly have no idea why Weebly and Blogspot aren't on the banned sources to even use list.

2229:

The RfC close is clear. But merely removing "or the sport specific criteria set forth below" still leaves open the interpretation that "showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline" is satisified by meeting a sport-specific SNG. The loophole needs closing.

1703:

are required, and are required to be intellectually independent of each other. While the GNG encourages multiple, intellectually independent sources, it does necessarily require them for a topic to achieve GNG notability, which is why I regard NBASIC as (slightly) more strict.

1769:

sometimes requires expertise to know where to look, that a basic Google search from those not in the know will miss. With everyone's experience now, I wonder if we can reasonably recreate some SNGs on perennial topics for NPPers, while avoiding non-objective criteria this

1912:

The existence of guidelines do not preclude !voters ignoring the guideline. Is this post looking to avoid false-positive AfD nomintations (i.e. pages that don't demonstrate notability but are ultimately notable topics) or to improve quality of Afd !votes by participants?

1191:

While I agree that sports journalism does have a promotional dimension, the same can be said elsewhere. Does not arts journalism -- book reviews, movie reviews -- have not only a promotional dimension, but that's even more of a primary focus of the coverage?

364:

Knowledge has a general rule that any athlete who competes in the modern Olympic Games is presumed to be sufficiently notable to have a Knowledge entry. Tchir told me that Knowledge's notability policy is itself controversial with both new and old Knowledge

1238:

Newspapers often cover local sports teams and restaurants in a promotional manner (though not exclusively) because that's what its readers want to read. The New York Times travel section has many (though not all) articles that have a very promotional tone.

1785:

finding the sources that the complainer never bother to look for or find. I've had sports fans beat me up for not also searching through non-english sources and analyzing them with respect to GNG, at the same time they didn't and don't look for sources.

1602:. As far as I can tell, the reason the 2017 discussion didn't reach this conclusion was (1) very many participants in that discussion, both inclusionists and exclusionists concerning sports biographies, had at best only a very approximate underanding of 1574:

sources.) And also while it prima facie / structurally makes it more lenient by offering a different "way in" I think that it will be influential is seeing that GNG (or something close to it) is being followed for GNG dependent articles. Sincerely,

162:

sources meeting the general notability guideline. For example, for an individual championship, you can list everyone who has won the championship and, for each person, the corresponding sources that show they meet Knowledge's standards for inclusion.

1565:

For "seasons" and other articles which are heavy with stats, inclusion of sources which provide published independent in-depth coverage where the coverage is about the season (or topic) as a whole, and substantial prose text developed from those

2365:

Anywhere there is an intersection of "enthusiasts" and "topics are neatly available in detailed off-wiki databases" will produce rapid stub proliferation, especially if the initial articles go unnoticed long enough to generate a walled garden.

1648:

sources. I realize that this does not fit the classic prima facie reasoning (that notability is about whether the sources exist, not whether anybody has actually provided them) but IMO something is needed to solve a pretty common problem.

1554:

I get so tired of this (including getting beat up at AFD) that I just pass the slightly better than normal sports articles and just leave the other non-notable ones in the 13,000 article NPP backlog disaster for someone else to deal with.

2825:

Well, this is sort of a microcosm of the discussions that occur. Instead of settling it by providing one GNG or near-GNG source, you are in essence saying "go look at thousands of search engine hits, there must be one in there somewhere."

2175:

It was modified by removing "or the sport specific criteria set forth below" after the 2022 RfC, specifically to no longer include the criteria listed under the "Professional sports people" section, to comply with the consensus to require

1357:

And this is why I feel it is desirable to have a full revision of the guideline - to clarify existing consensus around the need to prove reliable sourcing and also give guidance for editors about which athletes are likely to be notable. -

2058:

At least for the top US sports (Am football, basketball, baseball), at this advanced stage of Knowledge, the players' articles would have been created (and already be notable) long before hitting those criteria. So not much help for NPP.

1004:

Not to mention the biggest issue with NSPORT that isn't changed: the value of meeting the criteria suddenly becomes wholly worthless and irrelevant solely by one typing the two words "fails GNG" – no matter what the circumstances are.

1872:

of GNG or near-GNG sourcing. So this discourages mere unsupported "it exists" claims. Structurally, since it is just another "way in", it doesn't tighten up the requirements. But it would probably be influential towards emphasizing

388:

The site's current rule for sports notability reflects the change; instead of the old rule where an athlete was presumed eligible for a Wiki article if they "competed" in the Games, the presumption now applies only if they "won a

3074:

aren't notable because the coverage arises in the context of each of the games played by the team. The real inquiry and debate IMO should focus on whether the coverage (be it pre-season, during season, or post-season) is truly

2966:

team was the runner-up for the national handball championship last season, one of the most popular sport in the country. Every aspect of that team and other teams under the ÍBV umbrella get pretty well covered in the national

2885:

Second, I was responding to a request for some "stats-only" articles, you are implying that I said that all of these should be deleted. You also cherrypicked the 1 of the 9 that I provided that has the most likelyhood of

1998:

like to repeat these points different text to link to. If the evaluators of consensus aren't discounting views contrary to the existing guidelines, I don't think shifts in emphasis is going to alter their deliberations.

827:

The current criteria, like rodeo, are essentially only here for legacy reasons since they were created before NSPORTS2022. None of them were actually tested to demonstrate positive predictive power toward meeting GNG.

1927:

The main goals are what I described above, but expanding on the first one, it is to shift things a bit, that the creators/keepers should include and identify GNG sources and the onus is a bit more on them to do so.

1836:

Additional emphasis which would weigh in a bit against "stat's only" articles...most as a reminder that they typically don't demonstrate compliance with GNG. There are a lot of people generating lots of stats-only

1440:

sources have to be independent (to count towards notability), we're implying here that means national and international ones don't. This is nonsense; only independent sources count towards notability, full stop.

118:

intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Knowledge: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.

1307:

to make, despite the common "flowchart" view that expanding a SNG makes entry more lenient, I am of the view that expanding the sports SNG would provide more guidance which would tend to work in BOTH directions.

1039:

We have an Olympic medalist likely to be deleted at an AFD right now – and several others who've already been deleted. My main issue with the current NSPORTS which seems to stay the same with the draft is this:

2257:

that all sports articles contain substantial content in order to exist – something that not a single other subject is held to – is something that I could not support and contradicts the notability page itself:

2551:

Re: "I see this as more of a GNG problem that a STATS problem." Those are sort of saying the same thing; the stats just kind of obscure and enable the problem..no GNG sources and thus no real article content.

2909:

This subthread is about "stats only" being mere a flag of no suitable sources and thus no content (other than stats). So we're talking about those rather than the type of article which you are describing.

2893:

at least one such source, it doesn't structurally affect the GNG route which is the route claimed on these. And even withing that limited scope, it merely says "find one source of the type that it is

3102:

have absolutely resulted in the removal of many notable articles. Not to mention that many other likely notable articles have been removed gradually by that criterion, due to it meaning absolutely no

1152:

promotional dimension to a lot of sports journalism, and so this has to be considered when evaluating the suitability of a source in demonstrating that the general notability guideline has been met.

1547:

The NPP'er didn't look hard enough for coverage (the coverage that nobody else found and is not in the article or AFD discussion) And note the use of the term "coverage" instead of "GNG coverage"

2124:: I can't really tell what is the expected outcome if a bullet point under "Professional sports people" is met but no signifcant coverage is cited? Have any AfD closes cited this as ambiguous? — 2018:

think we should) suggest that a professional in a top league is more likely to meet GNG than someone who plays for a second- or third- division team. All of that said, I did start a draft of a

1177:. Those are reasonable safeguards. However, we do not and should not exclude sports journalism in reliable, independent sources on grounds that sports journalism has a "promotional dimension". 1025:

for sports people, rather than a pass/fail bar. But at the same time, I also do not share your fear that an editor would attempt to nominate an NFL player post 1930 or an Olympic medalist. -

2601:

I think that that would be a good albeit small move. It doesn't make a major shift because that clause/requirement is not implemented even for the articles (bios) that are currently included.

2537:

to merit a stand-alone article." If consensus supports it, we could change "sports biographies" to "sports biographies and season articles". I would have no problem with such an amendment.

1544:"Of course they are notable" "They are obviously notable" "The NPP'er is stupid not to know they are notable" (with no support for that statement, or just saying that many people know them) 3162: 2177: 233: 883: 3066:

as we no longer see mass creation of such substubs sourced only to a database. I think extending that standard to seasons would have a similar positive impact on new article creation.

2073:

Since the community rejected a "played in a top-tier professional league" standard, the recourse to needing at least one GNG source is sensible even as it doesn't help much at NPP. -

2915:

You are in essence saying that a "lots of suitable coverage probably exists" argument should be sufficient. This tiny proposed change just leans a bit towards saying "OK, find just

1374:

How would an article with weaker citation work have a clear claim to the SNG? The SNG requires all articles actively cite an IRS source of SIGCOV and ultimately requires GNG be met.

1533:

Basic article on a less-notable professional with no sources anywhere near GNG sources. With a few of the basics put into sentences like "played for the xyz team starting in 2012"

3001:

Again, I was responding to a request for "stats-only" articles and just quickly came up with 9. It was NOT me saying that I think that every one of them should be deleted/merged.

2633:

of the article may be poor, absolutely does not mean the topic does not warrant an article. A good number of them have GA / FA potential if there's an interested editor; see e.g.

2044:

I have incorporated feedback encouraging more prose in my draft. I don't think it will necessarily help editors who want to ignore the SNG, but it could help at NPP or at AFD. -

1665:

In my view, that's just an additional description of the significant coverage portion of the general notability guideline and so doesn't amount to a replacement of its guidance.

1517: 1500:

tickets/entrance, but the local reporter just has to go down the street, or perhaps across town, and the further away places would have to pay for flights, hotels, meals, etc.

777:

Yes I understand that special notability guidelines do not confer notability but is this the right area to nominate to start a discussion? Looking at the list of sports in the

81:. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional 2436: 2213:

the arguments they can put forth. It's left to the discretion of discussion evaluators to decide how to weigh those arguments, in context of the relevant guidance in effect.

245: 999: 882:

Unfortunately, any attempt to add anything here is just going to be a waste of time. The editors who dislike sport will never allow any additions to this criteria. See e.g.

169:, proposing a guideline for the notability of an athlete purely based on their participation in a non-championship final or non-Olympic event is likely to meet opposition. 2645:

season article not with a SIGCOV source (which, for season articles, can have very different interpretations – I once remember a season article with decent prose and over

2889:

Third, structurally, the small change discussed is just a tweak in the SNG. While it might (hopefully) have a bit of a psychological effect that people should actually

1396:

predict GNG is essentially universal. Certainly out of the hundreds of post-2022 AfDs I've been in there is broad recognition that GNG is needed and that NSPORT itself

1222:

Not sure I'd use the word "promotional". I'd say that to some extent it's writing to entertain in addition to writing to inform, and more so than in most other fields.

111:

Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not meet Knowledge's notability standards?

99:

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?

1802:

basis that the "top" league(s) of any country of any sport must be notable and have coverage, and the fact that Google came back with any results proved it for them. —

1615: 3145: 3052: 2450: 1856: 1586: 1738: 1690:

Also, while some editors might assume that it does, GNG does not itself contain any "depth" requirement. Therefore, it is equally true under GNG as in NBASIC that

257: 3110:). Why should sports season be held to a standard literally no other class of article – with the exception of sports biographies – is held to? You may personally 3070:

between these, SIGCOV is SIGCOV IMO. They all represent coverage of the team. Otherwise, we would have folks trying to argue that articles on major seasons like

1945:

discussed this matter in the past still supports stub creation. (I appreciate why those editors feel that way; I just weigh the tradeoffs differently than they.)

2194:

Well the same people are also arguing that the fact that NSPORT2022 found a consensus not to deprecate NSPORT means that there was a consensus to retain NSPORT

269: 2419:

accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context."

2808: 2173:

The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.

1683:, but I think this is a misconception. There is, in fact, nothing in the GNG - at least not that I've seen - that would require editors to insist that the 297: 2719:

for a particularly disliked type of article is going to result in attempts to mass remove them. Yes, it is not difficult for me to add a source for e.g.

1594:- I think this is as good a place as any for me to raise again the point that the relevant standard for Sports bios, post-2017 NSPORTS RfC, ought to be 1530:"Stats only" articles. E.G for a team's season. With zero sources other than for the stats, much less GNG sources or anything even near one GNG source. 45: 166: 27: 2027: 1428:

Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be

1104: 213:". As a result, there are many subjects that can meet the everyday meaning of notable, yet fail to meet Knowledge's standards for having an article. 3188: 2507: 422: 2107:

the insistence that three-sentence event results announcements are "not routine" and that in-person video interviews count for anything at all...

1644:(including using this provision). With just vague unsupported claims that they/it us "notable" or "sources probably exist". Hence my emphasis on 151:

Consider what criteria that, if met, means that the sports figure is highly likely to have significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional

1877:

sources. Technically, by including "near-GNG sourcing, it loosens the requirement, but the current defacto requirement is even looser than that.

1562:

Professional athletes with a larger than typical amount of included sources which provide published independent in-depth coverage of the athlete

1392:

NSPORT has always been quite clear that GNG is ultimately necessary for notability, and after the RfC the understanding that NSPORT subcriteria

1253:

I agree. I think that I again failed to adequately communicate my point. Since it's sort of a sidebar item, I think I'll just leave it at that.

3107: 1173:

that precludes use of sources written by or affiliated with the athlete or the team. We also exclude fan blogs and such that do not qualify as

2214: 2181: 2140: 2023: 1999: 1976: 1946: 1895: 1743: 1666: 1630: 1281: 1240: 1209: 1153: 1108: 995: 714: 645: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 30:

for a discussion from January to March 2022 which reached a consensus to revise various aspects of the sports-specific notability guidelines.

1692:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability

1478: 1167:

there is a promotional dimension to a lot of sports journalism, and so this has to be considered when evaluating the suitability of a source

56: 2707:

FWIW, I had to take it to deletion review myself to prevent that argument from prevailing, and without my intervention, it would have. You

1975:

Yes, as I said, I agree with you, but so far, that viewpoint has not gained consensus support amongst those who have discussed the matter.

801: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 2882:

First you are talking about undeveloped articles whereas what is being discussed is articles where wp:notability has not been established.

3106:

is necessary – one can simply claim 'fails GNG' without any effort whatsoever and that's the end of it (e.g. does anyone seriously think

2382:

NOTSTATS is a content issue. The content can be boldly deleted. The topic's notability and existing policy is the bigger dilemma. Per

1466:

A newspaper writes a positive article about a local athlete, who also happens to be the newspaper owner's nephew (or next-door neighbor).

733:

Hi all, not sure if I am in the right place but would like to nominate some standards of notability for motorcyle speedway, maybe in the

713:

Thanks for bringing it up. I forgot to renumber the questions when I deleted one that was no longer relevant. I've renumbered them now.

2303: 923: 2282:

a problem that is unique to sports.....massive amounts of "stats only" articles. And the above-described problems with these at AFD.

3174: 899: 2618: 2502: 2497: 2492: 2487: 1713: 1509: 1494: 1092: 2937: 2860: 2837: 2820: 2794: 2774: 2752: 2659: 2297: 2271: 1456:

newspaper in a small town runs an article about a local athlete, possibly because there isn't much other news to report this week.

944: 857: 837: 2996: 1779: 722: 2687: 2673: 2467: 1888: 1638: 1409: 1319: 1072: 1057: 1034: 1014: 875: 1383: 1352: 1336: 3123: 3012: 2979: 2732: 2702: 2402: 2375: 2359: 2319: 2133: 2116: 2039: 1939: 1922: 1811: 1796: 1751: 1731: 1367: 1217: 978: 962: 822: 791: 772: 2222: 2207: 2148: 2007: 1984: 1970: 1954: 1903: 1674: 1660: 1298: 1264: 1248: 1233: 1202: 1161: 797: 747: 3086: 2612: 2596: 2562: 2546: 2428: 2334: 2082: 2068: 2053: 1737:

discussion participants to follow previously-established guidance, though doing so may be more persuasive for some, and the

1622: 2634: 2580: 2576: 2239: 2189: 2166: 1765:

I feared that one of the benefits of SNGs was for non-domain experts at NPP to be able to quickly assess popular topics .

1419: 1145: 1116: 804:

to get input and draft a proposal. Then come back here with the proposal for an RfC to endorse. That would be my approach.

3170: 2625:

is a broad article on a concept absolutely notable: Indian football receives extensive coverage each year. Remember that

1186: 734: 707: 702: 1626: 3071: 2762: 2758: 2157:

Citing that one of the criteria under "Professional sports people" is met could be reasonably argued to satisfy that. —

372: 145:

Q5: I want to create a new sports-specific notability guideline or revise an existing one. What approach should I take?

862:

The proposal is not about speedways, as in racetracks, it's about a particular discipline of motorcycle racing called

2122:

SPORTCRIT #5 is just a different part of NSPORT and doesn't apply to the athletes who meet a sport-specific criterion

306: 50: 2512: 2568: 2439:) and feedback sees to be that they should not exist. But large amounts of them are routinely being produced. 2780: 2720: 2529: 2520:

Thanks. The examples help. I see this as more of a GNG problem that a STATS problem. I'm more familiar with the

3166: 2515:

This one has more prose but it's just a statement derived from the stats plus a restatement of the general rules

2622: 2584: 2477: 990:(i.e. one of the greatest 300 figures ever, when there's probably 50,000 notable figures) to be considered as " 348: 1448:

fix this, but I'm not sure what problem is trying to be solved. Which of these sounds most like the problem?

1063:

said, I can't think of a standard that is not participation-based that would meet the community's guidance. -

1550:"Coverage exists" but doesn't find any and again note excluding "GNG" from the term when discussing coverage. 1459:

A newspaper writes a puffy human interest story gushing about an athlete's positive qualities, because civic

967:

What an effort....that's quite a bit of work! It would be a few days before I have the wiki-time to review.

778: 2906:

Anything in notability guidelines does not simply greenlight removal. The folks weighing it at AFD do that.

186:, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following 3092:

There was worry that prong 5 of SPORTBASIC would lead to mass deletion of notable articles, and it has not.

2678:

Is it such an issue that requiring the mass removal of thousands of notable articles is the only solution?

2472: 2155:

The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline

818: 768: 675: 3112:

reject the notion that feature stories about each of a team's games do not consitute SIGCOV of the team

2572: 302: 2524:

area, and, there too, we have many season articles stubs sourced only to comprehensive databases like

1687:

element of GNG ought to be assessed per source rather than of the set of available sources as a whole.

2307: 987: 2627:

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

2260:

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

2102:

Yeah, please tell that to the AfD !voters who are insisting that "SPORTCRIT #5 is just a different

915: 338: 2963: 2482: 1325:

be, while other articles with weaker citation work but a clear claim to the SNG will be approved.

3150: 2737:

Well, maybe take that article as an example, could you find a GNG (or even near-GNG) source for

1044:

can have their accomplishments / satisfaction of the criteria made wholly irrelevant and useless

697: 2390:

exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article.

1841:

I guess you could call my proposal to be to add something on the order of an nsports version of

2991: 1709: 1611: 1505: 1474: 728: 187: 2178:

a citation to a source suitable for demonstrating that the general notability guideline is met

1558:

One idea would be to create another section in the SNG, another "way in" that roughly says:

994:" to have significant coverage? That is only going to result in nominations for deletion like 846:

One sidebar thought, wp:NGeo can also affect wp:notability decisions on facilities like this.

234:

Knowledge talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4 § RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline

3141: 3119: 3048: 3026:

As a Wikipedian, I think that Knowledge is about creating useful-to-the-public enclyclopedia

3008: 2933: 2912:

Removal of thousands of notable articles based on wp:notability is sort of an oxymoron. :-)

2856: 2833: 2816: 2790: 2770: 2748: 2728: 2693:

academic journals were needed to pass GNG - the argument was ridiculous and did not prevail.

2683: 2664:

The difficulty is how can NPP reasonably determine a notable season page from a crufty one? —

2655: 2608: 2558: 2463: 2446: 2355: 2293: 2267: 1966: 1935: 1884: 1852: 1792: 1656: 1582: 1429: 1348: 1315: 1294: 1260: 1229: 1141: 1053: 1010: 974: 940: 895: 853: 787: 743: 232:

Request for Comments discussion that established the sports-specific notability guidelines:

2533: 1722: 1193: 1083: 3022:

In case anybody is wondering, my own opinions come from two completely different places:

1208:

its suitability for demonstrating that the standards for having an article have been met.

8: 3099: 2371: 2203: 2112: 2019: 1959:

IMO the issue isn't stub creation. It's lack of GNG sources in GNG-dependent articles.

1490: 1405: 1379: 950: 905: 871: 863: 833: 658: 209:

For better or worse, discussions in Knowledge use the term "notable" as a shorthand for "

152: 129:

There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since

82: 315: 3095: 2415: 1174: 1022: 692: 190:. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to 130: 1845:

to nsports, albeit with details a little different, along the lines of my idea above.

2986: 2975: 2711:

that many of the editors who created these season articles are no longer active, and

2669: 2587:. Extending SPORTBASIC, prong 5, would help the problem however it is characterized. 2521: 2398: 2330: 2315: 2235: 2162: 2129: 2100:

The community is clear that at least one GNG source is required for all sportspeople.

2078: 2064: 2049: 2035: 1918: 1807: 1775: 1705: 1607: 1501: 1470: 1363: 1068: 1030: 958: 183: 123:

Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?

3163:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#This_guideline_and_WP:NTEAM

3115: 3108:

arguably Niger's greatest athlete and coach from the offline era has zero coverage?

3103: 2852: 2812: 2766: 2724: 2679: 2651: 2525: 2383: 2263: 2218: 2185: 2144: 2003: 1980: 1950: 1899: 1865: 1842: 1766: 1747: 1670: 1634: 1595: 1570:

This wording is structurally a different approach (especially with the emphasis on

1445: 1244: 1213: 1157: 1112: 1049: 1006: 891: 783: 739: 718: 685: 376: 352: 77:

The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the

3151: 3082: 2698: 2592: 2542: 2424: 2310:

about several thousand articles about train stations with questionable sourcing.

1182: 1048:

by someone typing the two words "fails GNG" with no real effort to find sources.

814: 764: 246:

Knowledge talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8 § Applicable policies and guidelines

91: 2437:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Sports#"Stats only" sports articles on non-SNG topics

3155: 2367: 2339:

In this case my comment that you are responding to was about large amounts of '

2199: 2108: 1603: 1486: 1401: 1375: 1170: 867: 829: 203:

Q7: But these athletes have won championship X; surely that makes them notable?

654: 311: 3182: 2283: 1599: 1329: 408: 195: 78: 2971: 2800: 2723:, but times that number by 2,000, and suddenly it is not so easy any more. 2665: 2394: 2393:

Without SNGs, that task required more due-diligence and domain expertise. —

2326: 2311: 2231: 2158: 2125: 2092: 2074: 2060: 2045: 2031: 1914: 1803: 1771: 1436:

I've got no objection to this, but it's kind of silly. By specifying that

1359: 1341:

Exactly. And it also provides more guidance to us NPP'ers on those cases.

1064: 1026: 954: 191: 156: 86: 1082:

now feel hard done by, they need only look into mirrors for the culprits.

373:"This Researcher Is on a Crusade to Correct Knowledge's Gender Imbalancey" 3114:

but that doesn't mean the anti-sport editors are going to agree with it.

2765:(130+ refs total with well-sourced prose), if you'd like to take a look. 210: 660: 316: 3078: 2694: 2588: 2538: 2420: 2096: 1460: 1178: 806: 782:

editors can give an opinion on the subject. Please advise, many thanks

756: 2846:. I also thought it worth mentioning that for some of these, there is 2807:

devotes a page to it, not to mention there's a good chance one of the

2641:-tier English football team's season. Giving the greenlight to remove 1721:

will compel closers to hold by valid policy rather than by headcount.

258:

Knowledge talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 9 § Relation to GNG (again)

71:

Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?

2899:

to have instead of just claiming that they exist without finding one.

2809:

3,000 newspaper stories on the Eagles from a three-month span in 1937

2879:(edit conflict) I respectfully disagree with you on several levels: 656: 313: 984:

FWIW, I still think the same of the draft as I did in archive 56:

904:

We should just mark this page as historical and get it over with.

329: 1000:"only was a starter in the NFL for six full seasons, not notable" 188:

Knowledge's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage

177:

Q6: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?

2567:

Agreed. Some examples from the college football context include

2456:

OK I'll start adding some random ones currently in the NPP que:

1681:

allowing combining non-GNG sources when GNG sources do not exist

1077:

Eh, after twenty years' worth of sports articles at AfD passing

270:

Knowledge talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 16 § Second sentence

2968: 661: 317: 2302:

Is it unique to sports though? I've seen the same issue with

1679:

North8K, I understand that some editors understand NBASIC as

211:

meets Knowledge's standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia

986:

that won't work. An American football player must be in the

2344:

articles and I think that that issue is unique to sports.

691:

to that effect rather than just not having a Q5 at all.

131:

there is no fixed schedule to complete Knowledge articles

1821:(edit conflict) The two main goals of my proposal are: 1540:

When I AFD one of these, it inevitably goes like this:

349:"How to Use Knowledge When You're Watching the Olympics" 2621:, list offline books that discuss everything included. 1523:

imagining that the GNG standard is what now applies.

92:

Knowledge's basic guidance on the notability of people

2783:

post. Those other two would not even be in question.

996:"isn't in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not notable" 796:

It would probably be best to start the discussion at

196:

Knowledge's guidance on biographies of living persons

402: 94:

for additional information on evaluating notability.

3094:– you may not agree with the characterization, but 1627:

Knowledge:Notability § General notability guideline

1518:Time for an incremental start on a "big fix" here? 167:Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability 28:Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability 3180: 2028:a comparison with Knowledge:Notability (sports) 1105:a comparison with Knowledge:Notability (sports) 172:subject meets the general notability guideline. 1623:Knowledge:Notability (people) § Basic criteria 250: 2715:that any requirement of significant coverage 669:This page has archives. Sections older than 2962:While the article is very undersourced, the 2508:2022–23 Dhaka Second Division Cricket League 802:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Motorcycle racing 90:general notability guideline. Also refer to 1864:So this remains my idea. Add a version of 1287:thing in the big picture of wP:Notability. 301:. Please read recent comments, look in the 238: 1868:to nsports, which includes requirement of 1694:- that isn't a difference between the two. 949:I put together what could be a draft of a 262: 226: 140:Proposing revisions to Notability (sports) 2278:I didn't review that proposal, but there 735:Knowledge:Notability (sports)#Motorsports 339:mentioned by multiple media organizations 192:Knowledge's guidance on reliable sources 184:Routine news coverage of sporting events 66:Relation to general notability guideline 3189:Knowledge pages referenced by the press 3165:, if you have an opinion, please join. 2306:and there is currently a discussion on 2153:The second sentence in the lead reads, 1739:guidance on determining rough consensus 1697:What is different is that under NBASIC 1537:There are LOTS of these new articles. 3181: 2842:FWIW, I did provide a GNG source: the 1526:Here are two very common situations: 679:when more than 5 sections are present. 2435:guidance on these at project sports ( 798:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Motorsport 2619:1969–70 Northampton Town F.C. season 2581:1916 Tusculum Pioneers football team 2577:1915 Cal Poly Mustangs football team 2503:1983–84 Northampton Town F.C. season 2498:1982–83 Northampton Town F.C. season 2493:1981–82 Northampton Town F.C. season 2488:1969–70 Northampton Town F.C. season 1700:multiple published secondary sources 324: 283: 35: 15: 371:Stephen Harrison (August 4, 2024). 13: 3072:1961 Texas Longhorns football team 2617:Some of those above seasons, e.g. 347:Harrison, Stephen (26 July 2021). 14: 3200: 1420:Local sources must be independent 673:may be automatically archived by 298:previous arguments being restated 2569:1880 CCNY Lavender football team 407: 328: 287: 165:Subsequent to the discussion at 44: 19: 2781:1937 Philadelphia Eagles season 2721:1937 Philadelphia Eagles season 2650:like we'd be moving backwards. 2530:College Football Data Warehouse 3175:05:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 3146:13:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 3124:02:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 3087:21:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 3053:19:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 3013:17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2997:17:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2980:16:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2938:17:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2861:01:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 2838:19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2821:19:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2795:18:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2775:18:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2763:1991–92 Kilmarnock F.C. season 2759:1987–88 Kilmarnock F.C. season 2753:17:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2733:17:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2703:16:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2688:16:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2674:16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2660:15:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2613:15:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2597:14:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2585:2013 Rhodes Lynx football team 2563:14:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2547:14:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2513:2024 Liga Dominicana de Fútbol 2468:13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2451:13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2429:01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2403:00:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2376:22:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2360:19:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 2335:17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 2320:17:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 2298:17:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 2272:15:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 2240:07:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2223:06:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2208:06:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2190:06:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2167:05:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2149:05:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2134:04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 2117:22:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2083:21:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2069:15:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 2022:. I appreciate feedback. Also 1904:18:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 1889:14:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 1303:To restate the point which I 1042:every single person meeting it 1: 3037:found that are even near-GNG. 2757:The articles in question are 2054:23:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 2040:22:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 2008:18:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1985:22:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1971:17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1955:18:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1940:18:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1923:18:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1857:17:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1812:23:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 1797:18:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1780:17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1752:17:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1732:14:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 1714:17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 1675:16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 1661:13:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 1639:04:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 1616:02:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 1587:21:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 779:Knowledge:Notability (sports) 268:Discussion in February 2013: 2473:2014 Bhayangkara F.C. season 2286:is also relevant to these. 1400:confer notability directly. 256:Discussion in October 2011: 79:general notability guideline 7: 1621:As I've stated previously, 1510:20:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 1495:00:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 1479:00:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC) 10: 3205: 2623:2024–25 in Indian football 2573:1884 Amherst football team 2478:2024–25 in Indian football 1410:21:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 1384:21:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 1368:16:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 1353:15:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 1337:15:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 1320:14:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 1299:21:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 1265:19:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 1249:04:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC) 1234:19:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC) 1218:04:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC) 1203:19:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 1187:13:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 1162:13:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 1146:13:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 1134:GNG decisions. Sincerely, 1117:13:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 1093:13:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 1073:04:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 1058:22:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 1035:22:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 1015:17:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 979:14:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 963:01:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 953:and I welcome feedback. - 945:17:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 924:16:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 900:15:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 876:14:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 858:12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 838:00:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 823:15:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 792:12:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 773:11:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 748:11:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC) 61:Frequently asked questions 2308:Knowledge talk:Notability 1424:This SNG currently says: 988:Pro Football Hall of Fame 723:00:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 708:00:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) 294:Discussions on this page 244:Discussion in June 2011: 2171:The sentence used to be 2779:My post was under your 2392: 676:Lowercase sigmabot III 201: 175: 143: 121: 109: 97: 69: 2387: 2020:replacement guideline 951:replacement guideline 198:for more information. 2964:ÍBV (men's handball) 2903:be one and the same. 2483:ÍBV (men's handball) 1685:significant coverage 2844:Eagles Encyclopedia 2805:Eagles Encyclopedia 2629:– just because the 2196:as it stood pre-RfC 886:100% GNG compliance 864:motorcycle speedway 729:Motorcycle Speedway 337:This page has been 309:before commenting. 3167:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2528:, the now-defunct 2414:sport teams. What 2026:did put together 300: 153:secondary coverage 83:secondary coverage 2799:Well, my copy of 2522:American football 2304:aviation articles 1432:of the subject... 1017: 683: 682: 399: 398: 323: 322: 305:, and review the 295: 282: 281: 59: 34: 33: 3196: 3058:A couple points: 2994: 2989: 2896:already required 2811:is significant. 2526:Sports Reference 1728: 1625:is a summary of 1433: 1285: 1199: 1169:We already have 1089: 983: 920: 912: 909:~WikiOriginal-9~ 705: 700: 695: 678: 662: 411: 403: 391: 385: 383: 367: 361: 359: 332: 325: 318: 291: 290: 284: 272: 266: 260: 254: 248: 242: 236: 230: 157:reliable sources 87:reliable sources 49: 48: 36: 23: 22: 16: 3204: 3203: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3179: 3178: 3159: 2992: 2987: 1724: 1520: 1427: 1422: 1328: 1279: 1195: 1103:For reference, 1085: 916: 906: 888:being shot down 884:proposals with 810: 760: 731: 703: 698: 693: 688: 674: 663: 657: 416: 395: 394: 381: 379: 370: 357: 355: 346: 342: 319: 314: 288: 278: 277: 276: 275: 267: 263: 255: 251: 243: 239: 231: 227: 217: 216: 215: 214: 204: 200: 199: 178: 174: 173: 146: 141: 137: 136: 135: 134: 124: 120: 119: 112: 108: 107: 100: 96: 95: 72: 67: 62: 60: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3202: 3192: 3191: 3161:Discussion at 3158: 3149: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3076: 3075:"significant". 3067: 3060: 3059: 3039: 3038: 3034: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 2999: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2913: 2910: 2907: 2904: 2900: 2887: 2883: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2717:in the article 2517: 2516: 2510: 2505: 2500: 2495: 2490: 2485: 2480: 2475: 2432: 2431: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2363: 2337: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2136: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2011: 2010: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1839: 1838: 1834: 1833:wp:notability. 1829:sources, i.e. 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1695: 1688: 1677: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1552: 1551: 1548: 1545: 1535: 1534: 1531: 1519: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1457: 1421: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1326: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1075: 981: 929: 928: 927: 926: 880: 879: 878: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 825: 808: 758: 730: 727: 726: 725: 687: 684: 681: 680: 668: 665: 664: 659: 655: 653: 650: 649: 624: 584: 544: 504: 464: 418: 417: 412: 406: 397: 396: 393: 392: 368: 343: 336: 335: 333: 321: 320: 312: 310: 296:often lead to 292: 280: 279: 274: 273: 261: 249: 237: 224: 223: 205: 202: 179: 176: 147: 144: 142: 139: 138: 125: 122: 113: 110: 101: 98: 85:from multiple 73: 70: 68: 65: 64: 63: 43: 42: 41: 39: 32: 31: 24: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3201: 3190: 3187: 3186: 3184: 3177: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3157: 3153: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3138: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3077: 3073: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3045: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3005: 3000: 2998: 2995: 2990: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2930: 2925: 2920: 2919: 2914: 2911: 2908: 2905: 2901: 2898: 2897: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2881: 2880: 2878: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2830: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2787: 2782: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2745: 2740: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2555: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2535: 2534:WP:SPORTBASIC 2531: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2518: 2514: 2511: 2509: 2506: 2504: 2501: 2499: 2496: 2494: 2491: 2489: 2486: 2484: 2481: 2479: 2476: 2474: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2460: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2438: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2417: 2412: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2391: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2364: 2362: 2361: 2357: 2352: 2351: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2290: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2256: 2253: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2137: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2105: 2101: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2016: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1996: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1932: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1911: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1876: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1844: 1835: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1789: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1768: 1764: 1761: 1760: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1740: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1730: 1729: 1727: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1701: 1696: 1693: 1689: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1653: 1647: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1579: 1573: 1564: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1556: 1549: 1546: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1538: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1524: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1465: 1463:sells papers. 1462: 1458: 1455: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1447: 1442: 1439: 1434: 1431: 1425: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1312: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1291: 1283: 1278: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1226: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1200: 1198: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1138: 1132: 1131: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1094: 1091: 1090: 1088: 1080: 1076: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1019: 1018: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1003: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 982: 980: 976: 972: 971: 966: 965: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 947: 946: 942: 938: 937: 931: 930: 925: 921: 919: 913: 911: 910: 903: 902: 901: 897: 893: 889: 887: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 860: 859: 855: 851: 850: 845: 839: 835: 831: 826: 824: 820: 819:contributions 816: 812: 811: 803: 799: 795: 794: 793: 789: 785: 780: 776: 775: 774: 770: 769:contributions 766: 762: 761: 752: 751: 750: 749: 745: 741: 736: 724: 720: 716: 712: 711: 710: 709: 706: 701: 696: 686:FAQ numbering 677: 672: 667: 666: 652: 651: 648: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 424: 420: 419: 415: 410: 405: 404: 401: 390: 378: 374: 369: 366: 354: 350: 345: 344: 340: 334: 331: 327: 326: 308: 304: 299: 293: 286: 285: 271: 265: 259: 253: 247: 241: 235: 229: 225: 222: 221: 212: 208: 197: 193: 189: 185: 182: 170: 168: 163: 158: 154: 150: 132: 128: 116: 104: 93: 88: 84: 80: 76: 58: 55: 52: 47: 40: 38: 37: 29: 25: 18: 17: 3160: 3136: 3135: 3132: 3111: 3100:WP:LUGSTUBS2 3091: 3043: 3042: 3040: 3033:norm anyway. 3028: 3027: 3021: 3003: 3002: 2928: 2927: 2917: 2916: 2895: 2894: 2890: 2847: 2843: 2828: 2827: 2804: 2801:Ray Didinger 2785: 2784: 2743: 2742: 2738: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2630: 2626: 2603: 2602: 2553: 2552: 2458: 2457: 2441: 2440: 2433: 2388: 2353: 2350: 2348: 2345: 2343: 2340: 2288: 2287: 2279: 2259: 2254: 2195: 2172: 2154: 2121: 2103: 2099: 2014: 1961: 1960: 1930: 1929: 1879: 1878: 1874: 1869: 1847: 1846: 1840: 1831:demonstrated 1830: 1826: 1820: 1787: 1786: 1762: 1725: 1723: 1706:Newimpartial 1699: 1698: 1691: 1684: 1680: 1651: 1650: 1645: 1608:Newimpartial 1598:rather than 1591: 1590: 1577: 1576: 1571: 1569: 1557: 1553: 1539: 1536: 1525: 1521: 1502:WhatamIdoing 1471:WhatamIdoing 1469: 1453: 1443: 1437: 1435: 1426: 1423: 1397: 1393: 1343: 1342: 1331: 1330: 1310: 1309: 1304: 1289: 1288: 1255: 1254: 1224: 1223: 1196: 1194: 1166: 1136: 1135: 1129: 1128: 1125: 1086: 1084: 1078: 1045: 1041: 991: 985: 969: 968: 935: 934: 917: 908: 907: 885: 848: 847: 805: 755: 732: 689: 670: 421: 413: 400: 387: 380:. Retrieved 363: 356:. Retrieved 264: 252: 240: 228: 219: 218: 206: 180: 164: 160: 148: 126: 114: 102: 74: 53: 3116:BeanieFan11 3096:WP:LUGSTUBS 3041:Sincerely, 2926:Sincerely, 2853:BeanieFan11 2813:BeanieFan11 2767:BeanieFan11 2725:BeanieFan11 2680:BeanieFan11 2652:BeanieFan11 2416:WP:NOTSTATS 2264:BeanieFan11 1726:Ravenswing 1446:WP:PGBOLDly 1444:I'd try to 1430:independent 1197:Ravenswing 1175:WP:RELIABLE 1087:Ravenswing 1050:BeanieFan11 1007:BeanieFan11 892:BeanieFan11 784:Pyeongchang 740:Pyeongchang 194:, also see 2886:expansion. 2739:the season 2341:stats-only 1825:Emphasize 1461:boosterism 220:References 3137:North8000 3104:WP:BEFORE 3044:North8000 3004:North8000 2929:North8000 2829:North8000 2786:North8000 2744:North8000 2604:North8000 2554:North8000 2459:North8000 2442:North8000 2384:WP:NEXIST 2368:JoelleJay 2349:North8000 2289:North8000 2255:Requiring 2200:JoelleJay 2198:...so... 2109:JoelleJay 1962:North8000 1931:North8000 1894:section. 1880:North8000 1870:inclusion 1866:WP:NBASIC 1848:North8000 1843:WP:NBASIC 1837:articles. 1788:North8000 1767:WP:BEFORE 1652:North8000 1596:WP:NBASIC 1578:North8000 1487:Ejgreen77 1454:bona fide 1402:JoelleJay 1376:JoelleJay 1344:North8000 1311:North8000 1290:North8000 1256:North8000 1225:North8000 1137:North8000 970:North8000 936:North8000 868:oknazevad 849:North8000 830:JoelleJay 382:August 4, 3183:Category 3152:WP:NTEAM 3029:articles 1875:included 1827:included 1646:included 1572:included 1566:sources. 1398:does not 1332:Rosguill 1327:signed, 1305:intended 1023:outcomes 414:Archives 365:editors. 303:archives 3156:WP:NORG 2972:Alvaldi 2891:provide 2848:so much 2666:Bagumba 2635:this FA 2395:Bagumba 2327:Enos733 2312:Alvaldi 2232:Bagumba 2159:Bagumba 2126:Bagumba 2093:Enos733 2075:Enos733 2061:Bagumba 2046:Enos733 2032:Enos733 2015:Comment 1915:Bagumba 1804:Bagumba 1772:Bagumba 1763:Comment 1604:WP:NBIO 1592:Comment 1360:Enos733 1171:WP:INDY 1065:Enos733 1027:Enos733 955:Enos733 800:and/or 671:21 days 389:medal." 358:30 July 2988:Silver 2967:media. 2583:, and 2284:WP:Not 2215:isaacl 2182:isaacl 2141:isaacl 2024:isaacl 2000:isaacl 1977:isaacl 1947:isaacl 1896:isaacl 1770:time.— 1744:isaacl 1667:isaacl 1631:isaacl 1600:WP:GNG 1394:should 1282:Isaacl 1241:isaacl 1210:isaacl 1154:isaacl 1109:isaacl 1079:solely 1046:solely 992:likely 715:isaacl 704:person 3079:Cbl62 2993:seren 2695:Cbl62 2639:fifth 2637:on a 2631:shape 2589:Cbl62 2539:Cbl62 2421:Cbl62 2097:Cbl62 1438:local 1179:Cbl62 423:Index 377:Slate 353:Slate 155:from 3171:talk 3154:and 3142:talk 3120:talk 3098:and 3083:talk 3049:talk 3009:talk 2976:talk 2934:talk 2857:talk 2834:talk 2817:talk 2791:talk 2771:talk 2761:and 2749:talk 2729:talk 2713:know 2709:know 2699:talk 2684:talk 2670:talk 2656:talk 2609:talk 2593:talk 2559:talk 2543:talk 2464:talk 2447:talk 2425:talk 2399:talk 2372:talk 2356:talk 2331:talk 2316:talk 2294:talk 2268:talk 2236:talk 2219:talk 2204:talk 2186:talk 2163:talk 2145:talk 2130:talk 2113:talk 2104:part 2079:talk 2065:talk 2050:talk 2036:talk 2030:. -- 2004:talk 1981:talk 1967:talk 1951:talk 1936:talk 1919:talk 1900:talk 1885:talk 1853:talk 1808:talk 1793:talk 1776:talk 1748:talk 1710:talk 1671:talk 1657:talk 1635:talk 1612:talk 1583:talk 1506:talk 1491:talk 1475:talk 1406:talk 1380:talk 1364:talk 1349:talk 1316:talk 1295:talk 1261:talk 1245:talk 1230:talk 1214:talk 1183:talk 1158:talk 1142:talk 1113:talk 1069:talk 1054:talk 1031:talk 1011:talk 975:talk 959:talk 941:talk 918:talk 896:talk 872:talk 854:talk 834:talk 815:talk 807:5225 788:talk 765:talk 757:5225 744:talk 719:talk 699:tech 384:2024 360:2021 57:edit 51:view 26:See 2918:one 2803:'s 2643:any 1130:GNG 998:or 694:Ham 307:FAQ 207:A7: 181:A6: 149:A5: 127:A4: 115:A3: 103:A2: 75:A1: 3185:: 3173:) 3144:) 3122:) 3085:) 3051:) 3011:) 2978:) 2970:. 2936:) 2859:) 2836:) 2819:) 2793:) 2773:) 2751:) 2741:? 2731:) 2701:) 2686:) 2672:) 2658:) 2647:70 2611:) 2595:) 2579:, 2575:, 2571:, 2561:) 2545:) 2466:) 2449:) 2427:) 2401:) 2386:: 2374:) 2358:) 2333:) 2318:) 2296:) 2280:is 2270:) 2262:. 2238:) 2221:) 2206:) 2188:) 2180:. 2165:) 2147:) 2132:) 2115:) 2081:) 2067:) 2052:) 2038:) 2006:) 1983:) 1969:) 1953:) 1938:) 1921:) 1902:) 1887:) 1855:) 1810:) 1795:) 1778:) 1750:) 1712:) 1673:) 1659:) 1637:) 1614:) 1585:) 1508:) 1493:) 1477:) 1452:A 1408:) 1382:) 1366:) 1351:) 1318:) 1297:) 1263:) 1247:) 1232:) 1216:) 1185:) 1160:) 1144:) 1115:) 1107:. 1071:) 1056:) 1033:) 1013:) 977:) 961:) 943:) 922:) 898:) 890:. 874:) 866:. 856:) 836:) 821:) 817:• 790:) 771:) 767:• 746:) 721:) 646:56 644:, 642:55 640:, 638:54 636:, 634:53 632:, 630:52 628:, 626:51 622:50 620:, 618:49 616:, 614:48 612:, 610:47 608:, 606:46 604:, 602:45 600:, 598:44 596:, 594:43 592:, 590:42 588:, 586:41 582:40 580:, 578:39 576:, 574:38 572:, 570:37 568:, 566:36 564:, 562:35 560:, 558:34 556:, 554:33 552:, 550:32 548:, 546:31 542:30 540:, 538:29 536:, 534:28 532:, 530:27 528:, 526:26 524:, 522:25 520:, 518:24 516:, 514:23 512:, 510:22 508:, 506:21 502:20 500:, 498:19 496:, 494:18 492:, 490:17 488:, 486:16 484:, 482:15 480:, 478:14 476:, 474:13 472:, 470:12 468:, 466:11 462:10 460:, 456:, 452:, 448:, 444:, 440:, 436:, 432:, 428:, 386:. 375:. 362:. 351:. 3169:( 3140:( 3118:( 3081:( 3047:( 3007:( 2974:( 2932:( 2921:" 2855:( 2832:( 2815:( 2789:( 2769:( 2747:( 2727:( 2697:( 2682:( 2668:( 2654:( 2607:( 2591:( 2557:( 2541:( 2462:( 2445:( 2423:( 2397:( 2370:( 2354:( 2329:( 2314:( 2292:( 2266:( 2234:( 2230:— 2217:( 2202:( 2184:( 2161:( 2143:( 2128:( 2111:( 2095:@ 2091:@ 2077:( 2063:( 2059:— 2048:( 2034:( 2002:( 1979:( 1965:( 1949:( 1934:( 1917:( 1913:— 1898:( 1883:( 1851:( 1806:( 1791:( 1774:( 1746:( 1708:( 1669:( 1655:( 1633:( 1610:( 1581:( 1504:( 1489:( 1473:( 1404:( 1378:( 1362:( 1347:( 1314:( 1293:( 1284:: 1280:@ 1259:( 1243:( 1228:( 1212:( 1181:( 1156:( 1140:( 1111:( 1067:( 1052:( 1029:( 1009:( 973:( 957:( 939:( 914:( 894:( 870:( 852:( 832:( 813:( 809:C 786:( 763:( 759:C 742:( 717:( 458:9 454:8 450:7 446:6 442:5 438:4 434:3 430:2 426:1 341:: 54:·

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.